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 and do all that to determine facts. So you need to argue that all the facts that you need are here and are undisputed. For example, if all the information is in contracts which we have the text of and emails that we have the text of, and certain things are not disputed between the two parties, then you have to establish that there is not any fact-based questions that need to be sorted out by a jury trial. And you then also need to win the idea that, based on these non-disputed facts, you should win as a matter of law. So you really can only be making arguments about the legal invalidity of the case against you, not about the truthiness of the case against you. This can be an incredibly high bar to clear because most cases are probably going to have some disputed facts. So even if you have an incredibly compelling case here, you probably will have a tough time winning summary judgment if there are any material facts that you know the parties are disputing. This is your second and potentially last time to have a judge throw the case out before it goes to a jury trial, and in both cases, the standard for the judge to throw it out is just incredibly high. The odds are very high that you’re going to continue having to go through the case process and continue spending a lot of money unless you come to a settlement.
So here’s the asymmetric trap every defendant faces: Defending yourself all the way through trial will definitely be incredibly expensive, no matter how strong your case is. The chance of losing in a jury trial is always more than 0%, and even if you win, you will almost certainly not be able to recover your legal costs. So the Prisoner’s Dilemma most defendants face is: Do you want to pay us some amount for a 100% chance of making this go away now, or spend much more money with at least some chance of losing at trial? This is why ~98% of civil cases settle before trial.
Founder Takeaway #1: Understanding this reality has profound implications for how you structure deals and contracts. The actual language of a contract almost doesn’t matter unless the underlying issue is worth $2-3 million or more. No matter how iron-clad your contract language, the other side can always raise enough doubt to force the matter to trial, and it can cost $1 million+ to litigate through completion.
This means contract disputes over smaller amounts mostly depend on leverage or a willingness to outspend the other side. Consider this in your future contract negotiations—you’re better off identifying risks and potential areas for dispute upfront than spending money having a lawyer “button up” language you can’t afford to enforce anyway.
I also now deeply understand why experienced business people have a strict “no assholes” policy. I always thought this was throwaway advice, but it only takes one lawsuit to make it clear how incredibly valuable it is to work with people you trust.
Into the Litigation Black Hole
Two years ago, I was sued for the first time. I’m going to leave out many of the specific facts and focus on what I learned about the process of dealing with litigation—the decisions I made and how I was feeling along the way.
This was uncharted territory for me. The first curveball: our primary counsel wasn’t based in Delaware, and when someone files a lawsuit in Delaware, you immediately need Delaware-barred lawyers to defend you. You’re suddenly scrambling for referrals to lawyers you’ve never worked with to help you with what is now the most important legal issue of your life. And you don’t have much time—litigation comes with tight response deadlines.
Are They An Oncologist or General Contractor?
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.
The Delegation Trap
When the lawsuit hit, I asked various people I trusted for their take. Almost across the board, the perspective was: “This is ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense. I can’t even understand how there would be damages.”
So I made what seemed like a rational, delegating-CEO decision: don’t let this take up too much brain space. Give it to lawyers and let them handle it.
In retrospect, this was a huge mistake.
This approach might be right if your business can comfortably spend $500K-$1M to defend a lawsuit. But if, like many entrepreneurs, you don’t have that kind of money, and the mounting costs will become a source of leverage against you, then you need to take it seriously and go “Founder Mode” on the legal process.
The Expensive Treadmill of “Best Representation”
When you tell lawyers “what do you think we should do,” they’re going to give you the “best representation” they can—because that’s what they’re incentivized to do. This means ticking every box, being as thorough as humanly possible, and taking everything the other side throws at them as seriously as possible.
This approach can cost you a fortune.
What lawyers typically won’t do is come up with creative ways for you to accumulate leverage against the other side to get them to back down. If you understand the dynamics I laid out earlier—that you’re essentially angling toward a settlement—this standard approach is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing.
You want to spend as little money as possible so costs don’t become leverage against you. And you want to find ways to make it clear that pursuing litigation against you isn’t in the other side’s best interest.
How exactly to create that leverage is more of a conversation over beers than a blog post topic. But this should be your primary focus—not perfectly playing the tit-for-tat game of legal proceedings that will mostly end up being irrelevant when two sides sit at a negotiating table.
The Breaking Point
I learned this the hard way. We spent a large portion of the initial proceedings allowing lawyers to follow the standard process, charging us $1,000/hour to check all the boxes and respond to every silly and pointless motion. The mounting legal bills became an accumulating source of leverage against us.
Meanwhile, these new lawyers weren’t presenting me with any viable options other than continuing to fire-hose money into an absurd litigation process. The current bills piled up and the prospective costs froze our ability to make nearly all strategic decisions—like hiring or raising new funds.
As I expressed my enormous frustration with this black hole of time, energy, and money, my partner gave me the pep talk I needed: she told me I needed to take control of the situation myself.
She was right.
How AI Became My Secret Weapon
It was at this breaking point that I started using AI to review all contracts and filings, understand case law, and consider courses of action. I showed up to meetings with our lawyers with a strong point of view on where we should minimize costs and maximize our leverage. My general sense is that most lawyers are used to being totally deferred to by clients, and in this case, the new counsel we had started working with really did not like my new approach.
So, I fired them and got new lawyers.
It worked—but there’s no way I could have done it without LLMs getting good enough at exactly the moment I needed them.
My AI Legal Research Workflow
Here’s the specific process that saved my company:
1: Upload Everything to AI Projects. Use the projects feature in Claude or ChatGPT to upload all relevant documents—contracts, motions, emails, anything relevant to your case. You might need to be selective if you hit context window limitations with thousands of pages, but include as much source material as possible.
For what it’s worth I didn’t necessarily find one platform (Claude or ChatGPT) or even specific models to be materially better than others at this work.
2: Treat AI Like a Coach, Not an Oracle. Instead of asking “what do we do next,” I would ask the AI to explain the principles involved, the mechanics of what was happening in each motion, where we were in the process. I wanted to understand the controlling variables myself, not just get answers.
The AI is infinitely patient—you can drill down into anything you don’t understand and ask “explain that to me” or “how does that work?” This coaching approach was incredibly effective.
Mental Health Tip: Do this research using voice mode while walking. Legal research isn’t fun, but being outside in fresh air using your voice rather than staring at a screen makes it much more bearable.
3: Leverage AI for Contract Analysis. AI excels at reviewing lengthy contracts. When you have a 400-page agreement where page 6 references “customary exceptions” that are finally listed on page 421, AI can instantly find and connect these references without you having to jump around through table of contents.
Always have the AI excerpt the actual contract language with page numbers, then verify by searching the document yourself. Don’t take the AI’s word for it—confirm everything.
4: Have AI draft arguments and briefs. Writing from a blank page is always much more work than editing. I started showing up with outlines or drafts for our filings and briefs and asking my lawyers to discuss it with me and then edit them, rather than crafting everything completely from scratch. This is a huge time and money saver.
Working with Lawyers in the AI Era
I wasn’t totally upfront with even my new lawyers about using AI—I was worried about the “quoting WebMD at the doctor’s office” dynamic. Instead, I made it clear that I wanted to take an active role in strategic decisions.
This is tricky. Most lawyers are used to being delegated to completely. People treat the legal system like a complete mystery, with lawyers as spirit guides. If you’re going to take a more active role because you’re empowered by AI, you need to set that tone early.
Some lawyers bristle at clients setting strategic direction. They believe there’s a “correct way” to do things, they know it, and they’ll fight you if you disagree. In that case, get different lawyers. Ultimately I was able to find good counsel who were willing to work with me taking an active role.
The Cost Arbitrage Advantage
The US legal system is optimized for wealthy people and businesses to extract leverage against those with less money. As litigation proceeds, expensive steps just automatically trigger—filings, motions, discovery, disclosures. If you just show up and ask “we got sued, what do we do?” lawyers will walk you through the most expensive approach possible.
This creates a vicious cycle: if you’re ultimately going to settle (which 98% of cases do), it’s almost entirely about leverage and negotiation. The most effective leverage wealthier opponents have is simply bleeding you dry through expensive procedural steps.
Founder Takeaway #2: You must proactively set budget constraints with your legal counsel. Be completely upfront: “Here’s where we think this is heading. We need to spend very little money so we don’t get bled dry and forced to accept a terrible settlement.”
When I radically reduced our legal costs using AI, it became a form of serious leverage. If the other party is spending 10x more than you, that creates negotiating power.
Where AI Falls Short
AI works best as a coach for your own primary research—don’t try to fully delegate legal strategy to it. The main limitations I encountered:
Case Law Hallucinations: Earlier models definitely hallucinated case law that didn’t exist. Always double-check any case citations using open-source legal databases. This is getting better with newer models, but verify everything.
Strategic Decision-Making: Neither AI nor your lawyer can make the truly strategic decisions for you that you’ll need to get to a settlement. AI can help craft strong legal arguments, but you need to develop the overarching strategy yourself, balancing risks and negotiating position.
The Psychological Toll and Unexpected Growth
Going through protracted litigation is one of the most psychologically challenging experiences I’ve ever faced. As an entrepreneur, I’m used to hard things, but my saving grace has always been knowing I’m choosing the challenge. With litigation, you have zero choice—it soaks up enormous amounts of time, brain space, energy, and money for something you have less than zero interest in doing.
This forced me to develop practices of radical acceptance and get comfortable with circumstances I couldn’t change. The Untethered Soul was particularly helpful during this period. Ironically, I later learned it was written by a tech entrepreneur during his own multi-year litigation ordeal.
Communicating Through Crisis
Balancing transparency with stakeholders while managing legal constraints is incredibly difficult. Your counsel will advise against sharing anything that could end up in discovery, but litigation might be the most important thing affecting your business.
For entrepreneurs in litigation: Be transparent, don’t sugarcoat, and ask for help. Your stakeholders want you to succeed and will offer advice or introductions if you ask.
For investors/stakeholders: Give entrepreneurs in litigation enormous grace and patience. It’s incredibly difficult to strike the right balance between keeping you informed and following legal counsel’s advice.
Your AI Legal Playbook: Three Actions to Take Today
Before you’re in crisis mode, take these steps:
- Set up your AI legal research system: Create projects in Claude or ChatGPT specifically for legal documents. Practice uploading contracts and asking the AI to explain key terms, potential risks, and ambiguous language.
- Audit your legal insurance using AI: Upload your business insurance policy and have AI analyze your coverage gaps for the most likely litigation scenarios in your industry.
- Establish your “no assholes” policy: Start assuming that you won’t necessarily be able to hide behind ironclad contracts if you’re working with people that you don’t trust, and really start to factor that in to who you decide to do business with. The cost of one bad actor can destroy years of progress.
The Bigger Picture
I’m convinced every entrepreneur should start using AI to take charge of legal issues now. Contracts are language, and Large Language Models are exceptionally good at reviewing and even creating them. Use actual lawyers more like strategic consultants rather than paying them to do all the laborious work of contract review or drafting.
This experience taught me that while the legal system is broken for defendants, AI can level the playing field for entrepreneurs who can’t afford to be outspent. The key is using it as a force multiplier for your own understanding and strategic thinking, not as a replacement for human judgment.
The most important lesson? Don’t let anyone—even expensive lawyers—convince you that legal strategy is too complex for you to understand and influence. With AI as your coach, you can take charge of your legal destiny and turn cost efficiency into competitive advantage.