The column is opinion, and its claims are advocacy rather than measured results. Embry does not present data on outcomes or savings. The piece rests on the premise that clients have long refused to pay for thorough early analysis, either because they doubted the case would proceed, expected a weak opponent, or saw the exposure as too small. Related coverage points the same way. A 2025 Above the Law piece on Everlaw's Deep Dive described a natural-language query tool that cites its sources and was pitched for early exposure assessment before discovery. Legal Reader describes a broader shift of strategic weight toward the start of cases as AI speeds up early document review.
The column matters now because firms are testing AI for early case work, and Embry makes a specific claim: that AI can make thorough early analysis affordable in cases of any size. Attorneys evaluating these tools should test that claim against their own matters, measuring time, cost, and the accuracy of citations and case assessments before shifting budgets toward front-end work. This is not a product launch or a regulatory development, so no new obligations follow from it.