BOLO: Federal Court PACER System Updates: What Lawyers Need to Know About MFA, Password Delays, and Access Issues ⚖️💻

you'RE not alone if you are having pacer log-in issues!

Lawyers frustrated with PACER login problems are not alone. The PACER Service Center (PSC) recently announced ongoing challenges as it rolls out new security standards, including stronger password requirements and multifactor authentication (MFA). These efforts are designed to better protect account security, but they have also created long call wait times and confusion for attorneys nationwide.

According to a September 2025 notice, the PSC has temporarily delayed enforcing the updated password requirements in order to reduce congestion and ease the transition. Importantly, not all users are required to take immediate action. Only those who are directly prompted to enroll in MFA upon logging in should do so. If you are not prompted, no changes are necessary yet, and courts strongly encourage attorneys to avoid calling the PSC unless required. Instead, lawyers should review the MFA Tips and Resources list before contacting support.

Lawyers need to keep up to date if they are having issues logging into the federal court filing system!

Attorneys are also invited to provide feedback on the MFA process and options through a short online survey. This feedback will help the PSC refine authentication practices while balancing security and accessibility needs. Because PACER access is central to case management, e-filing, and real-time tracking of federal litigation, attorneys should pay close attention to these developments.

As the practice of law continues to adopt digital tools, maintaining secure, reliable access to PACER is critical. Staying informed by following your favorite The Tech-Savvy Lawyer or PACER Resources, and by following official guidance and taking proactive steps, attorneys can ensure they remain efficient and compliant in today’s evolving legal tech environment. ⚖️📲

🚀 Shout Out to Steve Embry: A Legal Tech Visionary Tackling AI's Billing Revolution!

Legal technology expert Steve Embry has once again hit the mark with his provocative and insightful article examining the collision between AI adoption and billable hour pressures in law firms. Writing for TechLaw Crossroads, Steve masterfully dissects the DeepL survey findings that reveal 96% of legal professionals are using AI tools, with 71% doing so without organizational approval. His analysis illuminates a critical truth that many in the profession are reluctant to acknowledge: the billable hour model is facing its most serious existential threat yet.

The AI Efficiency Paradox in Legal Practice ⚖️

Steve’s article brilliantly connects the dots between mounting billable hour pressures and the rise of shadow AI use in legal organizations. The DeepL study reveals that 35% of legal professionals frequently use unauthorized AI tools, primarily driven by pressure to deliver work faster. This finding aligns perfectly with research showing that AI-driven efficiencies are forcing law firms to reconsider traditional billing models. When associates can draft contracts 70% faster with AI assistance, the fundamental economics of legal work shift dramatically.

The legal profession finds itself caught in what experts call the "AI efficiency paradox". As generative AI tools become more sophisticated at automating legal research, document drafting, and analysis, the justification for billing clients based purely on time spent becomes increasingly problematic. This creates a perfect storm when combined with the intense pressure many firms place on associates to meet billable hour quotas - some firms now demanding 2,400 hours annually, with 2,000 being billable and collectible.

Shadow AI Use: A Symptom of Systemic Pressure 🔍

Steve's analysis goes beyond surface-level criticism to examine the root causes of unauthorized AI adoption. The DeepL survey data shows that unclear policies account for only 24% of shadow AI use, while pressure to deliver faster work represents 35% of the motivation. This finding supports Steve's central thesis that "the responsibility for hallucinations and inaccuracies is not just that of the lawyer. It's that of senior partners and clients who expect and demand AI use. They must recognize their accountability in creating demands and pressures to not do the time-consuming work to check cites".

This systemic pressure has created a dangerous environment where junior lawyers face impossible choices. They must choose between taking unbillable time to thoroughly verify AI outputs or risk submitting work with potential hallucinations to meet billing targets. Recent data shows that AI hallucinations have appeared in over 120 legal cases since mid-2023, with 58 occurring in 2025 alone. The financial consequences are real - one firm faced $31,100 in sanctions for relying on bogus AI research.

The Billable Hour's Reckoning 💰

How will lawyers handle the challenge to the billable hour with AI use in their practice of law?

Multiple industry observers now predict that AI adoption will accelerate the demise of traditional hourly billing. Research indicates that 67% of corporate legal departments and 55% of law firms expect AI-driven efficiencies to impact the prevalence of the billable hour significantly. The legal profession is witnessing a fundamental shift where "[t]he less time something takes, the more money a firm can earn" once alternative billing methods are adopted.

Forward-thinking firms are already adapting by implementing hybrid billing models that combine hourly rates for complex judgment calls with flat fees for AI-enhanced routine tasks. This transition requires firms to develop what experts call "AI-informed Alternative Fee Arrangements" that embed clear automation metrics into legal pricing.

The Path Forward: Embracing Responsible AI Integration 🎯

Steve’s article serves as a crucial wake-up call for legal organizations to move beyond sanctions-focused approaches toward comprehensive AI integration strategies. The solution requires acknowledgment from senior partners and clients that AI adoption must include adequate time for verification and quality control processes. This too should serve as a reminder for any attorney, big firm to solo, to check their work before submitting it to a court, regulatory agency, etc. Several state bars and courts have begun requiring certification that AI-generated content has been reviewed for accuracy, recognizing that oversight cannot be an afterthought.

The most successful firms will be those that embrace AI while building robust verification protocols into their workflows. This means training lawyers to use AI competently, establishing clear policies for AI use, and most importantly, ensuring billing practices reflect the true value delivered rather than simply time spent. As one expert noted, "AI isn't the problem, poor process is".

Final Thoughts: Technology Strategy for Modern Legal Practice 📱

Are you ready to take your law practice to the next step with AI?

For legal professionals with limited to moderate technology skills, the key is starting with purpose-built legal AI tools rather than general-purpose solutions. Specialized legal research platforms that include retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technology can significantly reduce hallucination risks while providing the efficiency gains clients expect. These tools ground AI responses in verified legal databases, offering the speed benefits of AI with enhanced accuracy.

The profession must also recognize that competent AI use requires ongoing education. Lawyers need not become AI experts, but they must develop "a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the specific GAI technology" they employ. This includes understanding when human judgment must predominate and how to effectively verify AI-generated content.

Steve's insightful analysis reminds us that the legal profession's AI revolution cannot be solved through individual blame or simplistic rules. Instead, it requires systemic changes that address the underlying pressures driving risky AI use while embracing the transformative potential of these technologies. The firms that succeed will be those that view AI not as a threat to traditional billing but as an opportunity to deliver greater value to clients while building more sustainable and satisfying practices for their legal professionals. 🌟

MTC: Small Firm AI Revolution: When Your Main Street Clients Start Expecting Silicon Valley Service 📱⚖️

The AI revolution isn't just transforming corporate legal departments - it's creating unprecedented expectations among everyday clients who are increasingly demanding the same efficiency and innovation from their neighborhood attorneys. Just as Apple's recent automation ultimatum to suppliers demonstrates how tech industry pressures cascade through entire business ecosystems, the AI transformation is now reaching solo practitioners, small firms, and their individual clients in surprising ways.

The Expectation Shift Reaches Main Street

While corporate clients have been early adopters in demanding AI-powered legal services, individual consumers and small business owners are rapidly catching up. Personal injury clients who experience AI-powered customer service from their insurance companies now question why their attorney's document review takes weeks instead of days. Small business owners who use AI for bookkeeping and marketing naturally wonder why their legal counsel hasn't adopted similar efficiency tools.

The statistics reveal a telling gap: 72% of solo practitioners and 67% of small firm lawyers are using AI in some capacity, yet only 8% of solo practices and 4% of small firms have adopted AI widely or universally. This hesitant adoption creates a vulnerability, as client expectations continue to evolve at a faster pace than many smaller firms can adapt to.

Consumer-Driven Demand for Legal AI

Today's clients arrive at law offices with unprecedented technological literacy (and perhaps some unrealistic expectations - think a jury’s “CSI” expectation during a long trial). They've experienced AI chatbots for customer service, used AI-powered apps for financial planning, and watched AI streamline other professional services. This exposure creates natural expectations for similar innovation in legal representation. The shift is particularly pronounced among younger clients who view AI integration not as an optional luxury but as basic professional competence.

Small firms report that clients increasingly ask direct questions about AI use in their cases. Unlike corporate clients, who focus primarily on cost reduction, individual clients emphasize speed, transparency, and improvements in communication. They want faster responses to emails, quicker document turnaround, and more frequent case updates - all areas where AI excels.

The Competitive Reality for Solo and Small Firms

The playing field is rapidly changing. Solo practitioners using AI tools can now deliver services that historically required teams of associates. Document review, which once consumed entire weekends, can now be completed in hours with the assistance of AI, allowing attorneys to focus on high-value client counseling and strategic work. This transformation enables smaller firms to compete more effectively with larger practices while maintaining personalized service relationships.

AI adoption among small firms is creating clear competitive advantages. Firms that began using AI tools early are commanding higher fees, earning recognition as innovative practitioners, and becoming indispensable to their clients. The technology enables solo attorneys to handle larger caseloads without sacrificing quality, effectively multiplying their capacity without the need to hire additional staff.

Technology Competence as Client Expectation

Legal ethics opinions increasingly recognize technology competence as a professional obligation. Clients expect their attorneys to understand and utilize available tools that can enhance the quality and efficiency of their representation. This expectation extends beyond simple awareness to active implementation of appropriate technologies for client benefit.

The ethical landscape supports this evolution. State bar associations from California to New York are providing guidance on the responsible use of AI, emphasizing that lawyers should consider AI tools when they can enhance client service. This regulatory support validates client expectations for technological sophistication from their legal counsel.

The Efficiency Promise Meets Client Budget Reality

AI implementation offers particular value for small firm clients who historically faced difficult choices between quality legal representation and affordability. AI tools enable attorneys to reduce routine task completion time by 50-67%, allowing them to offer more competitive pricing while maintaining service quality. This efficiency gain directly benefits clients through faster turnaround times and potentially lower costs.

The technology is democratizing access to legal services. AI-powered document drafting, legal research, and client communication tools allow small firms to deliver sophisticated services previously available only from large firms with extensive resources. Individual clients benefit from this leveling effect through improved service quality at traditional small firm pricing.

From Reactive to Proactive Service Delivery

Small firms using AI are transforming from reactive service providers to proactive legal partners. AI-powered client intake systems operate 24/7, ensuring potential clients receive immediate responses regardless of office hours. Automated follow-up systems keep clients informed about the progress of their cases, while AI-assisted research enables attorneys to identify potential issues before they become problems.

This proactive approach particularly resonates with small business clients who appreciate preventive legal guidance. AI tools enable solo practitioners to monitor regulatory changes, track compliance requirements, and alert clients to relevant legal developments - services that smaller firms previously couldn't provide consistently.

The Risk of Falling Behind

Small firms that delay AI adoption face increasing competitive pressure from both larger firms and more technologically sophisticated solo practitioners. Clients comparing legal services increasingly favor attorneys who demonstrate technological competence and efficiency. The gap between AI-enabled and traditional practices continues widening as early adopters accumulate experience and refine their implementations.

The risk extends beyond losing new clients to losing existing ones. As clients experience AI-enhanced service from other professionals, their expectations for legal representation naturally evolve. Attorneys who cannot demonstrate similar efficiency and responsiveness risk being perceived as outdated or less competent.

Strategic Implementation for Small Firms

Successful AI adoption in small firms focuses on tools that directly enhance the client experience, rather than simply reducing attorney effort. Document automation, legal research enhancement, and client communication systems provide immediate value that clients can appreciate and experience directly. These implementations create positive feedback loops where improved client satisfaction leads to referrals and practice growth.

The key is starting with client-facing improvements rather than back-office efficiency alone. When clients see faster document production, more thorough legal research, and improved communication, they recognize the value of technological investment and often become advocates for the firm's innovative approach.

🧐 Final Thoughts: The Path Forward for Small Firm Success

clients who see lawyers using ai will be more confident that lawyers are using ai behind the scenes.

Just as Apple's suppliers must invest in automation to maintain business relationships, solo practitioners and small firms must embrace AI to meet evolving client expectations. The technology has moved from an optional enhancement to a competitive necessity. The question is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how quickly and effectively to implement it.

The legal profession's AI transformation is creating unprecedented opportunities for small firms willing to embrace change. Those who recognize client expectations and proactively adopt appropriate technologies will thrive in an increasingly competitive marketplace. The future belongs to attorneys who view AI not as a threat to traditional practice, but as an essential tool for delivering superior client service in the modern legal landscape.  Remember what previous podcast guest, Michigan Supreme Court Chief Judge (ret.) Bridget Mary McCormick shared with us in #65: Technologies impact on access to justice with Bridget Mary McCormick, lawyers who don’t embrace AI will be left behind by those who do!

MTC

📰 How to Ensure a Public Wi-Fi Network Is Legitimate (and Why Legal Professionals Must Always Use a VPN)!

Working remotely has become essential for legal professionals; however, public Wi-Fi networks pose significant security risks that can compromise client confidentiality and violate ethical obligations. Before connecting to any public network, lawyers must take specific steps to verify legitimacy and protect sensitive information.

Verify the Network Name with Staff

The first step in ensuring Wi-Fi legitimacy is confirmation. Ask an employee at the establishment for the exact network name and spelling. Cybercriminals frequently create "evil twin" networks with names nearly identical to legitimate ones, such as "LAX Free Public WiFi" instead of the official "_LAX Free WiFi". These spoofed networks are designed to capture your data the moment you connect.

Recognize Red Flags in Network Names

Be suspicious of generic network names like "Free WiFi," "Public Network," or "Guest WiFi”. Legitimate businesses typically use branded network names. Additionally, watch for small variations in spelling, extra spaces, underscores, or additional characters in familiar network names. These subtle differences often indicate malicious networks designed to deceive users.

Check for Proper Security Protocols

Once connected to a verified network, ensure websites load with HTTPS encryption. Look for the lock icon in your browser's address bar and confirm URLs begin with "https://" rather than "http://". If legitimate websites suddenly appear as HTTP instead of HTTPS, disconnect immediately, as this may indicate a man-in-the-middle attack.

Disable Automatic Connections

Turn off automatic Wi-Fi connections on all devices. This prevents your device from automatically connecting to potentially malicious networks with names similar to previously trusted ones. Always manually select the verified network name and choose "Public" when your device prompts you to select a network type.

Essential VPN Usage for Legal Professionals

Legal professionals must always use a VPN when connecting to public Wi-Fi. This is not merely a recommendation but an ethical necessity. The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to make reasonable efforts to protect client information from unauthorized disclosure. Using public Wi-Fi without VPN protection violates this duty of confidentiality.

A VPN encrypts all internet traffic, making it unreadable to potential eavesdroppers even on compromised networks. This encryption is crucial for maintaining attorney-client privilege and protecting sensitive case information during remote work.

Additional Security Measures

Enable two-factor authentication on all important accounts before traveling. Turn on your device's firewall and disable file sharing when using public networks. Keep your operating system and browser updated to patch security vulnerabilities. Never conduct sensitive activities like online banking (like accessing your Trust Account) or accessing confidential case management systems without VPN protection.

Ethical Obligations and Professional Competence

The duty of competence under professional conduct rules requires lawyers to understand relevant technology risks. Working from public locations without proper security measures can result in data breaches that damage client relationships and potentially violate professional ethics rules. Law firms must establish policies to ensure that all staff understand these requirements when working remotely. Editor’s note: I realize that as I’m delving into this subtopic, I could write a whole separate blog post on this - so stay tuned!

Emergency Alternatives

When in doubt about Wi-Fi legitimacy, use your mobile device's cellular hotspot instead of connecting to questionable public networks. This provides a more secure connection for accessing sensitive information. Many legal professionals keep backup mobile data plans specifically for situations where public Wi-Fi security cannot be verified. (You may find your mobile hotspot to be more, secure, reliable and even faster than public wifi networks [even your hotel’s wifi]. You may want to consider having devices on two different networks in case one network is having issues.)

Remember: Client confidentiality is paramount in legal practice. Taking these verification steps and always using VPN protection ensures you meet your ethical obligations while maintaining the flexibility to work from any location securely.

📖 Word of the Week: RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) - The Legal AI Breakthrough Eliminating Hallucinations. 📚⚖️

What is RAG?

USEd responsibly, rag can be a great tool for lawyers!

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a groundbreaking artificial intelligence technique that combines information retrieval with text generation. Unlike traditional AI systems that rely solely on pre-trained data, RAG dynamically retrieves relevant information from external legal databases before generating responses.

Why RAG Matters for Legal Practice

RAG addresses the most significant concern with legal AI: fabricated citations and "hallucinations." By grounding AI responses in verified legal sources, RAG systems dramatically reduce the risk of generating fictional case law. Recent studies show RAG-powered legal tools produce hallucination rates comparable to human-only work.

Key Benefits

RAG technology offers several advantages for legal professionals:

Enhanced Accuracy: RAG systems pull from authoritative legal databases, ensuring responses are based on actual statutes, cases, and regulations rather than statistical patterns.

Real-Time Updates: Unlike static AI models, RAG can access current legal information, making it valuable for rapidly evolving areas of law.

Source Attribution: RAG provides clear citations and references, enabling attorneys to verify and build upon AI-generated research.

Practical Applications

lawyers who don’t use ai technology like rag will be replaced those who do!

Law firms are implementing RAG for case law research, contract analysis, and legal memo drafting. The technology excels at tasks requiring specific legal authorities and performs best when presented with clearly defined legal issues.

Professional Responsibility Under ABA Model Rules

ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence): Comment 8 requires lawyers to "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." This mandates understanding RAG capabilities and limitations before use.

ABA Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): Lawyers must "make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client." When using RAG systems, attorneys must verify data security measures and understand how client information is processed and stored.

ABA Model Rule 5.3 (Supervision of Nonlawyer Assistants): ABA Formal Opinion 512 clarifies that AI tools may be considered "nonlawyer assistants" requiring supervision. Lawyers must establish clear policies for RAG usage and ensure proper training on ethical obligations.

ABA Formal Opinion 512: This 2024 guidance emphasizes that lawyers cannot abdicate professional judgment to AI systems. While RAG systems offer improved reliability over general AI tools, attorneys remain responsible for verifying outputs and maintaining competent oversight.

Final Thoughts: Implementation Considerations

lawyers must consider their ethical responsibilities when using generative ai, large language models, and rag.

While RAG significantly improves AI reliability, attorneys must still verify outputs and exercise professional judgment. The technology enhances rather than replaces legal expertise. Lawyers should understand terms of service, consult technical experts when needed, and maintain "human-in-the-loop" oversight consistent with professional responsibility requirements.

RAG represents a crucial step toward trustworthy legal AI, offering attorneys powerful research capabilities while maintaining the accuracy standards essential to legal practice and compliance with ABA Model Rules. Just make sure you use it correctly and check your work!

MTC: 📱 Protecting Client Confidentiality NOW in Anticipation of Holiday Travel - Essential Digital Security Guide for Lawyers!

Lawyers know your rights and responsibilities when crossing an international boarder.

As legal professionals prepare for the busy holiday travel season from November through early January, an alarming trend demands immediate attention. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducted a record-breaking 14,899 electronic device searches between April and June 2025—a 16.7% increase over the previous quarterly high. With nearly 15,000 devices examined in just three months, lawyers carrying client data face unprecedented risks to attorney-client privilege.

The timing coincides with significant TSA rule changes that fundamentally alter airport security protocols. Secretary Kristi Noem announced the elimination of shoe removal requirements at checkpoints, while implementing advanced facial recognition technology through TSA PreCheck Touchless ID at select airports. These changes represent the most substantial security overhaul since 9/11, creating new vulnerabilities for legal professionals.

Understanding the Current Threat Landscape

Border searches have escalated dramatically over the past decade. From 8,503 searches in 2015, the numbers jumped to 46,362 in fiscal year 2024. The latest data shows CBP conducting 13,824 basic searches and 1,075 advanced searches during the recent quarter. Basic searches involve manual inspection of device contents, while advanced searches employ forensic tools to extract comprehensive data repositories.

Legal professionals face particular vulnerability because electronic devices commonly contain materials protected by attorney-client privilege. The New York City Bar Association addressed this concern with its Formal Opinion 2017-5 directly, noting that attorneys carry confidential client communications, work product, and sensitive case materials on personal devices. When border agents request device access, lawyers must balance professional obligations with potential entry denial or device confiscation.

Professional Ethical Obligations

The American Bar Association has urged the Department of Homeland Security to establish policies protecting attorney-client privilege during border searches. However, current CBP policies permit extensive searching authority under the border search exception, which allows warrantless inspections within 100 miles of international borders. This doctrine significantly reduces Fourth Amendment protections for travelers, including U.S. citizens.

New York lawyers operating under Rule 1.6 must take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. The reasonableness standard requires evaluating potential harm against disclosure likelihood. For attorneys whose practice involves government agencies as opposing parties, heightened precautions become necessary.

Practical Protection Strategies

Modern legal practice demands strategic preparation for international travel. Attorneys should evaluate necessity before carrying confidential information across borders. Essential data should remain minimal—only materials professionally required for specific travel purposes. Cloud-based storage offers significant protection since CBP cannot access remotely stored information during searches.

Encryption provides another critical layer of defense. Strong passwords and disabled biometric authentication prevent immediate access. Restarting your device before reaching the border forces manual password entry rather than biometric unlocking, effectively blocking access for those without proper credentials. For maximum protection, consider using alphanumeric passwords of at least 12 characters combining uppercase letters, numbers, and special symbols. Some firms implement clean device policies, providing employees with minimal-data devices for international travel. Virtual private networks (VPN) and secure remote access solutions allow attorneys to retrieve necessary information without local storage. Additional protective measures include enabling two-factor authentication on cloud accounts, using encrypted messaging applications like Signal for client communications, and implementing remote wipe capabilities for lost or confiscated devices.

Don’t get caught not protecting your client’s pii when traveling!

Technology considerations extend beyond individual devices. The implementation of CT scanners at major airports enables enhanced screening capabilities, while new facial recognition systems create biometric templates for identity verification. These advances improve security efficiency but raise additional privacy concerns for legal professionals handling sensitive cases involving government oversight, immigration matters, or politically sensitive litigation where client anonymity becomes paramount.

Legal authorities have issued specific guidance regarding these new biometric screening protocols. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board recommends that TSA's facial recognition program remain voluntary for all passengers, while twelve bipartisan U.S. Senators have called for comprehensive oversight of the technology's expansion. Privacy and digital rights experts advise attorneys to exercise their right to opt out of facial recognition screening by politely requesting alternative identity verification procedures, especially when handling sensitive or high-risk matters. According to the TSA's own policies, travelers can decline biometric scanning without penalty or additional scrutiny. However, studies show that 99% of travelers are not verbally informed of this option by TSA agents, making proactive assertion of opt-out rights essential. The American Bar Association and bar associations recommend attorneys stay informed about biometric screening procedures and safeguard client confidentiality during travel. For attorneys handling cases where government surveillance poses particular risks, consistently opting out of facial recognition becomes a professional obligation to protect client interests and maintain confidentiality.

Preparing for Holiday Travel Season

The holiday travel period presents unique challenges. TSA expects record-breaking passenger volumes during Thanksgiving week, with peak travel days including November 26-27 and December 1. Christmas travel intensifies December 20-22 and December 26. New Year's travel typically peaks December 29 and January 2-3. These high-volume periods increase security scrutiny and delay risks.

Attorneys should develop comprehensive travel protocols before departure. Essential preparations include identifying devices containing client data, securing informed consent for potential disclosure, and establishing communication protocols with firm leadership. Bar identification cards help verify professional status during searches. Legal counsel should remain accessible for consultation during border encounters.

Response Protocols During Searches

When facing device searches, attorneys should immediately identify themselves as legal professionals and notify agents about privileged content. CBP policies require consultation with agency counsel before searching devices containing claimed privileged materials. (See 5.2.1.2) However, this protection offers limited practical value since determination processes remain unclear.

Professional obligations continue during border encounters. Attorneys must object to searches on privilege grounds while understanding that resistance may result in device confiscation or entry complications. U.S. citizens cannot be denied entry, but devices may face extended detention for forensic examination. Non-citizens risk entry denial entirely.

Post-Search Obligations

Following any disclosure of confidential information, attorneys must promptly notify affected clients pursuant to professional responsibility rules. Documentation requirements include recording disclosed materials, identifying involved personnel, and implementing remedial measures. Firms should establish incident response protocols addressing client notification, privilege assertions, and regulatory compliance.

Final Thoughts: Looking Forward

you have certain rights when dealing with boarder patrol.

The legal profession must adapt to evolving security landscapes while maintaining ethical obligations. Holiday travel season presents heightened risks due to increased passenger volumes and enhanced scrutiny. Legal professionals should prioritize preparation, implement robust data protection protocols, and maintain clear communication with clients about potential disclosure risks.

As border search authority continues expanding and technology enables more intrusive examinations, the legal profession must advocate for meaningful protections while developing practical compliance strategies. The intersection of national security concerns and professional obligations requires ongoing attention from bar associations, legal practitioners, and policymakers.

The stakes are clear: protecting client confidentiality while navigating modern travel security demands requires preparation, awareness, and strategic planning. As lawyers prepare for holiday travel, implementing comprehensive digital security protocols becomes not just prudent practice, but professional obligation.

MTC

It's Happening This Saturday! Tech-Savvy Saturday Goes Live at 12 PM EST! 🎉💻

The wait is over! This Saturday, August 30, 2025 at 12:00 PM EST, we're finally presenting "Preparing Your Old Office Technology for Your Kids' Back-to-School Success" – and it's going to be incredible! 🚀

As your award-winning host at The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page, I've crafted a comprehensive, action-packed session that transforms the way legal professionals approach family technology. This isn't just about repurposing equipment – it's about creating secure, efficient learning environments while maintaining the ethical standards our profession demands.

What makes this session extraordinary:

• Step-by-step device sanitization protocols specifically designed for legal professionals.

• Family cybersecurity strategies that protect both your practice and your children.

• Attorney-client privilege protection during device transitions.

Your patience has been rewarded with enhanced content, deeper insights, and practical solutions you won't find anywhere else. Join hundreds of legal professionals who are already registered for what promises to be our most valuable session yet!

You can Register Here for free!

Mark your calendar: Saturday, August 30, 2025 at 12:00 PM EST ⏰

See you there! 🌟

MTC: Judicial Warnings - Courts Intensify AI Verification Standards for Legal Practice ⚖️

Lawyers always need to check their work - AI is not infalable!

The legal profession faces an unprecedented challenge as federal courts nationwide impose increasingly harsh sanctions on attorneys who submit AI-generated hallucinated case law without proper verification. Recent court decisions demonstrate that judicial patience for unchecked artificial intelligence use has reached a breaking point, with sanctions extending far beyond monetary penalties to include professional disbarment recommendations and public censure. The August 2025 Mavy v. Commissioner of SSA case exemplifies this trend, where an Arizona federal judge imposed comprehensive sanctions including revocation of pro hac vice status and mandatory notification to state bar authorities for fabricated case citations.

The Growing Pattern of AI-Related Sanctions

Courts across the United States have documented a troubling pattern of attorneys submitting briefs containing non-existent case citations generated by artificial intelligence tools. The landmark Mata v. Avianca case established the foundation with a $5,000 fine, but subsequent decisions reveal escalating consequences. Recent sanctions include a Wyoming federal court's revocation of an attorney's pro hac vice admission after discovering eight of nine cited cases were AI hallucinations, and an Alabama federal court's decision to disqualify three Butler Snow attorneys from representation while referring them to state bar disciplinary proceedings.

The Mavy case demonstrates how systematic citation failures can trigger comprehensive judicial response. Judge Alison S. Bachus found that of 19 case citations in attorney Maren Bam's opening brief, only 5 to 7 cases existed and supported their stated propositions. The court identified three completely fabricated cases attributed to actual Arizona federal judges, including Hobbs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., Brown v. Colvin, and Wofford v. Berryhill—none of which existed in legal databases.

Essential Verification Protocols

Lawyers if you fail to check your work when using AI, your professional career could be in jeopardy!

Legal professionals must recognize that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires attorneys to certify the accuracy of all court filings, regardless of their preparation method. This obligation extends to AI-assisted research and document preparation. Courts consistently emphasize that while AI use is acceptable, verification remains mandatory and non-negotiable.

The professional responsibility framework requires lawyers to independently verify every AI-suggested citation using official legal databases before submission. This includes cross-referencing case numbers, reviewing actual case holdings, and confirming that quoted material appears in the referenced decisions. The Alaska Bar Association's recent Ethics Opinion 2025-1 reinforces that confidentiality concerns also arise when specific prompts to AI tools reveal client information.

Best Practices for Technology Integration 📱

Technology-enabled practice enhancement requires structured verification protocols. Successful integration involves implementing retrieval-based legal AI systems that cite original sources alongside their outputs, maintaining human oversight for all AI-generated content, and establishing peer review processes for critical filings. Legal professionals should favor platforms that provide transparent citation practices and security compliance standards.

The North Carolina State Bar's 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion emphasizes that lawyers employing AI tools must educate themselves on associated benefits and risks while ensuring client information security. This competency standard requires ongoing education about AI capabilities, limitations, and proper implementation within ethical guidelines.

Consequences of Non-Compliance ⚠️

Recent sanctions demonstrate that monetary penalties represent only the beginning of potential consequences. Courts now impose comprehensive remedial measures including striking deficient briefs, removing attorneys from cases, requiring individual apology letters to falsely attributed judges, and forwarding sanction orders to state bar associations for disciplinary review. The Arizona court's requirement that attorney Bam notify every judge presiding over her active cases illustrates how sanctions can impact entire legal practices.

Professional discipline referrals create lasting reputational consequences that extend beyond individual cases. The Second Circuit's decision in Park v. Kim established that Rule 11 duties require attorneys to "read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely". Failure to meet this standard reveals inadequate legal reasoning and can justify severe sanctions.

Final Thoughts - The Path Forward 🚀

Be a smart lawyer. USe AI wisely. Always check your work!

The ABA Journal's coverage of cases showing "justifiable kindness" for attorneys facing personal tragedies while committing AI errors highlights judicial recognition of human circumstances, but courts consistently maintain that personal difficulties do not excuse professional obligations. The trend toward harsher sanctions reflects judicial concern that lenient approaches have proven ineffective as deterrents.

Legal professionals must embrace transparent verification practices while acknowledging mistakes promptly when they occur. Courts consistently show greater leniency toward attorneys who immediately admit errors rather than attempting to defend indefensible positions. This approach maintains client trust while demonstrating professional integrity.

The evolving landscape requires legal professionals to balance technological innovation with fundamental ethical obligations. As Stanford research indicates that legal AI models hallucinate in approximately one out of six benchmarking queries, the imperative for rigorous verification becomes even more critical. Success in this environment demands both technological literacy and unwavering commitment to professional standards that have governed legal practice for generations.

MTC

📢 Tech-Savvy Saturday Postponement: We're Getting It Perfect for You! 🛠️✨

I must apologize for a second postponement of our highly anticipated Tech-Savvy Saturday event, “Preparing Your Old Office Technology for Your Kids’ Back-to-School Success,” originally moved to today. The slidedeck isn’t quite ready, and you deserve engaging, practical, and properly vetted content crafted especially for our legal audience.

Thank you for your continued patience and enthusiasm. This session matters—and making sure it delivers the best possible value is my top priority. Mark your calendars for next Saturday, August 30, 2025. Expect a session packed with actionable advice, clear step-by-step instructions, and the latest insights on repurposing office tech for your family.

Stay tuned for updates and get ready for an enriched, expertly presented seminar next week. Your support means everything, and I can’t wait to see you there! 🚀

How to Ask AI "Are You Sure?" for Better Legal Research Accuracy!

Lawyers need to be “sure” their AI use is accurate

Legal professionals increasingly rely on AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini for research and document preparation. However, these powerful tools can produce inaccurate information or "hallucinations" — fabricated facts, citations, or legal precedents that appear credible but don't exist. A simple yet effective technique is asking AI systems "Are you sure?" or requesting verification of their responses.

The "Are You Sure?" Technique:

When you ask ChatGPT, Claude, or similar AI tools "Are you sure about this information?" they often engage in a second review process. This prompt triggers the AI to:

• Re-examine the original question more carefully

• Cross-reference information internally

• Flag potential uncertainties in their responses

• Provide additional context about confidence levels

For example, after receiving an AI response about case law, follow up with: "Are you sure this case citation is accurate? Please double-check the details." This often reveals when the AI is uncertain or has potentially fabricated information.

Other AI Verification Features

Google Gemini offers a built-in "double-check" feature that uses Google Search to verify responses against web sources. However, this feature can make mistakes and may show contradictory information.

Claude AI focuses on thorough reasoning and can be prompted to verify complex legal analysis through step-by-step breakdowns.

ChatGPT can be instructed to provide sources and verify information when specifically requested, though it requires explicit prompting for verification.

Essential Legal Practice Reminders 

While AI verification techniques help identify potential inaccuracies, they never replace the fundamental duty of legal professionals to verify all citations, case law, and factual claims. Recent court cases have imposed sanctions on attorneys who submitted AI-generated content without proper verification. If you don’t, you run the risk of running afoul of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct — including Rule 1.1 (Competence), which requires the legal knowledge, skill, and thoroughness reasonably necessary for representation; Rule 1.1, Comment 8, which stresses that competent representation includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology; Rule 1.3 (Diligence), which obligates attorneys to act with commitment and promptness; and Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), which prohibits attorneys from knowingly making false statements or failing to correct false material before the court.

Best practices for legal AI use include:

• Always verify AI-generated citations against primary sources

• Never submit AI content without human review

• Maintain clear policies about AI use in your practice

• Understand that professional responsibility remains with the attorney, not the AI tool

The "Are you sure?" technique serves as a helpful first-line check when you notice something seems off in AI responses, but thorough legal research and verification remain your professional responsibility. Your reputation and bar license could depend on it.