What AI Can't Commoditize | Relevant

RMS's perspective on preliminary AI drafts, verification, and accountable legal judgment without assurances of suitability or future demand.

Published 2026-05-27 — Updated 2026-06-21

By Relevant Management Services

RMS provides nonlegal management services and has a commercial interest in the operating models discussed. This is RMS commentary, not an independent external review or legal advice.

Ask an artificial-intelligence model to draft a will, lease, or shareholder agreement, and it may generate preliminary text. That text may be incorrect, incomplete, or unsuitable for the circumstances or jurisdiction. RMS's view is that accountable counsel remains important regardless of how quickly a draft appears.

Documents are visible products of legal work; judgment includes deciding which document is appropriate, what it means for this client, and which risks need attention. This distinction is a way to explain our strategy, not a historical finding about every lawyer's work or billing model.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 describes assistance with drafting and research but warns of errors and requires appropriate independent verification and retained lawyer responsibility under the Model Rules. In a December 2025 MIT Technology Review interview, economist Mert Demirer linked current limits on automation to AI capabilities and the law's low tolerance for error. That is an attributed observation, not proof that particular tasks will never automate. Generated statements about a rule are not authoritative merely because they sound confident.

In RMS's view, understanding a client's situation and taking responsibility for advice are enduring priorities. Professional accountability does not mean a lawyer guarantees an outcome. Generated text is not itself a lawyer's undertaking of professional duties, and questions about provider or operator liability remain separate legal questions.

One possible scenario is that wider access to preliminary information prompts more people to seek counsel; another is that it reduces demand for some services. We have not established a demand forecast here. Our preference for relationship-led practice should not be mistaken for evidence of rising demand or prices.

For a lawyer considering these tools, the practical task is to define permitted uses, test limitations, protect confidentiality, and review outputs appropriately. Assistance does not guarantee accuracy, lower cost, or time returned. The attorney-owned firm remains responsible for its legal work.

RMS may provide defined nonlegal technology administration and back-office support under the firm's direction. The intended benefit is coordinated administration, not a promised competitive result. Our thesis is to build around trust and accountable judgment alongside careful use of tools.

RMS industry perspective, not legal advice. Strategic opinions and possible demand scenarios are not verified forecasts or counsel approval.

Further Reading

ABA Formal Opinion 512: preliminary assistance, verification, and professional judgment (model-rule guidance) MIT Technology Review: Mert Demirer's qualified December 2025 automation observation RMS first-party description: defined support, not delivered-results evidence

Explore the Relevant model for attorney-owned firms and defined nonlegal management services.