Featuring Julia Leveridge and Kristal Thomson, AAML

The AAML Communities of Practice — the Business & Practice Management Community and the Technology Solutions Community — are peer-driven groups that connect Fellows around shared professional interests to learn, exchange ideas and collaborate throughout the year.

In this Q&A, Technology Solutions Community of Practice Chairs Julia Leveridge and Kristal Thomson give Fellows an inside look into what’s to come.

What inspired you to become a co-chair of an AAML Community of Practice?

Julia Leveridge (JL): I’ve seen how much faster we advance — both as practitioners and as a profession — when we share our “playbooks” with one another. Co-chairing lets me convene smart people around real problems, turn lessons learned into practice and elevate the standard of family law nationwide for our Fellows.

Kristal Thomson (KT): I’ve given more than a hundred CLE presentations over the years, and a good number of the recent ones have been on technology and artificial intelligence (AI) in family law. What I’ve noticed is that a 30- or 60-minute CLE session is the wrong format for this particular problem. AI tools are moving faster than our ethics opinions, our local rules and frankly our own comfort levels, and family lawyers need to make judgment calls about e-discovery, drafting assistance and client confidentiality in real time — without much practical guidance from anyone who has actually tried the tool in a contested custody case or a complex property fight. A Community of Practice gives us a standing venue instead of a once-a-year panel where Fellows can compare notes as the landscape changes. That ongoing, practitioner-to-practitioner exchange is what pulled me toward taking this on as service to Fellows, rather than just continuing to speak about it from a podium.

What types of conversations or member engagement are you hoping to encourage within the community?

JL: Practical, case-driven discussions (what worked, what didn’t and why); short “show-and-share” sessions on tools and templates; peer consults on complex financials, interstate issues, tech, expert strategy issues; draft checklists, model clauses or courtroom strategies; and candid discussions on trial tactics, mediation/settlement approaches and client management.

KT: I want the conversation to stay practical rather than theoretical. Real talk. How have these tools helped? What works? What doesn’t? What scares you about AI and technology? That includes things like AI-assisted document review and drafting, using these tools in trial prep and demonstrative work and where the current generation of tools is simply not reliable enough to trust unsupervised. Just as important: Family law runs on client confidentiality and highly sensitive personal information in a way few other practice areas do, so I want vendor vetting and data-handling practices, and candid discussion of ethics obligations. This is also an opportunity to see how other state bars (other than our own) are handling the current tech climate.

What makes this Community of Practice different from other networking or educational opportunities within AAML?

JL: It’s practitioner-led, with an emphasis on actual application in your practice; repeated, small-group interactions to build skill; we want to produce practical resources (checklists, outlines, best-practices); and cross-jurisdictional insights from Fellows all across the country.

KT: Most of what AAML offers on a given topic is built around a discrete educational event like a webinar or annual meeting.  Those events are excellent for a deep dive, but ends when the session does. A Community of Practice is continuous and member-driven. Fellows bring each other real problems as they come up over the course of a year.

How can Fellows at different stages of their careers benefit from being involved?

JL: Early-career: accelerated learning curve, exposure to vetted forms and strategies.

Mid-career: new perspectives on scaling a practice, leadership opportunities.

Senior Fellows: a platform to pass on institutional knowledge and create national standards.

KT: It runs in both directions, which is really the point. Fellows who’ve spent 20+ years building trial and negotiation judgment bring a sense for where a new tool creates real risk. Fellows earlier in their careers are often faster to pilot the tools and can show the rest of us what’s genuinely working day to day. Put those two things in the same room and everyone leaves with something they didn’t have going into the group — seasoned judgment paired with current, hands-on experience.

What excites you most about bringing together Fellows from across the country around a shared area of interest?

JL: There is an energy that comes from diverse courts, lawyers and their advocacy styles — this is a new forum where collaboration directly becomes better practice for our Fellows.

KT: Family law is an intensely local practice. Our statutes, local rules and judges all differ, so a lot of hard-won knowledge tends to stay siloed in local practices. AI adoption is one of the rare issues that’s hitting every Fellow’s practice at roughly the same time regardless of jurisdiction, which makes it a genuine reason to compare notes nationally instead of just within our own state bar. Getting Fellows from very different courts and practices talking about the same problem is exactly the kind of cross-pollination that produces better guidance faster than any of us would land on alone.