Blake Vanderhyde
A Minnesota attorney writing on artificial intelligence and legal marketing

I write about artificial intelligence and the practice of law, for plaintiff firms trying to tell what actually works from what is just noise.
Most lawyers are served neither by the hype around AI nor by blanket caution. What helps is a clear way to reason about what the technology can do, where it fails, and how to use it within the duties the profession already carries. That is what I write about here.
I write from inside the work, not above it. For two decades I built and ran plaintiff marketing operations, from mass tort SEO to paid social across every major platform. Today I co-founded and helped build Ardeo, an AI marketing platform for plaintiff law firms. So when I write about where AI helps a firm and where it does not, it comes from having written the code, run the campaigns, and measured the results myself.

How lawyers and firms can adopt AI responsibly, with attention to professional judgment, confidentiality, ethics, marketing compliance, and the practical realities of running a firm. My AI for Lawyers series is a working primer for the whole profession.

Two decades of what actually connects injured people with the firms who can help them, from the early days of legal SEO through today's multi-channel reality, and how AI is reshaping the economics of reach.

The structural problem underneath all of it: too many victims of mass injury never reach the right firm, because effective outreach is expensive, complex, and hard to coordinate. What that costs, and what could change it.

I do not just write about AI for plaintiff marketing. I build it. Ardeo is an AI marketing platform I co-founded for plaintiff law firms, now live. If you want to see the product behind the writing on this site, that is where it lives.

I co-founded Ardeo and its parent company, A4A, Inc., and I hold a financial stake in both. When I mention them here, you should know that. Everything else on this site is my honest read of the field.

Hallucinations are the most cited reason lawyers hesitate to adopt AI, but most explanations of why they happen miss the mechanism. Understanding what's actually going on inside the model changes how you evaluate which tools are safe to use and where the real risks lie. Read the full article here.

Much of the legal profession's hesitation around AI is not irrational resistance. It's a measured response to unclear rules, real professional risk, and a market full of noise. Here's how to separate genuine caution from missed opportunity. Read the full article here.

Lawyers today are inundated with information about artificial intelligence. Some of it is valuable, much of it is not. This series builds a reliable framework for evaluating AI tools: what they are, where they help, and where they don't. Read the full article here.

Original analysis on AI for the legal profession, drawn from years of hands-on work with the technology and the industry it's reshaping. For the full archive, including a 27-part series on antimicrobial resistance that informs much of how I think about using complex systems, visit Insights.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.