Twenty years in IT. Twenty years in legal practice. One conviction: artificial intelligence can make legal work better and more efficient—but only if you understand the technology and master the law.
My career brings together two worlds that are increasingly connected: information technology and law. I have 20 years of experience in IT and 20 years in legal practice. This background gives me a distinct perspective on what AI can mean for clients, legal quality and the way lawyers work.
I work extensively with a range of AI applications, including specialised legal tools. Not to replace legal reasoning, but to structure case files more efficiently, explore alternative approaches and critically test my own analyses.
My practical experience makes me especially alert to the pitfalls. A convincing answer may be wrong. A polished pleading may fail to meet the correct legal test. And an AI system may be unaware of an important recent judgment. This is why I verify sources, arguments and conclusions before relying on them.
On LinkedIn, I share candid accounts of what works and what goes wrong. Not to overstate AI's capabilities, but to make its possibilities and limits tangible. Privacy, confidentiality and human responsibility must remain central.
I understand the technology and the business decisions behind digital innovation. That enables me to use AI in a practical, critical and purposeful way.
Every relevant rule of law, judgment and factual assumption must be verifiable. AI does not replace a lawyer's responsibility.
Innovation also concerns clients, trust, privacy and workflows. Successful change involves more than introducing a new tool.
A selection of my own posts. Below are short summaries; the links lead to the original posts. These publications are not automatically synchronised.
A familiar legal AI tool gave two different, incorrect interpretations of a classic Dutch contract-law judgment. Rob compared the answers with other tools and the original legal source. His conclusion: even a persuasively worded AI answer is not a verified legal answer.
Read the original LinkedIn post ↗An AI-drafted pleading looked convincing, but its legal reasoning on default and directors' liability was inadequate. Rob explains why correcting such a document can take longer than starting again. Human review determines the quality of the result.
Read the original LinkedIn post ↗Rob sought a recent disciplinary judgment. His legal AI tool offered general explanations but no verifiable source. Only independent searching uncovered the decision—a telling illustration of the importance of up-to-date research and independent legal judgment.
Read the original LinkedIn post ↗Following an event at the Dutch Supreme Court on AI adoption in law firms, Rob reflects on the need to understand processes, engage people and test systems carefully. Introducing technology is not the same as using it wisely.
Read the original LinkedIn post ↗A conversation with a family-law colleague raised questions about adopting AI in a field where privacy, emotions, children and vulnerability are central. AI calls for care suited to each case.
Read the original LinkedIn post ↗Interested in how I work, or would you like to discuss a legal matter? Feel free to get in touch.
Get in touch ↗