MTC (Bonus): The Critical Importance of Source Verification When Using AI in Legal Practice 📚⚖️

The Fact-Checking Lawyer vs. AI Errors!

Legal professionals face an escalating verification crisis as AI tools proliferate throughout the profession. A recent conversation I had with an AI research assistant about AOL's dial-up internet shutdown perfectly illustrates why lawyers must rigorously fact-check AI outputs. In preparing my editorial for earlier today (see here), I came across a glaring error.  And when I corrected the AI's repeated date errors—it incorrectly cited 2024 instead of 2025 for AOL's September 30 shutdown—this highlighted the dangerous gap between AI confidence and AI accuracy that has resulted in over 410 documented AI hallucination cases worldwide. (You can also see my previous discussions on the topic here).

This verification imperative extends beyond simple date corrections. Stanford University research reveals troubling accuracy rates across legal AI tools, with some systems producing incorrect information over 34% of the time, while even the best-performing specialized legal AI platforms still generate false information approximately 17% of the time. These statistics underscore a fundamental truth: AI tools are powerful research assistants, not infallible oracles.

AI Hallucinations in the Courtroom are not a good thing!

Editor's Note: The irony was not lost on me that while writing this editorial about AI accuracy problems, I had to correct the AI assistant multiple times for contradictory statements about error rates in this very paragraph. The AI initially claimed Westlaw had 34% errors while specialized legal platforms had only 17% errors—ignoring that Westlaw IS a specialized legal platform. This real-time experience of catching AI logical inconsistencies while drafting an article about AI verification perfectly demonstrates the critical need for human oversight that this editorial advocates.

The consequences of inadequate verification are severe and mounting. Courts have imposed sanctions ranging from $2,500 to $30,000 on attorneys who submitted AI-generated fake cases. Recent cases include Morgan & Morgan lawyers sanctioned $5,000 for citing eight nonexistent cases, and a California attorney fined $10,000 for submitting briefs where "nearly all legal quotations ... [were] fabricated". These sanctions reflect judicial frustration with attorneys who fail to fulfill their gatekeeping responsibilities.

Legal professionals face implicit ethical obligations that demand rigorous source verification when using AI tools. ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) requires attorneys to understand "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology," including AI's propensity for hallucinations. Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Tribunal) prohibits knowingly making false statements of fact or law to courts. Rule 5.1 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) extends supervisory duties to AI tools, requiring lawyers to ensure AI work product meets professional standards. Courts consistently emphasize that "existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings".

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer should have AI Verification Protocols.

The legal profession must establish verification protocols that treat AI as sophisticated but fallible technology requiring human oversight (perhaps a comment to Rule 1.1(8). This includes cross-referencing AI citations against authoritative databases, validating factual claims through independent sources, and maintaining detailed records of verification processes. Resources like The Tech-Savvy Lawyer blog and podcast provide valuable guidance for implementing these best practices. As one federal judge warned, "the duty to check their sources and make a reasonable inquiry into existing law remains unchanged" in the age of AI.

Attorneys who embrace AI without implementing robust verification systems risk professional sanctions, client harm, and reputational damage that could have been prevented through diligent fact-checking practices.  Simply put - check your work when using AI.

MTC

MTC: The End of Dial-Up Internet: A Digital Divide Crisis for Legal Practice 📡⚖️

Dial-up shutdown deepens rural legal digital divide.

The legal profession faces an unprecedented access to justice challenge as AOL officially terminated its dial-up internet service on September 30, 2025, after 34 years of operation. This closure affects approximately 163,401 American households that depended solely on dial-up connections as of 2023, creating barriers to legal services in an increasingly digital world. While other dial-up providers like NetZero, Juno, and DSLExtreme continue operating, they may not cover all geographic areas previously served by AOL and offer limited long-term viability.

While many view dial-up as obsolete, its elimination exposes critical technology gaps that disproportionately impact vulnerable populations requiring legal assistance. Rural residents, low-income individuals, and elderly clients who relied on this affordable connectivity option now face digital exclusion from essential legal services and court systems. The remaining dial-up options provide minimal relief as these smaller providers lack AOL's extensive infrastructure coverage.

Split Courtroom!

Legal professionals must recognize that technology barriers create access to justice issues. When clients cannot afford high-speed internet or live in areas without broadband infrastructure, they lose the ability to participate in virtual court proceedings, access online legal resources, or communicate effectively with their attorneys. This digital divide effectively creates a two-tiered justice system where technological capacity determines legal access.

The legal community faces an implicit ethical duty to address these technology barriers. While no specific ABA Model Rule mandates accommodating clients' internet limitations, the professional responsibility to ensure access to justice flows from fundamental ethical obligations.

This implicit duty derives from several ABA Model Rules that create relevant obligations. Rule 1.1 (Competence) requires attorneys to understand "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology," including how technology barriers affect client representation. Rule 1.4 (Communication) mandates effective client communication, which encompasses understanding technology limitations that prevent meaningful attorney-client interaction. Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality) requires reasonable efforts to protect client information, necessitating awareness of technology security implications. Additionally, 41 jurisdictions have adopted technology competence requirements that obligate lawyers to stay current with technological developments affecting legal practice.

Lawyers are a leader when it comes to calls for action to help narrow the access to justice devide!

The legal community must advocate for affordable internet solutions and develop technology-inclusive practices to fulfill these professional responsibilities and ensure equal access to justice for all clients.

MTC

🎙️ Ep. 121: Iowa Personal Injury Lawyer Tim Semelroth on AI Expert Testimony Prep, Claude for Legal Research and Client Communications Tech!

My next guest is Tim Semelroth. Tim is an Iowa personal injury attorney from RSH Legal, who leverages cutting-edge AI tools, including Notebook LM for expert testimony preparation, Claude AI for dictation, and SIO for medical records analysis. He shares practical strategies for maintaining client relationships through e-signatures, texting integration, and automated birthday card systems while embracing legal technology. All this and more, enjoy.

Join Tim Semelroth and me as we discuss the following three questions and more!

1. What are the top three ways lawyers can leverage AI tools like ChatGPT and Notebook LM to prepare for expert testimony or cross-examination? And how do you ensure client confidentiality when using these tools?

2. What are the top three technology tools or systems that personal injury attorneys should implement to streamline their practice when handling cases involving trucking accidents, medical records analysis, and insurance negotiations?

3. What are the top three strategies you recommend for attorneys to maintain personal relationships with clients and community involvement, while also embracing cutting-edge legal technology to improve practice efficiency?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[00:01:00] Introduction and guest tech setup discussion

[00:02:00] Dell hardware specifications and IT outsourcing strategy

[00:03:00] Smartphone preferences - iPhone 16 and iPad Pro

[00:04:00] Cross-platform compatibility between Windows and Mac environments

[00:05:00] Web-based software solutions for remote work flexibility

[00:06:00] Plaud AI dictation hardware - features and use cases

[00:07:00] Dictation while exercising and driving - mobile workflows

[00:08:00] Essential software stack - File Vine, Lead Docket, and SIO

[00:09:00] AI tools for expert testimony preparation and HIPAA compliance

[00:10:00] Simplifying complex legal language for jury comprehension

[00:11:00] Using AI to brainstorm cross-examination topics and preparation

[00:12:00] Notebook LM audio overview feature for testimony preparation

[00:13:00] Client communication preferences - e-signatures and texting

[00:14:00] File Vine texting integration for client communications

[00:15:00] Case management alerts and notification systems

[00:17:00] Client preferences for phone vs. video communication

[00:18:00] Rural client challenges and electronic communication benefits

[00:20:00] SIO AI platform for medical records analysis

[00:21:00] Medical chronology automation and document management

[00:22:00] Jurisdiction-specific customization for demand letters

[00:23:00] Content repurposing strategy across multiple platforms

[00:24:00] LinkedIn marketing for lawyer referral relationships

[00:25:00] Multi-channel newsletter approach - digital and print

[00:26:00] Print newsletter effectiveness for legal professionals

[00:27:00] SEO benefits and peer recognition from content marketing

[00:28:00] Client communication policy - 30-day contact requirements

[00:29:00] Proactive client outreach through text messaging

[00:30:00] Automated birthday card system for client retention

[00:31:00] The Marv Stallman Rule - personal marketing through cards

[00:32:00] Technology-enabled client relationship management

[00:33:00] Contact information and social media presence

RESOURCES

Connect with Tim!

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-semelroth/

• Firm Website: https://www.fightingforfairness.com

Hardware mentioned in the conversation

• Dell Precision 5490 laptop: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/precision-5490-mobile-workstation/spd/precision-14-5490-laptop

• Dell SC2722HX dual monitors (4K): https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-27-4k-uhd-usb-c-hub-monitor-s2722dz/apd/210-ayue

• Dell UltraSharp 4K UHD Webcam: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-4k-webcam-wb7022/apd/520-aaul

• iPad Pro: https://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/

• iPhone 16: https://www.apple.com/iphone-16/

• Mac (family computer): https://www.apple.com/mac/

• Plaud AI Note recorder: https://www.plaud.ai/products/plaud-note-ai-voice-recorder

• Plaud AI Pin: https://www.plaud.ai/collections/collection-for-all-device

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation

• Audible: https://www.audible.com/

• ChatGPT: https://chat.openai.com/

• Claude AI: https://claude.ai/

• File Vine (Case Management): https://www.filevine.com/

• Lead Docket (Lead Management): https://www.leaddocket.com/

• Microsoft Outlook Add-In (File Vine): https://www.filevine.com/integrations/

• Notebook LM (Google): https://notebooklm.google.com/

• SIO (AI Medical Records Analysis): https://www.supio.com/ 

Subscribe to The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Don't forget to leave us a five-star review! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

🚨 Breaking News! Federal Courts Implement Enhanced Security Measures for Sealed Documents Following Sophisticated Nation-State Cyberattacks! What Lawyers Must Know Now!!!

Federal courts have launched sweeping new protocols restricting electronic access to sealed documents after a widespread cyberattack linked to Russian actors exposed critical vulnerabilities in the federal judiciary’s decades-old digital infrastructure. As previously reported here, the breach compromised highly confidential information—such as sealed indictments and informant data—across numerous districts, prompting courts to eliminate electronic viewing of sealed filings and require paper-only procedures for sensitive court documents.

what do lawyers need to do as Federal courts respond to cyber attacks?

Why is this happening?
Nation-state cyber threats and outdated systems left federal courts open to attack, as repeatedly warned by The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page. The blog has consistently flagged the risks associated with aging technology, weak authentication, and the need for law firms to adopt advanced cybersecurity practices. The recent breach brings these warnings to life, forcing immediate changes for all legal professionals.

What lawyers must do:
Attorneys must now file sealed documents according to new court protocols—usually paper filings—and cannot access them electronically. This transformation demands lawyers take proactive steps to secure confidential information at all times, in line with ABA Model Rule 1.6. Practitioners should review The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page for practical tips on ethical compliance and digital preparedness, such as those featured in its “go bag” guide for legal professionals.

Most importantly, consult your local federal court’s website or clerk for the latest procedures, as requirements may vary by district. Safeguarding client confidentiality remains central to legal ethics—stay vigilant, stay informed, and stay tech-savvy.

MTC: Federal Circuit's Drop Box Relocation Sends a Signal Threatening Access to Justice: Why Paper Filing Options Must Remain Accessible 📝⚖️

Midnight Filing Rights Under Threat by Federal Court Drop Box Move.

The Federal Circuit's recent decision to relocate its paper filing drop box from outside the courthouse to inside the building, with restricted hours of 8:30 AM to 7:00 PM, represents a concerning step backward for legal accessibility. This policy change, effective October 20, 2025, fundamentally undermines decades of established legal practice and creates unnecessary barriers to justice that disproportionately impact solo practitioners, small firms, and self-represented litigants.

The Critical Role of 24/7 Drop Box Access 🕐

For generations, the legal profession has relied on midnight filing capabilities as an essential safety net. The traditional 24-hour drop box access has served as a crucial backup system when electronic filing systems fail, internet connectivity issues arise, or attorneys face last-minute technical emergencies. Federal courts have long recognized that electronic filing deadlines extend until midnight in the court's time zone, acknowledging that legal work often continues around the clock and in different time zones across the globe.

The ability to file papers at any hour has been particularly vital for attorneys handling time-sensitive matters such as emergency motions, appeals with strict deadlines, and patent applications where timing can be critical to a client's rights. Research shows that approximately 10% of federal court filings occur after 5:00 PM, with many of these representing urgent legal matters that cannot wait until the next business day.

Technology's Promise and Perils ⚙️

While electronic filing systems have revolutionized legal practice, they are far from infallible. Court system outages occur with concerning regularity - as recently demonstrated by Washington State's two-week court system shutdown due to unauthorized network activity. When CM/ECF systems go offline, attorneys must have reliable alternative filing methods to meet critical deadlines.

The Federal Circuit's own procedures acknowledge this reality, noting that their CM/ECF system undergoes scheduled maintenance and may experience unexpected outages. During these periods, having accessible backup filing options becomes essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal process. The relocation of the drop box inside the building with limited hours eliminates this crucial failsafe, potentially leaving attorneys with no viable filing option during system emergencies outside business hours.

Digital Divide and Access to Justice Concerns 📱

Tech-Savvy Lawyer Battles Drop Box Access and Justice Barrier.

The restricted drop box access exacerbates existing digital equity issues within the legal system. While large law firms have robust IT infrastructure and technical support, solo practitioners and small firms often lack these resources. Self-represented litigants, who represent approximately 75-95% of parties in many civil cases, face even greater challenges navigating electronic filing requirements.

Studies have shown that technology adoption in courts has disproportionately benefited well-resourced parties while creating additional barriers for vulnerable populations. The Federal Circuit's policy change continues this troubling trend by prioritizing operational convenience over equal access to justice.

Legal Practice Realities 💼

The Federal Circuit's restricted hours—8:30 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday—fail to recognize the realities of modern legal practice. Patent attorneys, who frequently practice before this court, often work across multiple time zones and may need to file documents outside traditional business hours due to client demands or international coordination requirements.

Moreover, the new policy requires documents to be date-stamped and security-screened before deposit, adding additional procedural steps that could create delays and complications. These requirements, while perhaps well-intentioned from a security perspective, create practical obstacles that could prevent the timely filing of critical documents.

Recommendations for Balanced Approach ✅

The Federal Circuit should reconsider this policy change and adopt a more balanced approach that strikes a balance between security and access to justice. Recommended alternatives include:

Hybrid access model: Maintain extended drop box hours (perhaps 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM) to accommodate working attorneys while addressing security concerns.

Emergency filing provisions: Establish clear procedures for after-hours emergency filings when deadlines cannot be met due to the restricted schedule.

Enhanced electronic backup systems: Invest in more robust CM/ECF infrastructure and backup systems to reduce the likelihood of system outages that would necessitate paper filing.

Stakeholder consultation: Engage with the patent bar and other frequent court users to develop solutions that balance operational needs with practitioner requirements.

Preserving the Foundation of Legal Practice ⚖️

Drop Box Limits Highlight Digital Divide in Federal Courthouse Access.

The Federal Circuit's drop box policy change represents more than an administrative adjustment - it undermines a fundamental principle that the courthouse doors should remain open to all who seek justice. The legal profession has long operated on the understanding that filing deadlines are absolute, and courts have historically provided mechanisms to ensure compliance even under challenging circumstances.

By restricting drop box access, the Federal Circuit sends a troubling message that convenience trumps accessibility. This policy particularly harms the very practitioners who help maintain the patent system's vitality - innovative small businesses, independent inventors, and emerging technology companies that rely on accessible filing procedures.

The court should reverse this decision and either restore 24-hour drop box access or, at a minimum, extend the hours to serve the legal community and the public better. In an era where access to justice faces mounting challenges, courts must resist policies that create additional barriers to legal participation. The integrity of our judicial system depends on maintaining pathways for all parties to present their cases, regardless of their technological capabilities or the timing of their legal needs.

MTC

How Legal Professionals Type Faster with These Three Cross-Platform Mobile Keyboards

Is a third-party keyboard the right keyboard to improve your work?

Legal professionals spend considerable time documenting case details, communicating with clients, and drafting essential legal documents on mobile devices. The choice of keyboard app significantly impacts typing efficiency and overall productivity. Research indicates that attorneys spend upwards of two hours daily typing, making keyboard selection crucial for mobile workflow optimization. The internet finds these three exceptional third-party keyboards work seamlessly across iOS, Pixel OS, and Android platforms, empowering lawyers to type faster while maintaining professional accuracy.

Microsoft SwiftKey: The Intelligent Learning Keyboard ⚖️

Microsoft SwiftKey stands as the premier choice for legal professionals seeking predictive intelligence combined with cross-platform reliability. This AI-powered keyboard learns individual typing patterns, legal terminology, and frequently used phrases, dramatically reducing the time spent on repetitive documentation tasks.

The keyboard excels in flow typing (swipe-to-text functionality), allowing lawyers to compose longer legal phrases with single gestures. SwiftKey's autocorrect algorithm demonstrates exceptional accuracy with legal jargon and technical terminology. The keyboard maintains a comprehensive dictionary that adapts to professional vocabulary, making it particularly valuable for attorneys who regularly use specialized legal terms.

SwiftKey offers clipboard synchronization between mobile devices and computers, enabling seamless workflow transitions between courtroom notes and office documentation. The keyboard supports over 700 languages with excellent bilingual capabilities, beneficial for practitioners serving diverse client populations. Customization options include adjustable keyboard height, multiple themes, and programmable text shortcuts.

Google Gboard: The Speed-Focused Professional Tool 📱

third-party keyboards can make mobile text entry faster and more efficient!

Google Gboard provides exceptional raw typing speed with minimal learning curve, making it ideal for attorneys requiring immediate productivity gains. The keyboard integrates Google's advanced machine learning for context-aware predictions and grammar suggestions.

Gboard's voice typing functionality offers superior accuracy compared to competitors, enabling hands-free document creation during client meetings or while reviewing case materials. The built-in Google Search feature allows lawyers to quickly verify facts, find legal precedents, or access relevant information without switching applications. This functionality proves invaluable during depositions or client consultations requiring immediate reference materials.

The keyboard includes Emoji Kitchen and comprehensive GIF search capabilities, useful for modern client communication preferences while maintaining professional boundaries. Gboard supports gesture typing with excellent accuracy and provides customizable themes with dynamic adjustments based on device settings.

CleverType: The Professional Communication Specialist 💼

CleverType emerges as the specialized solution for legal professionals prioritizing professional communication standards. This AI keyboard focuses specifically on business and professional writing, offering customizable tone settings that automatically adjust language formality based on the recipient and context.

CleverType's contextual awareness distinguishes between various communication types, suggesting more formal language in email correspondence and appropriate casual tones for internal messaging. The keyboard includes grammar and tone correction features that help prevent miscommunications common in legal practice. Professional users report time savings of up to 30% through reduced revision requirements.

The keyboard offers industry-specific terminology integration and learns specialized vocabularies relevant to different legal practice areas. Security features include end-to-end encryption and local processing options, addressing confidentiality concerns paramount in legal practice. CleverType integrates seamlessly with popular legal software and case management systems.

Implementation Considerations for Legal Practice

What do lawyers need to consider when implementing a third-party keyboard?

When implementing third-party keyboards in legal environments, practitioners should consider security protocols and client confidentiality requirements. All three keyboards offer privacy settings, but CleverType provides the most comprehensive security features for sensitive legal communications.

Training requirements vary among options, with Gboard requiring minimal adjustment time, SwiftKey needing several days to optimize learning, and CleverType becoming most valuable after understanding professional features. Legal professionals should evaluate their specific needs regarding multilingual support, integration requirements, and security protocols when making selection decisions.

Final Thoughts

These keyboard solutions represent significant productivity enhancements for mobile-focused legal practice, with each offering distinct advantages for different professional requirements and communication styles. Which one is best for you or do you use a different keyboard? Please share in the comments section below!

MTC: The AI-Self-Taught Client Dilemma: Navigating Legal Ethics When Clients Think They Know Better 🤖⚖️

The billing battlefield: Clients question fees for AI-assisted work while attorneys defend the irreplaceable value of professional judgment.

The rise of generative artificial intelligence has created an unprecedented challenge for legal practitioners: clients who believe they understand legal complexities through AI interactions, yet lack the contextual knowledge and professional judgment that distinguishes competent legal counsel from algorithmic output. This phenomenon, which we might call the "AI-self-taught-lawyer" syndrome, has evolved beyond mere client education into a minefield of ethical obligations, fee disputes, and even bar complaints when attorneys fail to properly manage these relationships.

The Pushback Reality: When Clients Think They Know Better

Reuters has documented “AI hallucinations” in court filings that create additional work for attorneys—work, i.e., checking citations, that should have been performed before the filing - and that some clients then may challenge on their bills, claiming they shouldn’t pay for hours spent correcting AI errors. This underscores the importance of clear communication about the distinct professional value attorneys add when verifying or refining AI-generated content.

Without clear communications, attorneys run the risk of being accused of "padding hours" when lawyers spend time verifying or correcting client-generated AI work. The “uninformed" client may view attorney review as unnecessary overhead rather than essential professional service. One particularly challenging scenario involves clients who present AI-generated contracts or legal briefs and expect attorneys to simply file them without substantial review, then dispute billing when attorneys perform due diligence.

The Billing Battlefield: AI Efficiency vs. Professional Value

ABA Model Rule 1.5 requires reasonable fees, but AI creates complex billing dynamics. When clients arrive with AI-generated legal research, attorneys face a paradox: they cannot charge full rates for work essentially completed by the client, yet they must invest significant time in verifying, correcting, and providing professional oversight.

Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 explicitly addresses this challenge: “lawyer[s] may not ethically engage in any billing practices that duplicate charges or that falsely inflate the lawyer's billable hours". However, the opinion also recognizes that AI verification requires substantial professional time that must be fairly compensated.

The D.C. Bar's Ethics Opinion 388 draws parallels to reused work product: when AI reduces the time needed for a task, attorneys can only bill for actual time spent, regardless of the value generated. This creates tension when clients expect discounted rates for "AI-assisted" work, while attorneys must invest more time in verification than traditional practice methods required.

The Bar Complaint Trap: Failure to Warn

The AI-self-taught dilemma: Confident clients push flawed AI legal theories, leaving attorneys to repair the damage before it reaches court

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the AI-self-taught client phenomenon is the potential for bar complaints when attorneys fail to adequately warn clients about AI risks. The pattern is becoming disturbingly common: clients use AI for legal research or document preparation, suffer adverse consequences, then file complaints alleging their attorney should have warned them about AI limitations and ethical concerns.

Recent disciplinary cases illustrate this risk. In People v. Crabill, a Colorado attorney was suspended for “for one year and one day, with ninety days to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon Crabill’s successful completion of a two year period of probation, with conditions”after using AI-generated fake case citations. While this involved attorney AI use, similar principles apply to client AI use that goes unaddressed by counsel. The Colorado Court of Appeals warned in Al-Hamim v. Star Heathstone that they "will not look kindly on similar infractions in the future”, suggesting that attorney oversight duties extend to client AI activities.

The New York State Bar Association's 2024 report emphasizes that attorneys have obligations to ensure paralegals and employees handle AI properly. This supervisory duty logically extends to managing client AI use that affects the representation, particularly when clients share AI-generated work as the basis for legal strategy.

Competence Requirements Under Model Rule 1.1

ABA Model Rule 1.1[8] requires attorneys to maintain knowledge of "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology". This obligation intensifies when clients use AI tools independently. Attorneys cannot competently represent AI-literate clients without understanding the technology's limitations and potential pitfalls.

Recent sanctions demonstrate the stakes involved. In Wadsworth v. Walmart, attorneys were fined and lost their pro hac vice admissions after submitting AI-generated fake citations, despite being apologetic and forthcoming. The court emphasized that "technology may change, but the requirements of FRCP 11 do not". This principle applies equally when clients generate problematic AI content that attorneys fail to properly verify or address.

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer blog notes that competence now requires "sophisticated technology manage[ment] while maintaining fundamental duties to provide competent, ethical representation". When clients arrive with AI-generated legal theories, attorneys must possess sufficient AI literacy to identify potential hallucinations, bias, and accuracy issues.

Confidentiality Risks and Client Education

Model Rule 1.6 prohibits attorneys from revealing client information without informed consent. However, AI-self-taught clients create unique confidentiality challenges. Many clients have already shared sensitive information with public AI platforms before consulting counsel, potentially compromising attorney-client privilege from the outset.

ZwillGen's analysis reveals that using AI tools can "place a third party – the AI provider – in possession of client information" and risk privilege waiver. When clients continue using public AI tools for legal matters during representation, attorneys face ongoing confidentiality risks that require active management.

The New York State Bar Association warns that the use of AI "must not compromise attorney-client privilege" and requires attorneys to disclose when AI tools are employed in client cases. This obligation extends to educating clients about ongoing confidentiality risks from their independent AI use.

Supervision Challenges Under Model Rule 5.3

Model Rule 5.3, governing responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance, has evolved to encompass AI tools. When clients use AI for legal research, attorneys must treat this as unsupervised nonlawyer assistance requiring professional verification and oversight.

The supervision challenge intensifies when clients present AI-generated legal strategies with confidence in their accuracy. As one practitioner notes, "AI isn't a human subordinate, it's a tool. And just like any tool, if a lawyer blindly relies on it without oversight, they're the one on the hook when things go sideways". This principle applies whether the attorney or client operates the AI tool.

Recent malpractice analyses identify three main AI liability risks: "(1) a failure to understand GAI's limitations; (2) a failure to supervise the use of GAI; and (3) data security and confidentiality breaches". These risks amplify when clients use AI independently without attorney guidance or oversight.

Managing Client Overconfidence and Bias

When clients proudly present AI-generated briefs, lawyers face the hidden cost of correcting errors and managing unrealistic expectations.

Research reveals that AI systems can perpetuate historical biases present in legal databases and court decisions. When clients rely on AI-generated advice, they may unknowingly adopt biased perspectives or outdated legal theories that modern practice has evolved beyond.

A recent case example illustrates this danger: an attorney received "an AI generated inquiry from a client claiming there were additional securities filing requirements associated with a transaction," but discovered "the AI model was pulling its information from a proposed change to the law from over ten years ago" that was "never enacted into law". Clients presenting such AI-generated "research" create professional responsibility challenges for attorneys who must diplomatically correct misinformation while maintaining client relationships.

The confidence with which AI presents information compounds this problem. As noted in professional guidance, "AI-generated statements are no substitute for the independent verification and thorough research that an attorney can provide". Clients often struggle to understand this distinction, leading to pushback when attorneys question or contradict their AI-generated conclusions.

Practical Strategies for Ethical Client Management

Successfully navigating AI-self-taught clients requires comprehensive communication strategies that address both ethical obligations and practical relationship management. Attorneys should implement several key practices:

Proactive Client Education: Establish clear policies regarding client AI use and provide written guidance about confidentiality risks. Include specific language in engagement letters addressing client AI activities and their potential impact on representation.

Transparent Billing Practices: Develop clear fee structures that account for AI verification work. Explain to clients that professional review of AI-generated content requires substantial time investment and represents essential professional service, not unnecessary overhead.

Documentation Requirements: Require clients to disclose any AI use related to their legal matter. Create protocols for reviewing and addressing client-generated AI content while maintaining respect for client initiative.

Regular Communication: Implement ongoing check-ins about client AI use to prevent confidentiality breaches and ensure attorney strategy remains properly informed. Address client expectations about AI capabilities and limitations throughout the representation.

The Fee Justification Challenge

When clients present AI-generated research or draft documents, attorneys face complex billing considerations that require careful navigation. They cannot charge full rates for work essentially completed by the client's AI use, yet they must invest significant time in verification and correction.

The key lies in transparent communication about the additional value provided by professional judgment, ethical compliance, and strategic thinking that AI cannot replicate. As DISCO's client communication guide suggests: "Don't position AI as the latest trend. Present it as a way to deliver stronger outcomes" by spending "more time on strategy, insight, and execution and less on repetitive manual tasks".

Successful practitioners reframe the conversation from cost to value: "AI helps us work more efficiently, which means we spend more of our time on strategy, insight, and execution and less on repetitive manual tasks". This positioning helps clients understand that attorney review of AI-generated content enhances rather than duplicates their investment.

The Bar Complaint Prevention Protocol

Verifying AI ‘research’ isn’t padding hours—it’s an ethical obligation that protects clients and preserves professional integrity.

To prevent bar complaints alleging failure to warn about AI risks, attorneys should implement comprehensive documentation practices:

Written AI Policies: Provide clients with written guidance about AI use risks and limitations. Document these communications in client files to demonstrate proactive risk management.

Ongoing Monitoring: Create systems for identifying when clients are using AI tools during representation. Address confidentiality and accuracy concerns promptly when such use is discovered.

Professional Education: Maintain current knowledge of AI capabilities and limitations to provide competent guidance to clients. Document continuing education efforts related to AI and legal technology.

Clear Boundaries: Establish explicit policies about when and how client AI-generated content will be used in the representation. Require independent verification of all AI-generated legal research or documents before incorporation into legal strategy.

Final Thoughts: The Future of Professional Responsibility

The AI-self-taught client phenomenon represents a permanent shift in legal practice dynamics requiring fundamental changes in how attorneys approach client relationships. The legal profession's response will define the next evolution of attorney-client dynamics and professional responsibility standards.

As the D.C. Bar recognized, "clients and counsel must proceed with what we might call a 'collaborative vigilance'". This approach requires "maintaining a shared commitment to transparency, quality, and adaptability" while recognizing both AI's efficiencies and its limitations.

Success demands that attorneys embrace their expanding role as AI educators, technology managers, and ethical guardians. As ABA Formal Opinion 512 emphasizes, lawyers remain fully accountable for all work product, no matter how it is generated. This accountability extends to managing client expectations shaped by AI interactions and ensuring that professional judgment governs all strategic decisions, regardless of their technological origins.

The legal profession must evolve beyond simply tolerating AI-empowered clients to actively managing the ethical, practical, and professional challenges they present. By maintaining ethical vigilance while embracing technological benefits, attorneys can transform this challenge into an opportunity for more informed, efficient, and ultimately more effective legal representation. The key lies in recognizing that AI tools, whether used by attorneys or clients, remain subject to the timeless ethical obligations that protect both professional integrity and client interests.

Those who fail to adapt risk not only client dissatisfaction and fee disputes but also potential disciplinary action for inadequately addressing the AI-related risks that increasingly define modern legal practice.

MTC

📢 ANNOUNCEMENT: Tech-Savvy Saturdays Takes a Brief Hiatus - Continuing to Empower Lawyers with Legal Tech Insights Through Blogs and Podcasts.

Hey everyone!

My goal with Tech-Savvy Saturdays (TSS) is to consistently serve as a cornerstone resource for legal professionals seeking to navigate the evolving landscape of legal technology. Due to other obligations, I need to take a pause on TSS.  But fear not, TSS will return in several months. Meanwhile, you can still stay updated on all things legal tech through the Tech-Savvy Lawyer Blog and Podcast.

Stay safe and Tech-Savvy!

Your Friend,
Michael D.J.

🚨 BOLO 👉 CRITICAL SECURITY ALERT: 224 Malicious Android Apps Bypass Google Play Store Defenses – Essential Protection Guide for Legal Professionals!

224 Malicious Android Apps Detected – Lawyers Must Act Now to Protect Client Data!

Recent cybersecurity intelligence reveals that 224 malicious Android applications successfully circumvented Google Play Store's anti-malware systems through a sophisticated campaign dubbed "SlopAds". This represents a significant escalation in mobile security threats that demands immediate attention from legal professionals who increasingly rely on mobile devices for client communications and case management.

The Threat Mechanism 🎯

The SlopAds campaign employs a cunning two-stage attack strategy. When users download these applications directly from Google Play Store searches, they function as advertised. However, apps downloaded via targeted advertising campaigns secretly install encrypted configuration files that subsequently deploy malware onto devices. This technique successfully evaded Google's standard security reviews by appearing benign during initial screening.

The malicious applications typically masqueraded as simple utilities or attempted to impersonate popular applications like ChatGPT. Once activated, the malware harvests device information and generates fraudulent advertising impressions, potentially compromising sensitive data and device integrity.

Why Legal Professionals Face Elevated Risk ⚖️

Legal practitioners encounter disproportionate cybersecurity risks due to several converging factors. Law firms handle exceptionally sensitive data including privileged attorney-client communications, merger and acquisition details, intellectual property, medical records, and confidential case strategies. This makes legal professionals prime targets for sophisticated threat actors seeking valuable information.

Recent data indicates that over 110 law firms reported data breaches in 2022 alone, exceeding previous years and demonstrating an escalating trend. The consequences of mobile device compromise extend beyond data theft to include potential malpractice liability, ABA ethics violations under Model Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.1(8) (Tech Competence) and 1.6 (Confidentiality), state bar disciplinary action, regulatory compliance fines, and permanent reputational damage.

Mobile devices present particularly acute risks because they often contain both personal and professional data, blur the boundaries between work and personal use, and are easily misplaced or stolen. Interestingly, twenty-five percent of data breaches in financial services since 2006 resulted from lost or stolen devices, highlighting the vulnerability of mobile platforms.

Comprehensive Protection Strategy 🛡️

Immediate Device Security Measures

Law Firm Cybersecurity Framework: Policies, Training, and Incident Response for Mobile Threats.

Enable full-device encryption on all smartphones and tablets used for any professional purposes. This critical step ensures that even if devices are physically compromised, sensitive data remains protected. Modern Android devices (version 6.0+) and iPhones automatically enable encryption when a screen lock is configured, but verification and proper setup remain essential.

Critical Implementation Notes

• Android devices must remain plugged into power during the encryption process, which takes approximately one hour and cannot be interrupted;

• Choose complex passcodes rather than simple PINs or patterns - six-digit minimum for iPhones, with alphanumeric options preferred;

• Most devices since Android 6.0 and iOS 8 enable encryption by default when screen locks are configured, but manual verification is essential;

• For maximum security on iPhones, enable the "Erase Data" feature after 10 failed attempts for devices containing highly sensitive information.

Implement strong, unique passwords or biometric authentication rather than simple PINs or patterns. The encryption key derives directly from your lock screen credentials, making password strength critical for data protection. For legal professionals handling privileged communications, this represents the first line of defense against unauthorized access to confidential client information.

some stepts to Enable full-device encryption on all smartphones and tablets used for any professional purposes.

Application Security Protocols

Download applications exclusively from official app stores and carefully review all requested permissions before installation. Be particularly vigilant about apps requesting "Display over other apps" permissions, as these can enable malware to hijack device functionality. Remove any unused applications regularly and avoid third-party app stores entirely.

Mobile Device Management (MDM) Implementation

Deploy comprehensive MDM solutions that enforce security policies across all firm devices. MDM systems should include capabilities for remote data wiping, automatic security updates, app blacklisting, and real-time threat detection. These systems provide centralized control over device security while maintaining user productivity.

Authentication and Access Controls

Mandate multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all professional applications and accounts. Use authentication apps or hardware tokens rather than SMS-based codes, which can be intercepted. Implement biometric authentication where available for an additional security layer.

Network Security Measures

Utilize Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) when accessing firm resources from public Wi-Fi networks. Ensure all communications involving client data occur through encrypted channels such as secure client portals rather than standard email or messaging applications.

Advanced Protection Considerations 🔍

Regular Security Assessments

BE Your firm’s heao! Know the Essential Mobile Security Protocols Every Lawyer Needs: Encryption, MFA, and VPN Protection!

Perform periodic security audits of all mobile devices and applications used within the firm. These assessments should identify vulnerabilities, ensure compliance with security policies, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing protections.

Secure Communication Channels

Implement client portals and secure messaging platforms specifically designed for legal communications. These systems provide encrypted data transmission and storage while maintaining audit trails for compliance purposes.

Data Backup and Recovery

Maintain regular, encrypted backups of all mobile device data with tested recovery procedures. This ensures business continuity in case of device compromise or loss while protecting sensitive information.

The SlopAds malware campaign demonstrates that traditional security assumptions about official app stores no longer provide adequate protection. Legal professionals must adopt a comprehensive, multi-layered approach to mobile security that addresses both technical vulnerabilities and human factors. By implementing these protective measures proactively, law firms can significantly reduce their exposure to mobile-based cyber threats while maintaining the productivity benefits of mobile technology.

Stay Safe Out There!

MTC: The Lawyer's Digital "Go Bag" — Preparing for the Unthinkable Termination

lawyers, are you ready for an untimely departure from your firm?

When a lawyer's career ends abruptly—whether through firm dissolution, partnership disputes, or sudden termination—the ethical obligations don't disappear with the pink slip. In fact, they intensify. The concept of a digital "go bag," popularized in corporate America as preparation for unexpected layoffs, takes on unique complexity in the legal profession, where client confidentiality, file ownership, and professional responsibility rules create a minefield of competing obligations.

Unlike other professionals who might download work samples or contacts before losing access, lawyers face stringent ethical constraints that make preparing for career disruption both essential and precarious.

Understanding the Legal Professional's Dilemma

The traditional digital go bag includes personal documents, performance reviews, professional contacts, and work samples. For lawyers, however, the landscape is far more treacherous. Everything in a lawyer's professional sphere potentially involves client confidentiality, creating ethical tripwires that don't exist in other professions.

When lawyers are terminated or leave firms, they cannot simply walk away with client files or even copies of their own work product if it contains client information. The ABA Model Rules create a web of continuing obligations that persist long after the employment relationship has ended.

The Ethical Framework Governing Lawyer Departures

Rule 1.6 — The Confidentiality Fortress

Rule 1.6 of the ABA Model Rules establishes that lawyers must protect client confidentiality indefinitely—even after termination or departure. This duty extends to:

• All communications with clients;

• Information learned during representation;

• Strategic discussions about client matters;

• Any data that could harm the client if disclosed.

The rule provides extremely limited exceptions, none of which include "I got fired and need this for my portfolio".

Rule 1.15 — Safeguarding Client Property

Under Rule 1.15, lawyers hold client files as property belonging to the client, not the lawyer. When employment ends, lawyers must:

• Return client files to the firm or client immediately;

• Surrender any client property in their possession;

• Refrain from taking copies without explicit authorization.

The Texas State Bar's Ethics Opinion on departing lawyers is particularly stark: attorneys who delete client files from firm systems or take the only copies face potential disciplinary action under Rule 8.4 for dishonesty and deceit.

Rule 1.9 — Former Client Protections

Rule 1.9 extends confidentiality protections to former clients, meaning lawyers cannot use or disclose information learned during representation to harm former clients. This creates ongoing obligations that can span decades after a matter concludes.

What CAN Lawyers Legally Preserve?

Given these constraints, what can lawyers ethically include in their digital go bag? The answer is disappointingly narrow:

Personal Career Documents ✅

• Performance reviews and evaluations;

• Salary statements and benefits records;

• Bar admission certificates and CLE records;

• Non-client-related correspondence with colleagues;

• General firm policies and procedures.

Professional Development Materials ✅

• CLE certificates and continuing education records;

• Bar memberships and professional association documents;

• Personal networking contacts (non-client);

• Industry articles and legal research (publicly available).

Limited Work Samples ⚠️

• Publicly filed pleadings (already in public record);

• Published articles or speeches (with proper attribution);

• General legal forms or templates (non-client specific);

• Redacted work samples (with all client identifying information removed).

Strictly Prohibited ❌

• Client files or any portion thereof;

• Internal case strategy memos;

• Client contact lists or information;

• Billing records or time entries;

• Any document containing client confidential information.

The Dangerous Middle Ground

The most perilous category involves documents that seem personal but contain client information. Consider these scenarios:

Email correspondence: Even emails that appear administrative may reference client matters, making them potentially confidential.

Calendar entries: Meeting notes and appointment records often contain client-privileged information.

Internal reports: Performance reviews that reference specific client matters or outcomes may violate confidentiality rules.

Contact lists: Professional networks built through client relationships cannot be extracted without ethical concerns.

Building an Ethically Compliant Digital Go Bag

Before Trouble Hits

Smart lawyers should prepare their digital go bag while still employed:

1. Separate personal from professional: Use personal email accounts for career-related correspondence that doesn't involve client matters;

2. Document your achievements carefully: Keep records of professional accomplishments without referencing client specifics;

3. Maintain external professional networks: Build relationships through bar associations and professional groups, not just through client work;

4. Create a non-client portfolio: Develop writing samples, CLE presentations, and other materials that showcase your skills without client data.

Emergency Protocols

If termination occurs suddenly:

1. Don't panic-download: Resist the urge to grab files before losing access—this can lead to disciplinary action;

2. Focus on truly personal items: Performance reviews, salary records, and personal correspondence only;

3. Document the departure: Keep records of your termination notice and final communications for potential unemployment or wrongful termination claims;

4. Consult ethics counsel immediately: Many state bars offer ethics hotlines for lawyers facing urgent professional responsibility questions.

Post-Departure Obligations

After leaving a firm, lawyers must:

• Avoid using former client information: Cannot leverage previous client relationships or confidential information in new positions;

• Maintain confidentiality indefinitely: The duty to protect client information never expires;

• Cooperate with file transfers: Help ensure smooth transitions for ongoing client matters.

Special Considerations for Solos, Small, and Mid-Size Firms

Smaller firm lawyers face unique challenges:

Solo Practitioners

• Own their client relationships but still must protect confidentiality when joining new firms;

• May have limited resources for ethics consultation during crisis situations;

• Often lack HR departments to guide appropriate departure procedures.

Small Firm Associates

• May have developed direct client relationships that complicate file ownership issues;

• Often handle multiple matters simultaneously, making clean departures more complex;

• May face partner pressure to bring clients to new firms, creating ethical dilemmas.

Mid-Size Firm Lawyers

• Navigate complex partnership agreements that may restrict post-departure activities;

• Deal with sophisticated conflicts systems that track potential ethical violations;

• Face partnership compensation structures that incentivize aggressive client development.

The Technology Trap

Modern law practice creates new ethical pitfalls. Cloud-based files, encrypted communications, and mobile devices blur the lines between personal and professional data. Lawyers must consider:

• Automatic backups: Personal devices may automatically sync firm data;

• Password management: Work-related passwords stored in personal managers;

• Social media connections: Professional networks developed through client work;

• Digital forensics: Firm IT systems may track all file access and downloads.

Practical Steps for Ethical Compliance

Regular Maintenance

1. Annual digital cleanup: Review and properly categorize all professional documents;

2. Ethics policy review: Stay current on your jurisdiction's professional responsibility rules;

3. Malpractice consultation: Discuss departure scenarios with your professional liability insurer;

4. Emergency contacts: Maintain relationships with ethics attorneys for urgent consultation.

Documentation Protocols

1. Written policies: Develop clear protocols for handling departures and file transfers;

2. Client communication: Establish procedures for notifying clients of attorney departures;

3. Confidentiality agreements: Ensure all firm personnel understand their ongoing obligations;

4. Regular training: Update lawyers and staff on current ethical requirements.

The High Stakes Reality

The consequences of getting this wrong extend far beyond mere employment disputes. Lawyers who improperly handle client information during departures face:

• Disciplinary sanctions: Suspension or disbarment for ethical violations;

• Malpractice liability: Potential lawsuits from harmed clients or former firms;

• Criminal prosecution: Computer fraud charges for unauthorized data access;

• Professional reputation damage: Ethics violations become public record in most jurisdictions.

Final Thoughts: Moving Forward Ethically.

walk away from your last job with dignity and your mandated ethics in tact!

The legal profession's emphasis on client protection means lawyers must accept that their digital go bags will be far more limited than those of other professionals. This isn't a flaw in the system—it's a feature that protects the attorney-client relationship that forms the foundation of effective legal representation.

Rather than viewing these restrictions as burdens, successful lawyers should see them as competitive advantages. Lawyers who build their reputations on ethical compliance, professional competence, and client service create sustainable careers that weather employment disruptions more effectively than those who rely on quick-fix strategies or ethical corner-cutting.

The most important item in any lawyer's digital go bag isn't a document or file—it's an unwavering commitment to professional responsibility that opens doors even when others close unexpectedly.