(Photo by Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)
In the days following the invasion of Ukraine, we saw responses from a number of major law firms with business in Russia shut down their offices and withdraw from representations. But some firms didn’t make a clean break with Russian business, and some that did issued cagey statements that made the move sound like a temporary, sanctions-related decision primed for reversal at the earliest opportunity.
So what are law firms saying about Russian business?
Context Windows In Legal AI And Why Content Still Determines Quality
Legal teams ask a practical question. If large language models are so capable, why does legal AI still depend on curated content, and why does surfacing that content matter so much?
Stanford Law School has compiled a list of every public firm statement on the future of Russian work.
The page divides firm statements between firms no longer doing work in Russia — like MoFo and Gowling WLG — firms that have dropped Russian government-related entities — like DLA Piper, Norton Rose, and Hunton Andrews Kurth — and firms that are either silent or issued equivocal statements.
Looking through the list of inconclusive statements, many just indicate that the firm will drop specific clients without elaborating. It’s very possible that some of these firms intended to be more direct but just failed to get the message across.
Hopefully this website inspires those firms to issue follow-ups clarifying their stances.
Opus 2 Steps Up Its AI Game With Acquisition Of A Legal Tech Startup
With the addition of Uncover’s technology, the litigation software is delivering rapid innovation.
Law Firms and Russian Profits [Stanford Law School]
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.