AI Saved My Company from a 2-Year Litigation Nightmare by anitil
After 2+ years and a tremendous waste of energy and money, my firm Calm Company Fund resolved a lawsuit against us on very favorable terms.
What started as one of the most challenging periods of my life became an unexpected masterclass in using AI to level the playing field against well-funded opponents. If you’re an entrepreneur, especially one without a massive legal budget, this story contains lessons that could save your company.
The Broken System: Why Defendants Always Lose
The Delaware legal system is fundamentally broken for defendants. Due to the ironically labeled “American Rule,” even if you win, it’s extremely rare for the other side to have to cover your attorneys’ fees, much less compensate you for lost time and energy. The best case scenario is spending a small fortune to maintain the status quo of: not guilty of anything. By and large, the U.S. legal system seems to imbue people and companies with a strong right to file dumb lawsuits, even if they are mostly fabricated or based on incredibly weak claims.
And the legal costs to defend against a lawsuit all the way through trial can be enormous. $1 million is a reasonable expectation.
“But wait, if the lawsuit is truly dumb, won’t a judge just ‘throw it out’?“
This is the first question you get from anybody who has not actually had to interact with the U.S. legal system. And, yes, while there are two primary opportunities for a judge to throw out a case without it going to a jury trial, once you look at the basic details of each phase, you realize that they are pretty poor protection to defendants from the cost of a defense. Let’s look at the two of them.
Motion to Dismiss: This is usually what folks who don’t have legal experience are thinking of when they think of a judge throwing out a dumb lawsuit. That somebody will file a lawsuit with basically no actual supporting facts or evidence or founded legal claims, and a studious judge will look it over and say this is BS and throw the case out. It happens relatively early on in the process. And it’s true that if you win a motion to dismiss, you will be able to wrap the case up quickly without too much cost. But here is the standard in Delaware for winning a motion to dismiss, and the standards are pretty similar in other U.S. jurisdictions.
The court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and dismiss the complaint only if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances.
Put another way, you basically have to accept almost all of the entire initial lawsuit as true, in particular, the facts being alleged as true. And then determine that even if all of this stuff was totally true, the case should still not proceed. This really only works if there are technical flaws in the lawsuit that render the entire thing invalid regardless of the truth of the matter. A classic example would be that this is a federal issue being filed in a state court, or vice versa, or that the statute of limitations has passed, or that the plaintiff does not actually have standing to bring this lawsuit even if what they say happened, happened. It cannot in any way look at the truth or falseness of the claims being made or at the real meaningful validity of the legal arguments being weighed. All of those have to simply be accepted as true, and otherwise you basically can’t win a motion to dismiss.
Unfortunately, if you can’t win a motion to dismiss, you will essentially be forced to move to discovery and several other shorter phases of the trial. But discovery ends up being an incredibly time-consuming and expensive process where you’re forced to hand over all sorts of internal documents and communications and all sorts of things that could potentially be relevant to the lawsuit.
There can be plenty of fights over what does or does not get included there, and you also typically have to involve third-party vendors to ensure that it is happening appropriately. And all this stuff is incredibly expensive, potentially to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars that you are forced to do before you can make any further arguments that this case should be over.
Summary Judgement: Once discovery is over, both sides would have an opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment is the first opportunity. Again, you have probably at this point already spent months or maybe up to a year of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars, and now this is your first opportunity to make a strong argument that the legal claims against you are so weak that they should be thrown out. Here is the standard for it:
“The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Summary judgment is a two-part standard, and you have to win both parts in order to win summary judgment.
The first argument you need to make is that there are no genuine issues of material fact. So you essentially need to persuade the judge that the facts that they need to understand in order to rule on the case are known and not disputed between the two parties. You, in this case, can’t really make any fact-based arguments. If one party is alleging that somebody said something and the other party says, “Well, we didn’t say that,” that is a disputed fact. That’s the kind of thing that a jury trial will need to hear evidence and look at testimony a
14 Comments
anitil
An interesting post by Tyler Tringas about being sued as a founder. Obviously there's an AI angle to this post, but I also found it an interesting look in to the power dynamics of civil litigation in the US.
In a previous post [0] they talk about the impact of the litigation, which seems to have contributed to the shuttering of his fund
[0] https://tylertringas.com/code-concrete/
nullc
> Upload Everything to AI Projects.
Unless you're using an ephemeral on-prem LLM that doesn't keep logs you should begin with an assumption that your AI chat transcripts will be available to your opponents in discovery. There isn't clear caselaw on this yet, but given that material you share with third parties other than your lawyers almost always is and sharing your strategy musing would probably be disastrous, you should plan accordingly.
Particularly, subpoena are quite powerful in the US and can be obtained quite easily and often without an adequate opportunity for the ultimate user to oppose them. The AI providers will comply with them as just a matter of process, and the first notice that an opponent is seeking your transcripts may be after they already have them. (And that's assuming your opposition doesn't have insiders at the AI company to begin with…)
That aside– Having thoroughly dispatched an AI dependent opponent in court, uhh, well lets just say that I hope any future opponents read this article. ChatGPT outputs an astonishingly embarrassing amount of completely wrong pseudolegal nonsense and set him up for multiple case losing disasters.
There are also a number of advanced strategies available to an opponent who has realized you are using an LLM, as they now have oracle access to something similar to your own AI advice and can test their actions against the advice it will cause you to get from your AI. … even so far as brute force searching rewrites of the language in their correspondence to increase the odds that you get disastrous advice.
caporaltito
Developers and lawyers have a lot in common. In the end, we write rules that are interpreted, whether a machine or a judge.
Therefore I think the same things apply as in software development, when you start to think you can fire lawyers and replace them with AI: you will then bear the responsibility of the job they did before. That means it can go the right way, but it can also go the wrong, wrong way.
keepamovin
This is excellent! I hope big companies read this and think twice before trying to: a) take advantage of less-litigious players; b) create abusive contracts boobytrapped to go to court or force a settlement for control/IP/free-service later.
I hope it spurs a larger "moral reckoning" movement of legal strategy among "big players" – the moral depravity or trying to abuse other innovators through deceptive legal gaming is an illness US corps should cure themselves of.
My advice to developers/engineers who start their own corps is: always read every contract, think through the implications, consider worst cases, and only sign ones you're comfortable with. If you don't like anything, push back and negotiate. How does the other side they come off in that process? Make note of who they show you they are and incorporate that knowledge into your ultimate decisions.
I guess if you're VC backed the calculation is different: let the advisors and LPs absorb the risk and handle it for you. But if not: you need to get involved deeply. AI is a superpower that hopefully stops the abuses that have been so rampant. You got this!
prmoustache
A friend of mine is regularly mentioning chatGPT as is lawyer.
Given many countries share the same language, I am struggling to understand how he make sure chatGPT is not hallucinating and that he is basing his advice on the laws of the correct country.
CPLX
This article has good advice but it’s not really AI advice that’s the important tip.
The main observation is you 100% have to manage lawyers aggressively and understand and question what they are doing at literally every step or the budget will be out of control. Sounds like AI helped this guy but it’s more about your personality/approach than anything else.
Also don’t hire $1000 an hour lawyers for litigation unless you’re a major corporation in a complex case with a ton at stake.
throwawayffffas
> This forced me to develop practices of radical acceptance and get comfortable with circumstances I couldn’t change.
When you are in litigation you are at war, embrace the suck.
world2vec
I used ChatGPT Project folders extensively to deal with my landlord and the rental contract due to problems with the windows. Things went from the landlord saying "maybe they'll be fixed in 2 years if you extend your contract" to "I've called a contractor and am waiting on a quote, should be done in a couple months".
I'm not well versed in UK law or how to speak/write "properly" nor have the fortitude to parse long contracts and laws, ChatGPT handled it well enough for me to get what I wanted.
cess11
I would not invite the legal risks involved in giving a third party access to every business contract I have. Writing contracts in a way that allows for this and mitigates all or most risks is likely quite expensive.
District5524
I think the major point is that if you fancy yourself a beginner businessperson, sooner or later you will have to find some professionals you can trust. Regardless whether that's a lawyer or an accountant. Doing business will have its costs, and you will not necessarily pay those costs in the way you can anticipate.
Maybe you pay those costs before you sign a contract, and avoid a jurisdiction in a contract that you have no connection to (if you can). But you will definitely pay these costs when you have to litigate.
If you think Claude or ChatGPT is the best answer to this, and all you need to know is using advanced voice and upload documents, I believe that's not that particularly useful piece of advice.
Please bear in mind that it's not just particular case law that these tools hallucinate. They give incorrect advice in a very different ways how humans do.
If you can find a lawyer you can trust in a jurisdiction you're interested in, and you got along with him/her quite well, you can trust them for as long as they're in business, even if you never pay them once again. And they might even give you referrals or point to other professionals, understanding your budget and situation. Of course, they can still give you bad advice, they can become gambling-addicted, and run away with your money. It happens, even if very rarely.
But with LLMs, you won't know when they hallucinate, and what they get wrong. Even if you have the full statutes and case law uploaded and updated, it will give you wrong answers as well, but they're not working in the same way as human do.
All we know that it's more likely to give you incorrect advice in jurisdictions not being covered by their training data (like outside New York or Delaware), and it will draw incorrect inferences in other cases from materials it has seen.
Usually only lazy lawyers not reading the output will face the problem of incorrect case law.
But legal advice is not like coding where you can filter out most of the incorrect answers with tests and compilers.
The author have happened to chose the wrong lawyers for the first time. I accept that not everybody has reliable lawyer friends qualified in Delaware, but in terms of advice, it would have been more practical to discuss the possible directories to use, beginner's methods to select lawyers, warning signs to look out for etc.
It's sad that many lawyers act for trolls and do bad faith litigation. It's even worse that bars have no methods to exclude and disbar such guys. But you cannot avoid these problems by trusting a cheap AI tool instead, that's just wishful thinking.
eadmund
If there is no attorney-client privilege with AI (I believe there is not), then could the opposing party demand discovery of all of one’s communications with the AI pertaining to the case?
siscia
As engineers we are (rightly) very scared of AI taking our job.
If I were a lawyer I would be even more scared.
bambax
Excellent blog post, excellent advice. This part in particular:
> When working with paid professionals, I think people tend to put them into one of two categories: doctors or general contractors.
> With doctors, if your oncologist says you have a lump that needs to come out, you pretty much do whatever they say. You’re the patient; they’re the expert leading the charge.
> With general contractors doing home renovations, most people intuitively know that’s not the right approach. You stay on top of them, give clear instructions, try to understand the issues yourself, and assume you need to provide lots of direction and monitoring to get what you want done.
> Most people—entrepreneurs included, certainly myself—put lawyers in the doctor category when they should really treat them more like general contractors.
Except… I think if one has enough time, it's better to treat everyone like general contractors. Doctors make mistakes, often. You can and should challenge them.
a2tech
I think this article really buries the lead—what really allowed him to win was leverage. He says that’s an over beers info, not a blog post. But that’s actually what let him win—not learning from the LLM how to understand his lawyers arguments better.