The practice of law is evolving rapidly, and this year the Maryland State Bar Association’s Legal Summit made one thing abundantly clear: artificial intelligence is no longer a future consideration for estate planners — it is a present-day professional responsibility.
Our own Ann Marie Holder, Esq., attended the 2026 MSBA Legal Summit in Ocean City, Maryland, where thousands of attorneys gathered to learn from leaders across the profession on emerging legal issues, leadership, ethics, litigation, and technology. One program stood out as particularly relevant to the future of trusts and estates practice: “The Future of Estate Planning is Now: Using AI to Streamline Estate Planning — Drafting, Client Intake, and Risk Management.”
The panel — featuring Pamela Langham, Thomas DeGonia, Deborah Howe, and moderator Sahmra Stevenson — explored how attorneys can responsibly integrate artificial intelligence into estate planning while maintaining the ethical obligations that define our profession.
AI Is Becoming a Professional Competency
One of the strongest messages from the Summit was that attorneys cannot simply ignore AI. Just as lawyers were once expected to learn electronic discovery, cloud computing, and cybersecurity, today’s practitioners must develop a working understanding of AI’s capabilities — and, perhaps more importantly, its limitations.
The question is no longer whether lawyers will use AI. The question is whether they will use it competently.
General AI vs. Legal AI
The presenters emphasized an important distinction that is often overlooked. General AI platforms — such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and Perplexity — are excellent tools for brainstorming, drafting communications, and organizing information. However, they are not inherently trained on authoritative legal materials and should never be relied upon as legal authority without independent verification.
Legal-specific AI platforms — including Clio vLex, Thomson Reuters CoCounsel, Harvey AI, Lexis+ AI, and Spellbook — are built using legal data such as statutes, regulations, case law, and secondary authorities, while offering enterprise-level privacy protections and legal workflows. For attorneys handling confidential client information, understanding these distinctions is essential.
AI Doesn’t “Think”
One of the most valuable reminders from the program was refreshingly simple: AI does not reason. Large language models predict statistically likely words based on patterns — not legal conclusions. This explains why AI sometimes produces convincing but completely incorrect answers, commonly referred to as “hallucinations.”
The Summit repeatedly emphasized a principle every lawyer should adopt: always verify AI-generated work against primary legal authority — whether AI is drafting a trust provision, summarizing a statute, or identifying potential legal issues.
Better Inputs Produce Better Results
The presenters also stressed that the quality of AI output depends entirely on the quality of the information provided. Legal AI performs best when grounded in:
- statutes
- regulations
- case law
- trust instruments
- contracts
- accurate client information
In other words, AI can accelerate legal work — but only when lawyers supply accurate facts and carefully supervise the process.
A Tool — Not a Substitute for Judgment
Rather than replacing attorneys, the Summit demonstrated how AI can eliminate administrative burdens while allowing lawyers to spend more time providing legal advice. Potential applications include:
- streamlining client intake
- preparing first drafts of estate planning documents
- organizing discovery and financial records
- summarizing lengthy documents
- identifying drafting inconsistencies
- supporting internal workflows and knowledge management
Every one of these tasks still requires attorney review. Professional judgment remains the indispensable element of legal representation.
Ethics Must Lead Technology
Several sessions reinforced that technology adoption must always be guided by ethical obligations — maintaining client confidentiality, understanding vendor security practices, obtaining informed client consent where appropriate, supervising AI-generated work, ensuring candor toward tribunals, and avoiding misleading or inaccurate legal advice. Technology should enhance the lawyer’s work, not diminish professional responsibility.
Bringing These Lessons Home
At del Cuadro-Zimmerman, PLLC, we believe continuing legal education is not simply about earning CLE credits — it’s about continually improving how we serve clients. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into legal practice, our focus remains the same: embrace innovation responsibly; protect client confidentiality; maintain the highest ethical standards; and ensure that every document, recommendation, and strategy benefits from thoughtful attorney oversight.
Technology can make us faster. Experience, judgment, and professional responsibility are what make us effective.
