🎙️ Ep. #115: Legal Technology Mastery with Law Librarian Jennifer Wondracek – Essential AI Tools and Skills for Modern Lawyers.

Our next guest is Jennifer Wondracek, Director of the Law Library and Professor of Legal Research and Writing at Capital University Law School. Jennifer shares her expertise as a legal technologist and ABA Women of Legal Tech Honoree. She addresses three vital questions: the top technological tools law students and lawyers should leverage, strategies to help new attorneys adapt to firm technologies, and ways law firms can automate routine tasks to prioritize high-value legal work. Drawing on her extensive experience in legal education and technology, Jennifer emphasizes practical solutions, the importance of transferable skills, and the increasing role of generative AI in modern legal practice.

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

1. As Head Librarian at Capital University Law School, what are the top three technological tools or resources that you believe law students and practicing lawyers should be leveraging right now to enhance legal research and client service?

2. What are the top three strategies that lawyers can use to help law students clerking for a firm, or new attorneys, quickly adapt to become proficient with the technology platforms and tools used in their practice, particularly when these tools differ from what they learned in law school?

3. Beyond legal research, what are the top three ways law firms and solo practitioners can use technology to automate routine tasks and create more time for high-value legal work?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[01:03] Jennifer’s Current Tech Setup

[06:27] Top Technological Tools for Law Students and Practicing Lawyers

[11:23] Case Management Systems and Generative AI

[23:15] Strategies for Law Students and New Attorneys to Adapt to Technology

[31:03] Permissions and Backup Practices

[34:20] Automating Routine Tasks with Technology

[39:41] Favorite Non-Legal AI Tools

Resources:

Connect with Jennifer:

• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jennifer-wondracek/

Mentioned in the episode:

• Bloomberg (free ethics guidance & opinions list)

• Charlotin’s AI Hallucinations Tracker (free)

• Database of AI Litigation Tracker (free)

• RAILS chart (free-standing order/local rules tracker)

• Ropes & Gray Map (free-standing order/local rules tracker)

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

• TCL NXTPAPER 11 Plus Tablet: tcl.com/global/en/tablets/tcl-nxtpaper-11-plus

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

• Clio: clio.com/

• CoCounsel: thomsonreuters.com/en/cocounsel

• Daylite: daylite.app/

• Fastcase / vLex: vlex.com/products/fastcase

• Goblin Tools: goblin.tools/

• IFTTT: ifttt.com/

• LawDroid: lawdroid.com/

• Legal Tech Hub: legaltechnologyhub.com/

• LexisNexis: lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page

• NSLT: legaltechsociety.wildapricot.org/

• PACER: pacer.uscourts.gov/

• Procertas: procertas.com/

• TheFormTool: theformtool.com/

• Westlaw: legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/westlaw

• Zapier: zapier.com/

MTC: AI Hallucinated Cases Are Now Shaping Court Decisions - What Every Lawyer, Legal Professional and Judge Must Know in 2025!

AL Hallucinated cases are now shaping court decisions - what every lawyer and judge needs to know in 2025.

Artificial intelligence has transformed legal research, but a threat is emerging from chambers: hallucinated case law. On June 30, 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals delivered a landmark ruling in Shahid v. Esaam that should serve as a wake-up call to every member of the legal profession: AI hallucinations are no longer just embarrassing mistakes—they are actively influencing court decisions and undermining the integrity of our judicial system.

The Georgia Court of Appeals Ruling: A Watershed Moment

The Shahid v. Esaam decision represents the first documented case where a trial court's order was based entirely on non-existent case law, likely generated by AI tools. The Georgia Court of Appeals found that the trial court's order denying a motion to reopen a divorce case relied upon two fictitious cases, and the appellee's brief contained an astounding 11 bogus citations out of 15 total citations. The court imposed a $2,500 penalty on attorney Diana Lynch—the maximum allowed under GA Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2)—and vacated the trial court's order entirely.

What makes this case particularly alarming is not just the volume of fabricated citations, but the fact that these AI-generated hallucinations were adopted wholesale without verification by the trial court. The court specifically referenced Chief Justice John Roberts' 2023 warning that "any use of AI requires caution and humility".

The Explosive Growth of AI Hallucination Cases

The Shahid case is far from isolated. Legal researcher Damien Charlotin has compiled a comprehensive database tracking over 120 cases worldwide where courts have identified AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings. The data reveals an alarming acceleration: while there were only 10 cases documented in 2023, that number jumped to 37 in 2024, and an astounding 73 cases have already been reported in just the first five months of 2025.

Perhaps most concerning is the shift in responsibility. In 2023, seven out of ten cases involving hallucinations were made by pro se litigants, with only three attributed to lawyers. However, by May 2025, legal professionals were found to be at fault in at least 13 of 23 cases where AI errors were discovered. This trend indicates that trained attorneys—who should know better—are increasingly falling victim to AI's deceptive capabilities.

High-Profile Cases and Escalating Sanctions

Always check your research - you don’t want to get in trouble with your client, the judge or the bar!

The crisis has intensified with high-profile sanctions. In May 2025, a special master in California imposed a staggering $31,100 sanction against law firms K&L Gates and Ellis George for what was termed a "collective debacle" involving AI-generated research4. The case involved attorneys who used multiple AI tools including CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Google Gemini to generate a brief, with approximately nine of the 27 legal citations proving to be incorrect.

Even more concerning was the February 2025 case involving Morgan & Morgan—the largest personal injury firm in the United States—where attorneys were sanctioned for a motion citing eight nonexistent cases. The firm subsequently issued an urgent warning to its more than 1,000 lawyers that using fabricated AI information could result in termination.

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page: Years of Warnings

The risks of AI hallucinations in legal practice have been extensively documented by experts in legal technology. I’ve been sounding the alarm at The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Blog and Podcast about these issues for years. In a blog post titled "Why Are Lawyers Still Failing at AI Legal Research? The Alarming Rise of AI Hallucinations in Courtrooms," the editorial detailed how even advanced legal AI platforms can generate plausible but fake authorities.

My comprehensive coverage has included reviews of specific platforms, such as the November 2024 analysis "Lexis+ AI™️ Falls Short for Legal Research," which documented how even purpose-built legal AI tools can cite non-existent legislation. The platform's consistent message has been clear: AI is a collaborator, not an infallible expert.

International Recognition of the Crisis

The problem has gained international attention, with the London High Court issuing a stark warning in June 2025 that attorneys who use AI to cite non-existent cases could face contempt of court charges or even criminal prosecution. Justice Victoria Sharp warned that "in the most severe instances, intentionally submitting false information to the court with the aim of obstructing the course of justice constitutes the common law criminal offense of perverting the course of justice".

The Path Forward: Critical Safeguards

Based on extensive research and mounting evidence, several key recommendations emerge for legal professionals:

For Individual Lawyers:

Lawyers need to be diligent and make sure their case citations are not only accurate but real!

• Never use general-purpose AI tools like ChatGPT for legal research without extensive verification

• Implement mandatory verification protocols for all AI-generated content

• Obtain specialized training on AI limitations and best practices

• Consider using only specialized legal AI platforms with built-in verification mechanisms

For Courts:

• Implement consistent disclosure requirements for AI use in court filings

• Develop verification procedures for detecting potential AI hallucinations

• Provide training for judges and court staff on AI technology recognition

FINAL THOUGHTS

The legal profession is at a crossroads. AI can enhance efficiency, but unchecked use can undermine the integrity of the justice system. The solution is not to abandon AI, but to use it wisely with appropriate oversight and verification. The warnings from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page and other experts have proven prescient—the question now is whether the profession will heed these warnings before the crisis deepens further.

MTC

Happy Lawyering!

🎙️ TSL Labs: Listen to June 30, 2025, TSL editorial as Discussed by two AI-Generated Podcast Hosts Turn Editorial Into Engaging Discussion for Busy Legal Professionals!

🎧 Can't find time to read lengthy legal tech editorials? We've got you covered.

As part of our Tech Savvy Lawyer Labs initiative, I've been experimenting with cutting-edge AI to make legal content more accessible. This bonus episode showcases how Notebook.AI can transform written editorials into engaging podcast discussions.

Our latest experiment takes the editorial "AI and Legal Research: The Existential Threat to Lexis, Westlaw, and Fastcase" and converts it into a compelling conversation between two AI hosts who discuss the content as if they've thoroughly analyzed the piece.

This Labs experiment demonstrates how AI can serve as a time-saving alternative for legal professionals who prefer audio learning or lack time for extensive reading. The AI hosts engage with the material authentically, providing insights and analysis that make complex legal tech topics accessible to practitioners at all technology skill levels.

🚀 Perfect for commutes, workouts, or multitasking—get the full editorial insights without the reading time.

Enjoy!

MTC: AI and Legal Research: The Existential Threat to Lexis, Westlaw, and Fastcase.

How does this ruling for anthropic change the business models legal information providers operate under?

MTC: The legal profession faces unprecedented disruption as artificial intelligence reshapes how attorneys access and analyze legal information. A landmark federal ruling combined with mounting evidence of AI's devastating impact on content providers signals an existential crisis for traditional legal databases.

The Anthropic Breakthrough

Judge William Alsup's June 25, 2025 ruling in Bartz v. Anthropic fundamentally changed the AI landscape. The court found that training large language models on legally acquired copyrighted books constitutes "exceedingly transformative" fair use under copyright law. This decision provides crucial legal clarity for AI companies, effectively creating a roadmap for developing sophisticated legal AI tools using legitimately purchased content.

The ruling draws a clear distinction: while training on legally acquired materials is permissible, downloading pirated content remains copyright infringement. This clarity removes a significant barrier that had constrained AI development in the legal sector.

Google's AI Devastates Publishers: A Warning for Legal Databases

The news industry's experience with Google's AI features provides a sobering preview of what awaits legal databases. Traffic to the world's 500 most visited publishers has plummeted 27% year-over-year since February 2024, losing an average of 64 million visits per month. Google's AI Overviews and AI Mode have created what industry experts call "zero-click searches," where users receive information without visiting original sources.

The New York Times saw its share of organic search traffic fall from 44% in 2022 to just 36.5% in April 2025. Business Insider experienced devastating 55% traffic declines and subsequently laid off 21% of its workforce. Major outlets like HuffPost and The Washington Post have lost more than half their search traffic.

This pattern directly threatens legal databases operating on similar information-access models. If AI tools can synthesize legal information from multiple sources without requiring expensive database subscriptions, the fundamental value proposition of Lexis, WestLaw, and Fastcase erodes dramatically.

The Rise of Vincent AI and Legal Database Alternatives

The threat is no longer theoretical. Vincent AI, integrated into vLex Fastcase, represents the emergence of sophisticated legal AI that challenges traditional database dominance. The platform offers comprehensive legal research across 50 states and 17 countries, with capabilities including contract analysis, argument building, and multi-jurisdictional comparisons—all often available free through bar association memberships.

Vincent AI recently won the 2024 New Product Award from the American Association of Law Libraries. The platform leverages vLex's database of over one billion legal documents, providing multimodal capabilities that can analyze audio and video files while generating transcripts of court proceedings. Unlike traditional databases that added AI as supplementary features, Vincent AI integrates artificial intelligence throughout its core functionality.

Stanford University studies reveal the current performance gaps: Lexis+ AI achieved 65% accuracy with 17% hallucination rates, while Westlaw's AI-Assisted Research managed only 42% accuracy with 33% hallucination rates. However, AI systems improve rapidly, and these quality gaps are narrowing.

Economic Pressures Intensify

Can traditional legal resources protect their proprietary information from AI?

Goldman Sachs research indicates 44% of legal work could be automated by emerging AI tools, targeting exactly the functions that justify expensive database subscriptions. The legal research market, worth $68 billion globally, faces dramatic cost disruption as AI platforms provide similar capabilities at fractions of traditional pricing.

The democratization effect is already visible. Vincent AI's availability through over 80 bar associations provides enterprise-level capabilities to solo practitioners and small firms previously unable to afford comprehensive legal research tools. This accessibility threatens the pricing power that has sustained traditional legal database business models.

The Information Ecosystem Transformation

The parallel between news publishers and legal databases extends beyond surface similarities. Both industries built their success on controlling access to information and charging premium prices for that access. AI fundamentally challenges this model by providing synthesized information that reduces the need to visit original sources.

AI chatbots have provided only 5.5 million additional referrals per month to publishers, a fraction of the 64 million monthly visits lost to AI-powered search features. This stark imbalance demonstrates that AI tools are net destroyers of traffic to content providers—a dynamic that threatens any business model dependent on information access.

Publishers describe feeling "betrayed" by Google's shift toward AI-powered search results that keep users within Google's ecosystem rather than sending them to external sites. Legal databases face identical risks as AI tools become more capable of providing comprehensive legal analysis without requiring expensive subscriptions.

Quality and Professional Responsibility Challenges

Despite AI's advancing capabilities, significant concerns remain around accuracy and professional responsibility. Legal practice demands extremely high reliability standards, and current AI tools still produce errors that could have serious professional consequences. Several high-profile cases involving lawyers submitting AI-generated briefs with fabricated case citations have heightened awareness of these risks.

However, platforms like Vincent AI address many concerns through transparent citation practices and hybrid AI pipelines that combine generative and rules-based AI to increase reliability. The platform provides direct links to primary legal sources and employs expert legal editors to track judicial treatment and citations.

Adaptation Strategies and Market Response

Is AI the beginning for the end of Traditional legal resources?

Traditional legal database providers have begun integrating AI capabilities, but this strategy faces inherent limitations. By incorporating AI into existing platforms, these companies risk commoditizing their own products. If AI can provide similar insights using publicly available information, proprietary databases lose their exclusivity advantage regardless of AI integration.

The more fundamental challenge is that AI's disruptive potential extends beyond individual products to entire business models. The emergence of comprehensive AI platforms like Vincent AI demonstrates this disruption is already underway and accelerating.

Looking Forward: Scenarios and Implications

Several scenarios could emerge from this convergence of technological and economic pressures. Traditional databases might successfully maintain market position through superior curation and reliability, though the news industry's experience suggests this is challenging without fundamental business model changes.

Alternatively, AI-powered platforms could continue gaining market share by providing comparable functionality at significantly lower costs, forcing traditional providers to dramatically reduce prices or lose market share. The rapid adoption of vLex Fastcase by bar associations suggests this disruption is already underway.

A hybrid market might develop where different tools serve different needs, though economic pressures favor comprehensive, cost-effective solutions over specialized, expensive ones.

Preparing for Transformation

The confluence of the Anthropic ruling, advancing AI capabilities, evidence from news industry disruption, and sophisticated legal AI platforms creates a perfect storm for the legal information industry. Legal professionals must develop AI literacy while implementing robust quality control processes and maintaining ethical obligations.

For legal database providers, the challenge is existential. The news industry's experience shows traffic declines of 50% or more would be catastrophic for subscription-dependent businesses. The rapid development of comprehensive AI legal research platforms suggests this disruption may occur faster than traditional providers anticipate.

The legal profession's relationship with information is fundamentally changing. The Anthropic ruling removed barriers to AI development, news industry data shows the potential scale of disruption, and platforms like Vincent AI demonstrate achievable sophistication. The race is now on to determine who will control the future of legal information access.

MTC

🎙️ Bonus Episode: TSL Lab’s Notebook.AI Commentary on June 23, 2025, TSL Editorial!

Hey everyone, welcome to this bonus episode!

As you know, in this podcast we explore the future of law through engaging interviews with lawyers, judges, and legal tech professionals on the cutting edge of legal innovation. As part of our Labs initiative, I am experimenting with AI-generated discussions—this episode features two Google Notebook.AI hosts who dive deep into our latest Editorial: "Lawyers, Generative AI, and the Right to Privacy: Navigating Ethics, Client Confidentiality, and Public Data in the Digital Age." If you’re a busy legal professional, join us for an insightful, AI-powered conversation that unpacks the editorial’s key themes, ethical challenges, and practical strategies for safeguarding privacy in the digital era.

Enjoy!

In our conversation, the "Bots" covered the following:

00:00 Introduction to the Bonus Episode

01:01 Exploring Generative AI in Law

01:24 Ethical Challenges and Client Confidentiality

01:42 Deep Dive into the Editorial

09:31 Practical Strategies for Lawyers

13:03 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Resources:

Google Notebook.AI - https://notebooklm.google/

BOLO: Lawyers Face Critical Risk from 2025's 16 Billion Password Data Leak 🔒⚖️

lawyers were your client’s pii hacked from your computers and software?

Lawyers across the nation need to take immediate action following the exposure of 16 billion login credentials—covering platforms from Apple and Google to Facebook and countless others—in what researchers describe as one of the largest exposures of sensitive data in history. While headlines have suggested a catastrophic, single-source breach, the reality is more nuanced but equally concerning for legal professionals. This leak is not a new, isolated hack of a major provider. Instead, it's a massive aggregation of credentials collected over years from various infostealer malware campaigns and previous breaches, now compiled and exposed in over 30 datasets.

What Is the Nature of This Breach? Is It "New"? 🕵️‍♂️

The so-called "16 billion password breach" is not the result of a single event. Instead, it's a compilation of old and some recent credentials, gathered from infostealer malware, credential stuffing lists, and previously leaked databases. Some datasets are fresh and weaponizable, including session tokens and cookies that can bypass multi-factor authentication, but much of the data is recycled or duplicated. The scale, however, means nearly every major online service is potentially implicated, and the risk of credential stuffing and account takeover is real—especially for those who reuse passwords or have not updated them in years.

Why Should Lawyers Care? ⚠️

Lawyers are high-value targets for cybercriminals due to the sensitive nature of client data and privileged communications. The legal profession has already seen significant cybersecurity challenges, with 29% of law firms encountering cybersecurity breaches in 2023, and the average cost of a data breach for law firms reaching $5.08 million. A compromised password can lead to unauthorized access to confidential files, emails, and client records, exposing firms to malpractice claims, regulatory penalties, and reputational harm. The legal sector's increasing reliance on cloud platforms and digital workflows makes robust credential management non-negotiable for lawyers.

🚨

Lawyers must take action today. 📣 Your clients' trust—and your practice's future—depend on it!

🚨 Lawyers must take action today. 📣 Your clients' trust—and your practice's future—depend on it!

What Should Lawyers Do Now? 🛡️

Immediate Steps:

• Reset passwords for any account that may be affected, especially if you reuse passwords across sites.

• Check your exposure using tools like "Have I Been Pwned" to see if your email or credentials are part of known breaches.

• Enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) on all accounts—this is the single most effective way to prevent unauthorized access, even if a password is leaked.

Long-Term Best Practices:

• Adopt a password manager (such as 1Password* or similar) to generate and store unique, complex passwords for every account.

• Educate your staff on phishing, social engineering, and the dangers of password reuse.

• Implement passkeys and biometrics where possible, reducing reliance on passwords alone.

• Regularly monitor for compromised credentials using security tools and services that alert you to new breaches.

• Never store passwords in plaintext or unsecured documents; use encrypted vaults and secure delivery for sensitive credentials.

What Should Law Firms and Lawyers Be Doing to Stay Secure? 🏛️

Lawyers need to be active in protecting their client’s pii!

• Review and update firm-wide password policies to mandate unique, strong passwords and regular changes.

• Ensure all devices and cloud services used for legal work are protected with MFA and monitored for suspicious activity.

• Consult with cybersecurity counsel or specialists to assess your firm's exposure and compliance with data protection regulations.

• Stay informed about new threats and regularly audit your digital security posture.

Essential Resources from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer 📚🎧

For deeper insights into cybersecurity best practices for legal professionals, explore these valuable resources from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page:

Blog Posts:

• "🚨 BOLO: Zoom Remote Access Attacks – Critical Security Alert for Legal Professionals 🚨" - Learn about sophisticated cyberattacks targeting legal professionals through video conferencing platforms and how to protect your practice.

• "BOLO: Is LastPass on its Last Leg?! 🧐 Is it time to get a new password manager? 😳" - Essential guidance on password manager security following the LastPass breach, with recommendations for alternative solutions like 1Password.

• "🚨 BOLO: Apple's Latest Update Activates AI - Lawyers, Protect Your Clients' Data! 🚨" - Critical analysis of how automatic AI features can impact attorney-client privilege and data security.

Podcast Episodes:

• 🎙️ Ep. 104: The Importance of Data Backup & Cybersecurity w "Mr. Backup", Curtis Preston! - Expert insights on what lawyers are doing wrong with cybersecurity, e-discovery best practices, and ransomware response strategies.

• 🎙️ Ep. 106: "How Lawyers Can Protect Client Data in the Age of AI - A conversation with Erich Dylus!" - Essential guidance on maintaining client confidentiality while leveraging AI tools.

• 🎙️Episode 99: "Navigating the Intersection of Law Ethics and Technology with Jayne Reardon" - Practical insights for lawyers with limited to moderate tech skills on strategic legal tech adoption.

These resources provide actionable guidance specifically tailored for legal professionals navigating cybersecurity challenges while maintaining ethical obligations under the ABA Model Rules.

Lawyers Must Act Now - Your Practice's Security Is Your Clients' Trust 🔐

Follow The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page for breaking news and bolos that lawyers need to know!

The 16 billion password leak serves as a stark reminder that cybersecurity is not optional for today's legal professionals—it's an ethical imperative that lawyers cannot ignore. While this massive data aggregation may seem overwhelming, it presents an opportunity for lawyers to strengthen their firm's digital defenses and demonstrate their commitment to protecting client confidentiality.

Remember, as outlined in ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8, lawyers must maintain reasonable competency in technology, including understanding "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology". The steps outlined above are not just technical recommendations for lawyers—they're essential components of competent legal representation in the digital age.

By implementing robust password policies, enabling multi-factor authentication, and staying informed through resources like The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page, lawyers are not just protecting data—they're preserving the foundational trust that defines the attorney-client relationship. In an era where cyber threats evolve daily and law firms face increasing risks, lawyers' proactive approach to cybersecurity becomes a competitive advantage and a mark of professional excellence.

Lawyers must take action today. Your clients' trust—and your practice's future—depend on it.

🎙️ Ep. 114: Unlocking Legal Innovation: AI And IP With Matthew Veale of Patsnap

Our next guest is Matthew Veale, a European patent attorney and Patsnap's Professional Systems team member. He introduces the AI-powered innovation intelligence platform, Patsnap. Matthew explains how Patsnap supports IP and R&D professionals through tools for patent analytics, prior art searches, and strategic innovation mapping.

Furthermore, Matthew highlights Patsnap's AI-driven capabilities, including semantic search and patent drafting support, while emphasizing its adherence to strict data security and ISO standards. He outlines three key ways lawyers can leverage AI—note-taking, document drafting, and creative ideation—while warning of risks like data quality, security, and transparency.

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

1. What are the top three ways IP and R&D lawyers can use Patsnap's AI to help them with their work?

2. What are the top three ways lawyers can use AI in their day-to-day work, regardless of the practice area?

3. What are the top three issues lawyers should be wary of when using AI?

In our conversation, we covered the following:

[01:07] Matthew Tech Setup

[04:43] Introduction to Pat Snap and Its Features

[13:17] Top Three Ways Lawyers Can Use AI in Their Work

[17:29] Ensuring Confidentiality and Security in AI Tools

[19:24] Transparency and Ethical Use of AI in Legal Practice

[22:13] Contact Information

Resources:

Connect with Matthew:

• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/matthew-veale

• Website: patsnap.com/

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

• Apple XDR Display: apple.com/pro-display-xdr/

• Herman Miller Chair: hermanmiller.com/en_eur/products/seating/office-chairs/

• Microsoft Surface: microsoft.com/en-us/surface

• MuteMe Button: muteme.com

• Samsung Curved Monitor: samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/curved/

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

• Claude: claude.ai/

• Google Patent: patents.google.com/

• PatGPT: patgpt.ai/

• PatSnap: patsnap.com/

• Windows Copilot: copilot.microsoft.com/

MTC: Lawyers, Generative AI, and the Right to Privacy: Navigating Ethics, Client Confidentiality, and Public Data in the Digital Age

Modern attorneys need to tackle AI ethics and privacy risks.

The legal profession stands at a critical crossroads as generative AI tools like ChatGPT become increasingly integrated into daily practice. While these technologies offer unprecedented efficiency and insight, they also raise urgent questions about client privacy, data security, and professional ethics—questions that every lawyer, regardless of technical proficiency, must confront.

Recent developments have brought these issues into sharp focus. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, was recently compelled to preserve all user chats for legal review, highlighting how data entered into generative AI systems can be stored, accessed, and potentially scrutinized by third parties. For lawyers, this is not a theoretical risk; it is a direct challenge to the core obligations of client confidentiality and the right to privacy.

The ABA Model Rules and Generative AI

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct are clear: Rule 1.6 requires lawyers to “act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against unauthorized access by third parties and against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure”. This duty extends beyond existing clients to former and prospective clients under Rules 1.9 and 1.18. Crucially, the obligation applies even to information that is publicly accessible or contained in public records, unless disclosure is authorized or consented to by the client.

Attorneys need to explain generative AI privacy concerns to client.

The ABA’s recent Formal Opinion 512 underscores these concerns in the context of generative AI. Lawyers must fully consider their ethical obligations, including competence, confidentiality, informed consent, and reasonable fees when using AI tools. Notably, the opinion warns that boilerplate consent in engagement letters is not sufficient; clients must be properly informed about how their data may be used and stored by AI systems.

Risks of Generative AI: PII, Case Details, and Public Data

Generative AI tools, especially those that are self-learning, can retain and reuse input data, including Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and case-specific details. This creates a risk that confidential information could be inadvertently disclosed or cross-used in other cases, even within a closed firm system. In March 2023, a ChatGPT data leak allowed users to view chat histories of others, illustrating the real-world dangers of data exposure.

Moreover, lawyers may be tempted to use client public data—such as court filings or news reports—in AI-powered research or drafting. However, ABA guidance and multiple ethics opinions make it clear: confidentiality obligations apply even to information that is “generally known” or publicly accessible, unless the client has given informed consent or an exception applies. The act of further publicizing such data, especially through AI tools that may store and process it, can itself breach confidentiality.

Practical Guidance for the Tech-Savvy (and Not-So-Savvy) Lawyer

Lawyers can face disciplinary hearing over unethical use of generative AI.

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast Episode 99, “Navigating the Intersection of Law Ethics and Technology with Jayne Reardon and other The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page postings offer practical insights for lawyers with limited to moderate tech skills. The message is clear: lawyers must be strategic, not just enthusiastic, about legal tech adoption. This means:

• Vetting AI Tools: Choose AI platforms with robust privacy protections, clear data handling policies, and transparent security measures.

• Obtaining Informed Consent: Clearly explain to clients how their information may be used, stored, or processed by AI systems—especially if public data or PII is involved.

• Limiting Data Input: Avoid entering sensitive client details, PII, or case specifics into generative AI tools unless absolutely necessary and with explicit client consent.

• Monitoring for Updates: Stay informed about evolving ABA guidance, state bar opinions, and the technical capabilities of AI tools.

• Training and Policies: Invest in ongoing education and firm-wide policies to ensure all staff understand the risks and responsibilities associated with AI use.

Conclusion

The promise of generative AI in law is real, but so are the risks. As OpenAI’s recent legal challenges and the ABA’s evolving guidance make clear, lawyers must prioritize privacy, confidentiality, and ethics at every step. By embracing technology with caution, transparency, and respect for client rights, legal professionals can harness AI’s benefits without compromising the foundational trust at the heart of the attorney-client relationship.

MTC

🗓️ Register Now: June 21, 2025, Tech-Savvy Saturdays Webinar!

See You june 21, 2025!

LLM AI Prompt Engineering for Lawyers | June 21, 2025!

Are you ready to take your legal practice to the next level? Join us on Saturday, June 21, 2025, for a practical, expert-led webinar designed for legal professionals with limited to moderate tech skills.

Learn how to craft effective prompts, choose the right AI tools, and avoid common pitfalls. You’ll leave with actionable strategies to improve research, drafting, and compliance using LLMs.

Don’t miss out—secure your spot today!Please note that while the webinar is free to attend, you will need the provided password to join the session. This extra step helps ensure a secure and smooth experience for everyone.

We look forward to seeing you all there and having another engaging and informative session together.

If you have any questions about joining or need assistance, feel free to reach out to MichaelDJ@TheTechSavvyLawyer.Page. Don’t forget to mark your calendars—see you on Saturday!

Please feel free to share!

Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88337294539?pwd=sJWLLRsOlR8nMap9eKGElnGYaGu0TO.1

Meeting ID: 883 3729 4539
Passcode: 255043

Time: 12PM EST!

KEEP UP TO DATE ON TECH-SAVVY SATURDAYS UPDATES BY SIGNING UP ON THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://www.thetechsavvylawyer.page/tech-savvy-saturdays

MTC: Florida Bar's Proposed Listserv Rule: A Digital Wake-Up Call for Legal Professionals.

not just Florida Lawyers should be reacting to New Listserv Ethics Rules!

The Florida Bar's proposed Advisory Opinion 25-1 regarding lawyers' use of listservs represents a crucial moment for legal professionals navigating the digital landscape. This proposed guidance should serve as a comprehensive reminder about the critical importance of maintaining client confidentiality in our increasingly connected professional world.

The Heart of the Matter: Confidentiality in Digital Spaces 💻

The Florida Bar's Professional Ethics Committee has recognized that online legal discussion groups and peer-to-peer listservs provide invaluable resources for practitioners. These platforms facilitate contact with experienced professionals and offer quick feedback on legal developments. However, the proposed opinion emphasizes that lawyers participating in listservs must comply with Rule 4-1.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

The proposed guidance builds upon the American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 511, issued in 2024, which prohibits lawyers from posting questions or comments relating to client representations without informed consent if there's a reasonable likelihood that client identity could be inferred. This nationwide trend reflects growing awareness of digital confidentiality challenges facing modern legal practitioners.

National Landscape of Ethics Opinions 📋

🚨 BOLO: florida is not the only state that has rules related to lawyers discussing cases online!

The Florida Bar's approach aligns with a broader national movement addressing lawyer ethics in digital communications. Multiple jurisdictions have issued similar guidance over the past two decades. Maryland's Ethics Opinion 2015-03 established that hypotheticals are permissible only when there's no likelihood of client identification. Illinois Ethics Opinion 12-15 permits listserv guidance without client consent only when inquiries won't reveal client identity.

Technology Competence and Professional Responsibility 🎯

I regularly addresses these evolving challenges for legal professionals. As noted in many of The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast's discussions, lawyers must now understand both the benefits and risks of relevant technology under ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8. Twenty-seven states have adopted revised versions of this comment, making technological competence an ethical obligation.

The proposed Florida rule reflects this broader trend toward requiring lawyers to understand their digital tools. Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 advises lawyers to "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice," including technological developments. This requirement extends beyond simple familiarity to encompass understanding how technology impacts client confidentiality.

Practical Implications for Legal Practice 🔧

The proposed advisory opinion provides practical guidance for lawyers who regularly participate in professional listservs. Prior informed consent is recommended when there's reasonable possibility that clients could be identified through posted content or the posting lawyer's identit1. Without such consent, posts should remain general and abstract to avoid exposing unnecessary information.

The guidance particularly affects in-house counsel and government lawyers who represent single clients, as their client identities would be obvious in any posted questions. These practitioners face heightened scrutiny when participating in online professional discussions.

Final Thoughts: Best Practices for Digital Ethics ✅

Florida lawyers need to know their state rules before discussing cases online!

Legal professionals should view the Florida Bar's proposed guidance as an opportunity to enhance their digital practice management. The rule encourages lawyers to obtain informed consent at representation's outset when they anticipate using listservs for client benefit. This proactive approach can be memorialized in engagement agreements.

The proposed opinion also reinforces the fundamental principle that uncertainty should be resolved in favor of nondisclosure. This conservative approach protects both client interests and lawyer professional standing in our digitally connected legal ecosystem.

The Florida Bar's proposed Advisory Opinion 25-1 represents more than regulatory housekeeping. It provides essential guidance for legal professionals navigating increasingly complex digital communication landscapes while maintaining the highest ethical standards our profession demands.

MTC