Exclusive ABA TECHSHOW 2026 Offer 🎙️⚖️ — $5 Off The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting (On-Site Only, While Supplies Last!) + Join Our Live Sessions on Podcasting and Video Presence

Hey ABA TECHSHOW 2026 Attendees! 🎉

I’m thrilled you’re joining us in Chicago to explore how technology can elevate modern law practice. ABA TECHSHOW is one of my favorite spaces for real-world conversations about legal tech, and this year I’m especially excited to connect with those of you who want to put your voice — and your expertise — to work through podcasting and video.

ABA TECHSHOW 2026 attendees get your discounted LTG: The Lawyer’s Guide to podcasting at the techshow while supplies last!!!

To celebrate TECHSHOW and support lawyers who are podcast-curious but not necessarily “tech experts,” I’m offering a special, in-person-only discount on my book, The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting. 📚🎙️ During ABA TECHSHOW 2026, attendees can purchase a physical copy on-site for $19.99, which is $5 off the regular $24.99 price, on-site only and while supplies last.

This book is written for lawyers with limited to moderate technology skills who want a clear, practical, ethics-aware roadmap to launching and sustaining a podcast. You don’t need a production team or a studio; you need a realistic workflow, the right level of tech, and an understanding of how the ABA Model Rules apply when your voice becomes part of your marketing and client-education strategy.

Join Me and My Co-Hosts at ABA TECHSHOW 2026 🎤

You’ll find me on the ABA TECHSHOW 2026 program in two sessions that sit right at the intersection of technology, communication, and professional responsibility.

🎧 Podcasting for Lawyers: The Truth Behind the Mic

In this session, I’ll be joined by a powerhouse group of legal podcasters and marketers:

• Ruby L. Powers – A board-certified immigration attorney, law firm owner, legal innovator, and host of the Power Up Your Practice podcast, Ruby brings deep experience in law firm leadership, remote practice, and legal tech adoption.

• Gyi Tsakalakis – A well-known legal marketing professional and podcast host, Gyi focuses on helping lawyers understand how digital marketing, SEO, and content (including podcasts) drive real-world client development.

• Stephanie Everett – Co-author of The Small Firm Roadmap Revisited and host of The Lawyerist Podcast, Stephanie works with small firms on strategy, operations, and building sustainable, client-centered practices.

Together, we’ll discuss how, in a world crowded with blogs and social media, podcasting gives lawyers a unique way to build authority and connect with audiences on a more personal level. You’ll hear from lawyers and experts who actively run podcasts and work with law firms, and we’ll share the exact steps we’ve used to create compelling legal content that resonates, supports branding, and respects ethical boundaries.

🎥 Camera Ready Anywhere: Mastering Video Meetings with Clients, Courts, and Colleagues

In this session, I’ll be co-presenting with Temi Siyanbade:

• Temi Siyanbade – An attorney, speaker, and author of Show Don’t Tell: How Lawyers Can Use Video to Stand Out, Create More Value, and Revolutionize Their Firms, Temi helps legal professionals strategically use video to build trust and communicate more effectively.

Virtual communication is now a permanent part of practice, whether you’re meeting with clients, negotiating with opposing counsel, or appearing before the court. In this session, Temi and I will share practical best practices for using Microsoft Teams and Zoom, including audio, video, lighting, framing, and on-screen presence, so your tech setup supports — rather than undermines — your advocacy and client service.

Ethics, ABA Model Rules, and Tech Competence ⚖️

Find me at the techshow to get your onsite discount and take home a great guide to get your podcast started!

Podcasting and video both touch directly on your professional responsibilities. In The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting, I connect the practical steps of planning, recording, and publishing to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including:

• Rule 1.1 (Competence) and Comment 8 on understanding the benefits and risks of relevant technology.

• Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality) when using real-world stories or client scenarios.

• Rule 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services) to ensure your podcast and related content remain truthful and not misleading.

I walk through how to use clear disclaimers, separate legal information from legal advice, and avoid inadvertently revealing confidential or identifying information. The goal is to help you become tech-savvy in a way that is realistic, ethical, and sustainable.

What You’ll Get from The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting 📘

Inside the book, you’ll find:

• Plain-language tech guidance: realistic microphone, software, and hosting recommendations for busy lawyers.

• Step-by-step workflows: planning, recording, editing, and publishing made manageable for your schedule.

• Ethical “checkpoints”: where to pause and consider confidentiality, advertising rules, and jurisdiction-specific requirements.

• Integration tips: how to embed your podcast on your website, share it in newsletters, and repurpose episodes for SEO and client education.

This is not a book about becoming a sound engineer; it’s about becoming a tech-savvy lawyer who uses podcasting thoughtfully.

On-Site Only, While Supplies Last 🛍️

Because this offer is tied to ABA TECHSHOW 2026, the $5 discount is available only for on-site purchases by attendees and only while physical copies last. I wanted this to be a tangible benefit for those who make the trip — and a practical next step if one of our sessions sparks your interest in podcasting.

Here’s how to take advantage of it:

• Add “Podcasting for Lawyers: The Truth Behind the Mic” and “Camera Ready Anywhere: Mastering Video Meetings with Clients, Courts, and Colleagues” to your TECHSHOW schedule.

• Bring your questions about tech, ethics, workflows, and content.

• Find me on-site after the sessions or around the conference to pick up your discounted, signed copy of The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting for $19.99 (regularly $24.99), on-site only and while supplies last. 📚✍️

SEE YOU AT THE TECHSHOW!!!

ABA TECHSHOW is about practical innovation and ethical implementation. Podcasting and video live right at that intersection — modern tools that, when used thoughtfully and in line with the ABA Model Rules, can enhance your competence, your communication, and your client relationships.

If you’ve been thinking about starting a legal podcast — or want a structured way to decide whether podcasting fits your goals — I’d love for you to join our sessions and pick up the book during the show. 🎧⚖️

MTC: Staying Ahead of the Curve: Why ABA Techshow Is Not Optional for Today's Practicing Lawyer

the aba techshow is the perfect place for lawyers to learn the skills they need to know to meet aba requirements to stay abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technOlogy used in the practice of law!

Let me be direct: technology is no longer a "nice-to-have" in legal practice. It is an ethical obligation. 🎯

The American Bar Association made that clear in 2012 when it amended Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1 — the foundational rule governing competence. That comment explicitly states that a lawyer must "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." Not someday. Not when it's convenient. Now — and continuously. If you are a practicing attorney and you are not actively engaging in legal technology education, you are not just leaving efficiency on the table. You may be skating dangerously close to an ethical violation.

That is precisely why I keep coming back to ABA TECHSHOW — and precisely why I encourage every lawyer I speak with, regardless of their comfort level with technology, to attend.

🔑 ABA TECHSHOW Is Built for You — Yes, You

I want to address something head-on: the assumption that Techshow is a conference for tech enthusiasts and IT professionals. It is not. The 2026 conference, running March 25–28 at McCormick Place in Chicago, features over 100 technology vendors and programming explicitly designed for lawyers at every skill level — including those who still break into a cold sweat opening a new software interface. The sessions span everything from AI fundamentals to cybersecurity to practice management to video communication. There is a deliberate on-ramp built into the conference structure because the organizers understand that the legal profession is diverse in its relationship with technology.

I have been privileged to serve as a speaker and faculty member at TECHSHOW, and this year is no exception. At TECHSHOW 2026, I am co-presenting two sessions that I believe speak directly to where the legal profession is right now.

The first, Podcasting for Lawyers: The Truth Behind the Mic, pulls back the curtain on how lawyers can leverage podcasting as a powerful tool for building authority, deepening client relationships, and positioning themselves as thought leaders in their practice areas. In a media landscape saturated with blogs and social media posts, a podcast gives you something rare: an intimate, sustained connection with your audience. As you know, I run my own podcast — The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast — and in that session, alongside colleagues and previous podcast guest Ruby Powers and hopefully future podcast guests Gyi Tsakalakis, and Stephanie Everett, we share the real, actionable steps behind building compelling legal content. 🎙️ 

learn how setting up a podcast studio carries over to help with other legal events!

My second session, Camera Ready Anywhere: Mastering Video Meetings with Clients, Courts, and Colleagues, my co-presenter, Temi Siyanbade, and I explore the practical, professional, and ethical dimensions of virtual communication. As virtual meetings have become a permanent fixture of legal practice — whether you are conducting client consultations on Zoom, appearing remotely before a tribunal, or negotiating with opposing counsel on TECHSHOW — looking and sounding competent on camera is no longer optional. This session covers audio and video setup, lighting, platform best practices, and how to project professionalism in a digital environment. The irony is that many lawyers who are meticulous about their appearance in a courtroom give almost no thought to how they present themselves on a video call. That gap matters. It matters to clients. It matters to judges. And yes, it can matter to your reputation.

⚖️ The ABA Model Rules Are Not Suggestions

Let us return to the ethics piece, because I think it deserves more than a passing mention. ABA Model Rule 1.1 sets the standard for competent representation. Most lawyers understand this in terms of legal knowledge — knowing the law, understanding procedure, being prepared. Fewer appreciate that the ABA's 2012 amendment has extended that standard to technology.

As of today, 40-plus states have adopted some version of the technology competence obligation articulated in Comment 8. The District of Columbia most recently joined that group in 2025. This is not a fringe interpretation. It is a growing national consensus about what it means to be a competent lawyer in the modern era.

Rule 1.6 — governing confidentiality — also carries technology implications. A lawyer who fails to understand how their email system works, who stores client data on unsecured devices, or who falls victim to a phishing attack that exposes client files has potentially breached their duty of confidentiality. Rule 5.3 requires that supervisors ensure non-lawyer staff are also compliant with the Rules — and that includes how they use firm technology. The tentacles of technology competence reach throughout the Model Rules.

Conferences like TECHSHOW exist, in part, to help you satisfy these obligations in a practical, hands-on way. The ABA Law Practice Division has consistently described Techshow as an opportunity to understand the "benefits and risks" of technology — the exact language of Comment 8. This is not accidental. It is intentional alignment between the programming and your professional duties.

🚀 The Future Is Already Here — Are You Ready?

The 2026 theme — Innovation That Protects the Rule of Law — reflects something I have believed for years: technology, when adopted thoughtfully, does not undermine the legal profession. It strengthens it. AI tools are transforming how lawyers research, draft, and communicate. Wearable technology and augmented reality are beginning to reshape how we work and collaborate. Deposition technology is being revolutionized by AI-powered transcript tools and remote video platforms. None of this is science fiction. It is happening right now, in law firms across the country.

The question is not whether you will engage with these tools. The question is whether you will engage with them proactively — understanding their benefits and their risks — or reactively, scrambling to catch up after a client complaint or a disciplinary inquiry.

I am not here to alarm you. I am here to invite you. 🤝

your podcast studio set up iMpacts on you are perceived in the virtual legal landscape!

Whether you are a solo practitioner trying to figure out which AI tool is worth your subscription fee, or a partner at a mid-size firm wondering how to lead your team through a technology transition, Techshow offers you a safe, supportive, and genuinely energizing environment to learn. Most of the sessions are CLE-eligible. The vendors are accessible and eager to demonstrate — not sell. The community is collaborative.

More than four decades of working with technology and nearly 30 years of those in the legal arena have taught me one thing above all else: the lawyers who thrive are not necessarily the most tech-savvy. They are the most tech-willing — the ones who stay curious, stay engaged, and never stop learning. 💡

TECHSHOW is where that learning happens. I will see you there.

REGISTER HERE!

MTC

🎙️ Ep. #133 | AI Search, GEO & Legal Marketing Tech: How Small Law Firms Win Cases — Not Just Clicks!

My next guest is Nick Cohen, Chief Operating Officer of Matador Solutions — a legal marketing think tank and agency — and a newly minted partner at Cohen Injury Law Group. Nick brings a rare dual perspective: he lives the daily grind of running a law firm AND helps over 170 firms across the country use technology and marketing strategy to grow their practice. With more than $1 billion in case value generated for clients, Nick knows what separates the law firms that thrive from the ones that spin their wheels. 🚀

Whether you are just hanging out your shingle or you have been practicing for years and feel overwhelmed by the alphabet soup of SEO, GEO, PPC, and AI, this episode breaks it all down in plain language. Nick shares actionable steps — some of which cost nothing — to help your firm show up where your next great client is already looking. ⚖️

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

1. 🤔 What are the top three ways a small or mid-size law firm can leverage AI-driven search — like Google AI Overviews and ChatGPT — to reliably generate better cases, not just more clicks?

2. 💡 For firms that feel overwhelmed by SEO, paid search, and social media, what are the top three pieces of marketing technology or automations they should implement first to turn their website into a true new case acquisition system?

3. 🏆 Looking across $1 billion+ in case value generated for over 170 law firms, what are the top three technology habits the most successful firms share — and what are their less successful peers simply not doing?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

• [0:00] 🎤 Introduction & five-star review shoutout

• [0:45] 👨‍💼 Nick's background: Matador Solutions, Cohen Injury Law Group, and tech stack overview (Jira, Google Suite, Claude, ChatGPT, WordPress, Slack)

• [1:30] 💻 Hardware setup: MacBook Pro M4, desktop, HDMI monitor — what Nick runs on daily

• [3:00] 📱 iPhone, planned obsolescence, and the Apple ecosystem slowdown conversation

• [4:00] ❓ Question 1: Leveraging AI-driven search (Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT) to get better cases — not just traffic

• [5:00] 🔍 GEO vs. SEO explained — what is Generative Engine Optimization and why it matters for your law firm right now

• [6:30] 📖 The difference: SEO = Google ranking; GEO = getting cited by ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Grok

• [8:00] 🤖 Schema markup, robots.txt, and opening your website to LLM crawlers — practical steps any firm can take

• [9:00] 📋 Attorney directory listings (Avvo, Super Lawyers, FindLaw) — are they worth the money in 2026?

• [10:30] ✍️ Tip #2: High-quality thought leadership content as a GEO and SEO powerhouse

• [11:30] ⭐ Tip #3: Reviews, reviews, reviews — the single highest-ROI, zero-cost activity for any law firm

• [12:00] 📲 The "one-click review link" strategy: why text beats email every time

• [13:00] 😬 How to handle negative reviews — call first, respond professionally, and why a 4.9 rating beats a perfect 5.0

• [15:00] ❓ Question 2: Top three marketing tech tools/automations for overwhelmed firms — CallRail, case management software, and understanding your channels

• [17:30] ❓ Question 3: The technology habits that separate high-growth firms from stagnant ones — intake systems, engagement, and growth mindset

• [19:30] 🗺️ How Matador Solutions walks a brand-new firm from zero to a steady stream of cases — step by step

• [22:00] 📬 Where to find Nick Cohen

RESOURCES

🔗 Connect with Nick Cohen

• 📧 Email: nick@matadorsolutions.net

• 💼 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickecohen/

• 🌐 Website: matadorsolutions.net

📚 Mentioned in the Episode (Non-Hardware / Non-Software)

• 🎙️ Apple Podcasts — podcasts.apple.com ⚖️ Matador Solutions — Legal marketing agency — matadorsolutions.net

• 📋 Avvo — Attorney directory — avvo.com

• ⚖️ Cohen Injury Law Group — Nick's law firm — https://cohenandcohen.net/⭐ Facebook Reviews — facebook.com

• 📊 GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) — The emerging discipline of optimizing for AI-driven search engines

• ⭐ Google Reviews — google.com/business

• 📋 FindLaw — Attorney directory — findlaw.com

• 📋 Super Lawyers — Attorney directory — superlawyers.com

• ⭐ Yelp — yelp.com

💻 Hardware Mentioned in the Conversation

• 📱 Apple iPhone 15 — Nick's smartphone (approximate model) — apple.com/iphone

• 📱 Apple iPhone (latest, annual upgrade) — Michael's smartphone — apple.com/iphone

• 🖥️ Apple Mac Studio (M3 chip) — Michael's desktop — apple.com/mac

• 🖥️ Apple MacBook Pro (M4 chip) — Nick's primary laptop — apple.com/macbook-pro

☁️ Software & Cloud Services Mentioned in the Conversation

• 📞 CallRail — Call tracking & marketing ROI — callrail.com

• 🤖 ChatGPT (OpenAI) — AI assistant & AI search — chatgpt.com

• 🤖 Claude (Anthropic) — AI assistant — claude.ai

• 🤖 Google AI Overviews — AI-powered search summaries — google.com

• 📊 Google Business Profile — Local SEO & reviews — business.google.com

• 🔍 Google Workspace / Google Suite — Productivity & search — workspace.google.com

• 🤖 Grok (xAI) — AI assistant — x.ai/grok

• 📋 Jira — Project management — atlassian.com/software/jira

• 🎙️ Libsyn — Podcast hosting — libsyn.com

• 🤖 Perplexity — AI search engine — perplexity.ai

• 💬 Slack — Team communication — slack.com

• 🌐 WordPress — Website platform — wordpress.org

🎧 Enjoy the episode? Please leave us a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ five-star review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast feeds!

MTC: Is Apple’s MacBook Neo the Real Game Changer for Lawyers Stuck Between Windows and Mac? 🤔💼

A lawyer’s choice between the MacBook Neo vs. Windows is not only a strategic business choice but a professional ethics one too!

For years, many lawyers have treated the move from Windows to Mac as a luxury upgrade rather than a strategic business decision. 💻⚖️ Apple new MacBook Neo, with its $599 starting price (and lower with education discounts), directly challenges that mindset by bringing a true macOS laptop into the same budget range as many mid-tier Windows machines. The question for lawyers on the fence is no longer “Can I justify a Mac?” but “Is the Neo a responsible, ethically sound choice for my law practice, under both my budget and my professional duties?”

From a hardware and price perspective, the Neo matters because it compresses the long‑standing price gap between Windows laptops and MacBooks. At around $599, it lives squarely in the territory where most solos and small firms previously defaulted to Windows PCs or even Chromebooks, not because they preferred them, but because MacBooks seemed out of reach. Apple is using its Apple Silicon and tight supply chain control to keep Neo’s price relatively stable even as RAM, SSD, and CPU prices push other laptop prices up as much as 40 percent. In an environment where many PC makers must raise prices or cut corners, the Neo offers lawyers a predictable, brand‑name option that is less vulnerable to component price spikes in the short to mid term.

Dream itTech‑Savvy Lawyers: If your workflow already runs on Microsoft 365, webmail like Gmail, cloud‑based practice management, and browser‑based legal research tools, your computer’s operating system is now just invisible plumbing 🧑‍🔧 —focus on security, value, and productivity, not whether it’s Windows or Mac. 🔔

Dream itTech‑Savvy Lawyers: If your workflow already runs on Microsoft 365, webmail like Gmail, cloud‑based practice management, and browser‑based legal research tools, your computer’s operating system is now just invisible plumbing 🧑‍🔧 —focus on security, value, and productivity, not whether it’s Windows or Mac. 🔔

That said, lawyers should not mistake the Neo for a no‑compromise replacement for every Windows laptop. The device cannot run Windows natively, and running Windows in a virtual machine on Apple Silicon is possible but not ideal as a core strategy. If your practice still depends on a specific legacy Windows desktop app that has no modern web or Mac equivalent—think an older on‑premises case management system or niche desktop timekeeping tool—you must factor that in, because the Neo is not the machine for you. For everyone else, especially those whose workflow is already centered on Microsoft 365, webmail (e.g., Google), cloud practice management, and browser‑based research tools, the operating system is increasingly just the plumbing under the hood.

This is where today’s SaaS‑driven legal stack changes the analysis. Many of the core tools lawyers now rely on—cloud practice management, document automation, e‑signature, e‑billing, calendaring, and research platforms—are delivered through the browser or platform‑agnostic apps. 🌐 Most modern law‑focused SaaS platforms are built to be OS‑agnostic so they can serve both Windows and Mac firms with a single codebase, and they function similarly across Chrome, Edge, and Safari. That means the historical “Windows has all the legal software” argument is rapidly losing relevance for general practice, especially for solos and small firms that choose mainstream platforms over custom legacy systems.

The ABA Model Rules, however, keep this from being just a hardware shopping discussion. ABA Model Rule 1.1, and especially Comment 8, recognizes that competence now includes understanding “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” That duty of technological competence does not require you to buy the most expensive device, but it does require you to make informed, reasonable choices about the systems you use to handle client information and conduct your practice. When you evaluate the Neo, you are not just deciding what laptop you prefer—you are deciding whether this platform lets you meet your obligations around confidentiality, reliability, uptime, and data handling in a way that is at least as competent as what you have on Windows.

Short‑term costs are where the MacBook Neo is most obviously attractive. At its launch price, it competes directly with mid‑range Windows laptops that often sacrifice build quality, thermals, or battery life to hit a number on the sticker. The Neo offers a brighter display, premium build, and Apple Silicon performance in that same price band, which can translate into less time fighting sluggish hardware and more time focused on client work. For a lawyer with limited to moderate tech skills, that smoother baseline experience can reduce friction, support better document handling, and lower the odds of user‑induced system instability. 🚀

Can Attorneys juggle a macbook Neo, their firm’s SaaS tools, and their ethical duties?

Mid‑term costs—three to five years—are where Apple’s supply chain and design decisions become relevant. Industry reports suggest that rising memory and CPU costs could force many Windows laptop manufacturers to push prices up sharply, while Apple’s long‑term supplier agreements help buffer its MacBooks from the worst of these increases. At the same time, the Neo introduces a more modular, repair‑friendly design than previous MacBooks, with lower out‑of‑warranty battery replacement costs, making mid‑life repairs less painful. For a law firm budgeting over the life of a device, this combination of more stable pricing and more manageable repair costs can make the total cost of ownership more predictable than a similarly priced Windows machine that may face steeper price hikes or cheaper construction.

Long‑term expenses involve more than just hardware. You must consider training, support, integration, and the risk of vendor lock‑in or disruptive platform changes. The Neo ties you more deeply into the macOS ecosystem, which can be a strength if you commit to it, but may introduce friction in a mixed Windows–Mac environment. On the Windows side, there are signs that Microsoft may move more aggressively toward subscription‑driven Windows licensing, especially for Pro editions, which could affect firms that rely heavily on Windows‑specific features. Lawyers already shoulder subscriptions for research services, practice management, and office suites, so a shift toward OS‑level subscription pricing could make the Mac’s relatively stable OS model more attractive over time.tech.

From an ethical perspective, the operating system decision intersects directly with data security and confidentiality. ABA technology‑competence guidance stresses that lawyers must understand the risks of the tools they use, including operating systems, cloud storage, and third‑party services. MacOS offers strong sandboxing, disk encryption, and built‑in security protections, but Windows has mature security controls as well, especially in managed environments. The real question is whether, given your own tech comfort level, can you configure and maintain a secure environment more reliably on Windows or macOS? For many small firms without dedicated IT, the Neo’s controlled hardware–software stack may reduce complexity and thereby reduce risk.(One added, but separate, benefit option is the availability to purchase AppleCare; this is Apple’s well-regarded extended warranty program, which can alleviate some of your concerns about future repairs.)

Still, the Neo is not a universal solution. If you are a litigator embedded in a court system that mandates Windows‑only e‑filing tools, if your firm uses an on‑prem Windows server that depends on Windows‑only integrations, or if you rely on specialized Windows‑only deposition or trial software, you will either need to keep a Windows machine in parallel or stay with Windows as your primary platform. Under Model Rule 1.1, knowingly moving to a platform that breaks critical parts of your workflow without a realistic workaround would raise competence concerns. In that sense, the Neos’s OS limitations force you to map your actual workflow—software, integrations, court requirements—rather than treating this as a purely personal preference decision.

can a lawyer leverage a macbook Neo and cloud platforms for secure practice?

So does the MacBook Neo qualify as a true “game changer” for lawyers sitting on the Windows‑to‑Mac fence? For a large subset of practitioners—especially solos and small firms who primarily use browser‑based SaaS tools, Microsoft 365, PDF software, and mainstream practice management platforms—the answer is increasingly yes. ✅ The Neo dramatically lowers the entry cost of joining the Mac ecosystem while offering a stable supply‑chain story and credible mid‑term repairability, all within a security model that can satisfy ABA technology‑competence expectations when used thoughtfully.

For others—those deeply tied to legacy Windows software or court‑mandated tools—the Neo may be more of a secondary device than a replacement. But even in those cases, its presence will pressure Windows OEMs to improve build quality, pricing transparency, and long‑term value, which benefits the legal profession regardless of which platform individual lawyers choose. In short, the MacBook Neo is less about abandoning Windows and more about forcing every lawyer to ask a more sophisticated, ethics‑aware question: which platform—Windows, Mac, or a hybrid—best supports competent, secure, and sustainable representation for my clients in the decade ahead?

MTC

Shout Out: Previous Podcast Guest Ruby Powers Invites Your The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Blogger and Podcaster Back on Power Up Your Practice!

I recently had the honor of joining Ruby Powers on her Power Up Your Practice Podcast, and I could not be more excited about what we covered for fellow lawyers. We talked about legal podcasting as a practical, ethical, and highly effective way for attorneys to build visibility, deepen relationships, and modernize their marketing without needing to be “hardcore tech people.”

On Ruby’s show, I shared why I believe that podcasting is becoming the new networking standard for lawyers. When you regularly publish episodes—whether about your day-to-day practice, a niche topic, or even a related interest—you push your name and your ideas into the online world in a consistent way. Search engines and AI systems notice this. Over time, your name and your content start to surface more often when people search for your practice area, your type of work, or your expertise. That is real SEO, and it comes from steady, quality content rather than tricks or gimmicks.

Another reason I encourage lawyers to podcast is simple: your voice makes you more human. Listeners hear how you think and how you explain things. They hear your tone and your values. That goes far beyond a static bio or a profile page. Whether your audience is potential clients, referral sources, peers, or the broader public, a podcast lets them get to know you in a safe and scalable way. This is networking that keeps working for you even when you are in court, in a hearing, or taking a much-needed break. 🌟

I also understand that many lawyers hesitate because they are concerned about ethics. That concern is healthy. As attorneys, we cannot ignore ABA Model Rules and similar state rules when we put content into the world. On the podcast, Ruby and I discussed that while a show can be an excellent educational and marketing tool, we must avoid giving individualized legal advice and avoid accidentally creating an attorney–client relationship. I strongly recommend clear, prominent disclaimers that explain the podcast is for informational purposes only, does not create an attorney–client relationship, and should not be relied on as legal advice for any specific matter.

This aligns with our obligation of competence under Model Rule 1.1, which now includes understanding relevant technology, and with our duties around communications and advertising under Model Rules 7.1 and following. A well-run legal podcast respects those boundaries. It presents general information and insights, and it invites listeners to seek formal counsel if they need advice for their specific situation. When you treat your podcast as education plus relationship-building, not as a substitute for representation, you are already thinking in the right direction.

In our conversation, Ruby and I also addressed a common fear: “I’m not tech-savvy enough to start a podcast.” As someone known as the Tech-Savvy Lawyer, I want to be clear: you do not need to be a full-time tech enthusiast to do this. You likely already have access to most of what you need. A solid microphone, a decent camera, and a platform like Zoom, Riverside, or StreamYard can take you surprisingly far. Many of these tools are user-friendly and continue to improve. You can start with the basics and then layer on more sophistication as you grow more comfortable. 🎧

Ruby shared her own experience of initially overthinking her podcast. She wanted it to be perfect, and that almost stopped her from launching. I hear that from lawyers all the time. My advice is simple: do not wait for perfect. Your early episodes will probably make you cringe later, which means you are improving. That is a good sign. Focus on clear audio, honest content, and consistent scheduling. Over time, you can refine your editing, your format, and even your branding. You can bring in a contractor or a service to help with editing once you know you want to keep going.

We also discussed the flexibility podcasting offers. You can publish weekly, every other week, or monthly. You can create solo episodes where you explain key topics. You can host interviews with colleagues, experts, or community leaders. You can even experiment with live formats, where audience members submit questions in advance, and you answer them at a general, educational level. The format should fit your bandwidth, your goals, and your audience.

One concept I emphasized is the idea of an “ideal listener” or avatar. Before you hit record, think about exactly who you are speaking to. Is it a potential client in a specific practice area? Other lawyers in your niche? Law students or young practitioners? Having that profile in mind will guide your topic choices, your language, and your examples. It also helps you stay focused on value rather than drifting into random conversations that do not support your goals.

From a business perspective, legal podcasting can support your referral network in powerful ways. Colleagues can share your episodes, which subtly introduce you as a trusted resource. Prospective clients may listen to several episodes before they ever contact you, which means they arrive already familiar with your style and approach. That can shorten the trust-building curve and make consultations more productive.

What I appreciate about Ruby’s Power Up Your Practice platform is that it treats podcasting not as a vanity project, but as part of a larger ecosystem of law practice management, technology, and professional development. My appearance on her show gave me a chance to tie together what I see in my own practice, my blog, my podcast, and my book: lawyers do not need to fear technology. We need to engage with it thoughtfully, guided by the same ethics and judgment we apply in every other part of our work.

If you are a lawyer with limited to moderate tech skills and you have been on the fence about starting a podcast, I invite you to listen to my conversation with Ruby and let it serve as a practical, encouraging blueprint. You will hear that you are not alone in your concerns, that there are clear ways to stay compliant with ABA Model Rules, and that the path to becoming a “tech-savvy lawyer” does not require perfection—only willingness, consistency, and a focus on delivering value. 🚀

Enjoy!

MTC: Are Lawyers Really Ready for a Wallet‑Free Future? Digital Wallets, ABA Ethics, and the Reality of Going Fully Cashless 💳⚖️

Tech-savvy lawyers should not leave their physical wallets at home, BUT YOU CAN PROBABLY pare THEM down some.

When previous podcast guest David Sparks over at MacSparky shared his recent post about accidentally going out without his physical wallet—and still making it through the day just fine on his iPhone and Apple Wallet—it captured a quiet shift many of us in the legal profession are grappling with. He walked into his appointment armed only with a digital ID, digital insurance card, and Apple Pay, and everything worked. For a growing number of professionals, that is the new normal. The question for lawyers is more specific: not can we go wallet‑free, but should we—ethically, practically, and professionally—given our obligations under the ABA Model Rules?

Digital wallets are no longer niche tools reserved for tech enthusiasts. Apple Wallet and similar platforms have matured into robust ecosystems that can store payment cards, IDs, insurance cards, transit passes, and even car keys. They sit at the intersection of convenience, security, and risk. As attorneys, we have to examine that intersection with greater rigor than the average consumer, because our technology choices are framed by duties of competence, confidentiality, and client service.

The promise of a wallet‑free practice

On paper, the case for a full digital wallet is compelling. Digital payments can reduce friction at the courthouse café, client lunches, and bar events. Digital IDs eliminate worries about misplacing a physical card. Many platforms add layers of biometric security that traditional wallets can’t match. David notes that Apple Wallet has “been quietly getting better for years,” allowing storage of physical card numbers behind Face ID and making peer‑to‑peer payments a tap‑away. For a solo or small‑firm lawyer, that friction reduction compounds over time into real efficiency.

From a malpractice‑avoidance standpoint, a digital wallet can be safer than a billfold. Losing a traditional wallet means scrambling to cancel credit cards, monitoring for identity theft, and possibly dealing with unauthorized use of your bar ID or access cards. A lost phone, by contrast, can be located, remotely wiped, or locked with strong authentication. Properly configured, it can reduce risk rather than increase it.

This is where ABA Model Rule 1.1 on competence, particularly Comment 8, becomes relevant. The Comment notes that competent representation includes understanding “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” A digital wallet is very much “relevant technology” for a modern practitioner. Choosing not to understand or use it, especially when it offers better security and traceability than analog methods, may itself become a competence question as the bar’s expectations evolve.

The gaps: cash, IDs, and access to justice

There are plenty of reasons not to go “cashless” when leaving home or the office.

Still, David’s hesitation—“there’s a part of me that still feels compelled to carry a small wallet with my driver’s license in it”—should resonate with lawyers. There are pockets of our professional lives where the ecosystem is not ready, and those pockets matter.

First, cash. Many lawyers still tip courthouse staff, parking attendants, baristas near the courthouse, and others in cash—including, in my case, using $2 bills (yes, they are still produced, still accepted, and can be obtained at many banks across the U.S. [At least as of the time of this posting]. I almost always get an excited smile when I tip my barista for his/her work with a $2 bill). Cash remains the lowest‑friction, most universally accepted “protocol” for small-scale human interactions. Refusing to carry any cash at all can put you in awkward social and professional situations, especially in older courthouses or local establishments that either do not take cards or resent micro‑transactions by card. For those committed to cash tipping as a personal or professional habit, a purely digital wallet is not yet a substitute.

Second, physical IDs. While TSA and some states are piloting and accepting digital IDs, acceptance is not universal, and the rules are in flux. David notes he has a state digital ID that “shows up nicely” in Apple Wallet. That is great—until you encounter an agency, judge, clerk, or officer who simply will not accept it. Not all jurisdictions recognize mobile driver’s licenses or digital IDs, and some procedures (e.g., certain filings or in‑person notarizations) still presume a physical, inspectable card. The risk is not hypothetical: show up with the wrong form of ID for a flight or a court security checkpoint, and you may face delay, additional fees, or outright denial of entry.

FROM TSA WEBSITE - “If you are unable to provide the required acceptable ID, such as a passport or REAL ID, you can pay a $45 fee to use TSA ConfirmID. TSA will then attempt to verify your identity so you can go through security; however, there is no guarantee TSA can do so.”

✈️ 🌎 ‼️

FROM TSA WEBSITE - “If you are unable to provide the required acceptable ID, such as a passport or REAL ID, you can pay a $45 fee to use TSA ConfirmID. TSA will then attempt to verify your identity so you can go through security; however, there is no guarantee TSA can do so.” ✈️ 🌎 ‼️

For lawyers, this is not just an inconvenience—it is a competence and diligence issue under Model Rules 1.1 and 1.3. If your failure to carry an accepted ID means you miss a hearing, delay a filing, or cannot visit a client, you have a professional problem, not just a tech annoyance. Likewise, local court rules and security policies may require a specific bar card or government‑issued ID to enter restricted areas. A digital ID on your phone will not help if the sheriff’s deputy at the door has not been trained or authorized to accept it.

Third, connectivity. A digital wallet that is fully dependent on live internet access is a fragile tool in old courthouses with thick stone walls, in rural jurisdictions, or during emergencies. Many modern digital wallets do allow offline transactions at NFC terminals using stored tokens, but not all. If your payment method, ID, or membership pass depends on a cloud verification step and you are in a dead zone—or your battery dies—you effectively have no wallet. Lawyers who rely on public transit, rideshares, or mobile office setups need to consider this in contingency planning, particularly when punctuality is essential.

Digital wallets and legal ethics

From an ethics perspective, digital wallets intersect with several core duties.

Under Model Rule 1.6, protecting client confidentiality extends to how you pay for and manage client‑related expenses. If you are using peer‑to‑peer payment apps or storing client‑related account details in a digital wallet, you must understand their privacy and data‑sharing practices. Some services expose transaction histories, social feeds, or metadata that could inadvertently reveal client relationships or matter details. Configuring strict privacy settings and separating personal from firm accounts is not optional; it is part of your duty of confidentiality.

Model Rule 1.15 on safekeeping property also comes into play if you ever use digital tools to handle client funds, reimbursements, or settlement distributions. While most bars still require traditional trust accounts and closely regulate payment processors, the trend toward digital payments will continue. Using any digital payment or wallet solution around client funds requires careful vetting, written policies, and—ideally—consultation with your malpractice carrier and bar ethics guidance.

Finally, Model Rule 5.3 on responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance extends to IT providers and wallet platforms. If your firm relies on third‑party providers to manage mobile device management (MDM), security, or payment integrations, you must make reasonable efforts to ensure their conduct aligns with your professional obligations. Managing digital wallets on firm‑owned or BYOD devices should be governed by a clear policy that addresses encryption, remote wipe, lock‑screen settings, and acceptable use.

Practical guidance: a hybrid, not a cliff

As advanced as our digital wallets are, the legal professional should carry a combination of digital and physical identification, means of payment, and cash!

Given these realities, are we “truly there” yet for lawyers to go fully wallet‑free? Not quite. For most practitioners, the prudent path is a hybrid approach:

• Carry a slim physical wallet with a government‑issued ID, bar card (if used locally), a minimal backup payment card, and a small amount of cash for tipping and edge cases.

• Use a digital wallet as your primary payment and convenience layer, especially in environments where it is well‑supported and secure.

• Confirm, in advance, what IDs your courthouse, correctional facilities, and agencies accept, and do not assume your digital ID will suffice.

• Harden your digital wallet: enable strong biometrics, ensure a reputable MDM or security solution manages any firm devices, and separate personal from professional payment flows where possible.

This hybrid approach aligns with Model Rule 1.1’s requirement to understand and responsibly adopt relevant technology while honoring the practical demands of courtroom work and client service. It allows you to benefit from the security and efficiency of digital wallets without betting your professional obligations on the most fragile parts of the ecosystem: universal acceptance and ubiquitous connectivity.

David ends his reflection by asking whether he will ever “truly go out knowingly wallet‑free” and whether he is alone in his hesitation. Lawyers should feel no pressure to be first in line to abandon physical wallets entirely. Our job is to advocate, counsel, and appear—on time, properly identified, and fully prepared. That may mean, for the foreseeable future, living comfortably in both worlds: with a well‑tuned digital wallet in your hand and a minimal, carefully curated physical wallet in your pocket.

MTC

TSL.P Labs 🧪 Initiative: Why 96% AI Accuracy Still Fails Lawyers: Ethics, Hallucinations, and the Future of the Billable Hour ⚖️🤖

📌 To Busy to Read This Week’s Editorial?

Welcome to the TSL Lab’s Initiative. 🤖 This weeks episode builds on my March 3rd, 2026, editorial “Even Though AI Hallucinations Are Down: Lawyers STILL MUST Verify AI, Guard PII, and Follow ABA Ethics Rules ⚖️🤖” is a misleading comfort blanket for lawyers, and how ABA Model Rules on confidentiality, competence, diligence, candor, supervision, and client communication must govern every AI prompt you run. Our Google LLM Notebook hosts translate the theory into practical workflows you can implement today—from document grounding and tokenization to vendor due diligence and line‑by‑line verification—so you can leverage AI confidently without sacrificing ethics, privilege, or your professional license.

You will hear how document grounding changes what LLMs actually do, why uploading active case files to cloud AI tools can quietly trigger Rule 1.6 problems, and how cross‑border data flows, vendor training rights, and retention policies can erode privilege if you do not negotiate them carefully. 🔐 We also unpack practical safeguards like tokenization, internal sandbox testing, and bright‑line “danger zones” where AI must never operate unsupervised—especially on open‑ended research, choice of law, and any task that turns statistical text into real‑world legal risk.

Finally, we confront the economic paradox: when AI can compress 100 hours of document review into seconds, but partners must still verify every line to protect their licenses, what exactly are clients paying for—and how does the billable hour survive? 💼

In our conversation, we cover the following

• 00:00 – Why “96% fewer hallucinations” is still not good enough in law ⚖️

• 01:00 – How the remaining 4% error rate can trigger malpractice, sanctions, and ethics violations

• 02:00 – From IT issue to ethics issue: ABA Model Rules as the real constraint on AI adoption

• 03:00 – Document grounding 101: turning a free‑floating LLM into a reading‑comprehension engine

• 04:00 – The hidden danger of “just upload the file”: how Rule 1.6 confidentiality is instantly implicated

• 05:00 – Cloud AI architecture, cross‑border data transfers, GDPR, and privilege risk 🌐

• 06:00 – Model training nightmares: when your client’s trade secrets leak back out through someone else’s prompt

• 07:00 – Negotiating no‑training clauses and ring‑fencing vendor data use (before you upload anything)

• 08:00 – Tokenization explained: turning John Doe into “Plaintiff 01” without losing legal meaning 🔐

• 09:00 – What AI does well today: grounded summarization, clause extraction, and playbook‑based redlines

• 10:00 – The “danger zone” of tasks: open‑ended research, choice of law, and abstract legal reasoning

• 11:00 – Phantom case law: how LLMs manufacture perfect‑looking but fake citations (and Rule 3.3 candor)

• 12:00 – Sandboxing AI tools internally and measuring real‑world failure rates against known outcomes 🧪

• 13:00 – Building bright‑line firm policies around forbidden AI use cases

• 14:00 – Verification as a workflow, not a suggestion: what Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3 demand from supervisors

• 15:00 – The efficiency paradox: when partner‑level verification erases associate‑level time savings ⏱️

• 16:00 – Making AI verification as routine as a conflict check in your practice

• 17:00 – Falling hallucination rates, rising risk: why better AI can still make lawyers more vulnerable

• 18:00 – Client communication under Rule 1.4: when and why clients may be entitled to know you used AI

• 19:00 – “You can delegate the task, not the liability”: Rule 1.2 and ultimate responsibility for AI‑assisted work

• 20:00 – Treating every AI prompt and ToS as a potential ethics document

• 📝21:00 – The existential question: if AI drafts in seconds, what exactly are clients paying lawyers for?

👉 Tune in now to learn how to stay tech‑forward without becoming the next ethics cautionary tale, and start designing AI policies that actually protect your clients, your firm, and your bar license.

WoW: “Telephobia” in Law Practice: How Fear of Phone Calls Hurts Lawyers, Clients, and Cases 📞⚖️

Fear of phone 📞 calls creates anxiety and impacts legal competence. ⚖️

Telephobia is the fear or intense anxiety associated with making or receiving phone calls, and it shows up more often in law practice than many lawyers admit. 😬📱 Telephobia is not a dislike of the telephone as an object; it is a form of social anxiety centered on real‑time verbal communication, fear of judgment, and the pressure to respond quickly without the safety net of drafting and editing. Lawyers who excel in written advocacy can still feel a spike of anxiety when the phone lights up with a client, partner, or opposing counsel. This reluctance to pick up or dial out is not a character flaw; it is a risk factor that can affect competence, communication, and client service.

What Telephobia Looks Like for Lawyers

Telephobia often appears as avoidance rather than obvious panic. Lawyers may let calls go to voicemail, delay returning calls, or delegate phone calls whenever possible. You might recognize behaviors such as over‑reliance on email, extensively scripting what you plan to say before dialing, or replaying conversations in your head for hours after hanging up. These patterns are common in people with phone anxiety and can exist on a spectrum from mild discomfort to significant impairment.

In legal practice, that avoidance has concrete consequences. Time‑sensitive issues sit in the inbox instead of getting resolved in a five‑minute call. Misunderstandings grow because no one is willing to pick up the phone and clarify. Judges and clients may perceive “radio silence” as a lack of diligence, even when the real issue is anxiety about the call itself. Over time, telephobia can contribute to bottlenecks in case management, strained relationships, and missed opportunities to resolve disputes early.

Telephobia, Opposing Counsel, and Professionalism

Telephone conversations with opposing counsel are still one of the most effective tools for narrowing issues, avoiding motion practice, and reaching practical solutions. Many experienced litigators emphasize the value of “picking up the phone” instead of escalating via email volleys. Yet telephobia can make newer or more anxious lawyers dread direct calls with adversaries, especially those who are aggressive, fast‑talking, or prone to “verballing” (misstating or spinning what was said in the conversation).

Avoiding phone contact with opposing counsel can have several impacts:

• It can prolong discovery disputes that might have been resolved in a short meet‑and‑confer call.

• It can increase the tone and temperature of written communications because nuance and rapport are missing.

• It can reduce opportunities to build professional relationships that later help with scheduling, stipulations, or informal resolutions.

On the other hand, telephobia does not mean a lawyer should accept every unscheduled call or tolerate abusive conversations. Thoughtful boundaries are appropriate. Some practitioners manage risk by taking (or perhaps returning) calls only at set times, ensuring a colleague is nearby, or contemporaneously documenting the substance of the call in a follow‑up email. The key is intentional management, not blanket avoidance.

Telephobia and Client Communication Duties

Avoiding phone calls strains client Relations, and professionalism failure.

Telephobia directly intersects with your ethical duty to communicate with clients. ABA Model Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Modern guidance recognizes that “client communications” include phone calls, emails, and other electronic channels. If anxiety leads to chronic delay in returning calls or to a pattern of pushing every interaction into email when a call would be more effective, the lawyer may be edging toward a communication problem, not just a preference.

Clients often interpret unanswered calls as a sign of indifference. Many clients—especially those under stress—need a live conversation to feel heard and to understand their case strategy. While written follow‑up is essential, a short, empathetic phone call can prevent distrust and complaints. Telephobia can also create inequity: clients who are comfortable with email may get robust contact, while those who rely on the phone feel neglected.

At the same time, ethics authorities acknowledge that lawyers can use multiple communication tools, not just phone calls, as long as communication is prompt, understandable, and appropriate to the client’s needs. For some neurodivergent lawyers or lawyers with genuine anxiety disorders, establishing a communication plan that mixes scheduled calls, video meetings, and structured emails can satisfy both client needs and the lawyer’s mental health needs. Clear expectation‑setting is critical.

Technology Competence and the Phone in a Digital Age

ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8, emphasizes that competence now includes understanding the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Many lawyers hear “technology competence” and think about e‑discovery platforms or cybersecurity, not the humble phone. Yet modern telephony—VoIP, softphones, smartphone apps, call‑recording tools, and integrated practice‑management systems—is very much part of that competence landscape.

For lawyers with telephobia, technology can both help and hinder:

• VoIP and softphone systems can route calls through your laptop, support call notes, and provide voicemail‑to‑email transcripts, which can reduce anxiety about missing key points.

• Scheduled video or audio calls through secure platforms can feel more controlled, especially when combined with a shared agenda.

• Over‑reliance on text‑based channels (email, messaging) because they feel safer can, however, undermine the advantages of real‑time voice communication.

Competence does not require you to love the phone. It does require that you understand the tools available, use them to communicate effectively, and avoid letting anxiety silently undercut your ability to serve clients and manage cases.

Practical Strategies to Manage Telephobia in Practice

Telephobia is manageable, and many of the strategies come from established approaches to phone anxiety. The aim is not to turn every lawyer into an extroverted caller. The aim is to reduce the anxiety enough that telephony becomes a functional, ethical communication tool rather than a source of procrastination.

Practical steps include:

• Use structured call plans. Before a client or opposing‑counsel call, sketch a brief outline: goals, key points, and closing next steps. This reduces the “blank mind” fear and keeps calls efficient.

• Start with low‑stakes calls. Build tolerance by making brief, simple calls (e.g., scheduling, confirmations) rather than jumping straight into high‑conflict negotiations.

• Schedule instead of surprise. Use calendar invites or quick emails: “Can we set a 10‑minute call at 2:30 p.m. to discuss X?” Predictability lowers anxiety for both you and the other side.

• Pair calls with written follow‑up. After important calls, send a confirming email summarizing agreements and action items. This supports clarity, protects the record, and reassures anxious lawyers who worry they misspoke.

• Leverage firm support. For very difficult conversations, consider having a colleague present (on the call or in the room), both for support and as a witness.

• Seek professional help when needed. When anxiety is persistent, intense, or interfering with your practice, consulting a mental health professional familiar with social anxiety or telephobia is a sign of professionalism, not weakness.

These techniques align with ethical duties rather than conflict with them. They help ensure prompt, clear communication (Model Rule 1.4) and support technological and practical competence (Model Rule 1.1) in a digital environment.

Telephobia, Wellness, and Culture in the Profession

Avoiding phone calls lead to miscommunication, delays, and frustration!

Finally, telephobia is also a wellness issue. The legal profession already carries high rates of stress, depression, and anxiety. Telephobia can add another layer of dread to a typical workday, as lawyers watch call notifications with a racing pulse. Open conversation about phone anxiety—especially among younger lawyers and those trained in email‑first environments—can normalize the experience and lead to practical accommodations.v

Mentors and firm leaders can help by modeling balanced behavior. That includes choosing calls when they will truly advance the matter, avoiding unnecessary surprise calls that feel performative, and encouraging associates to prepare for and debrief difficult conversations. Thoughtful phone use, supported by technology and grounded in ethics, can turn telephobia from a hidden liability into a manageable professional challenge.

If you or someone you know is suffering from an imminent mental health crisis, call 988 (in the United States) or 911 or equivalent in the relevant jurisdiction!

🚨 ⛑️ 🚨

If you or someone you know is suffering from an imminent mental health crisis, call 988 (in the United States) or 911 or equivalent in the relevant jurisdiction! 🚨 ⛑️ 🚨

TSL.P EP# 132 (Special Episode): AI, Deepfakes, and Metadata: Guest-Hosting Capital University Law School’s First Law Library Podcast Club with Professor Jennifer Wondracek 🎙️⚖️

🎙️ This week, we have something special for you. Your The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page blogger and podcaster, Michael D.J. Eisenberg, was invited back to his alma mater, Capital University Law School, to guest host their very first Podcast Club — a live, recorded podcast conversation featuring real law students, real questions, and real talk. Moderated alongside Professor Wondracek, this is an unscripted, in-the-moment discussion — not a produced studio episode, not a rehearsed explainer — just an honest, practitioner-led conversation about the issues shaping the legal profession today. 🎓 We think that's exactly what makes it worth your time. 🛡️⚖️

In our conversation, we cover the following:

• [00:00] 🎬 Welcome & Introductions — Professor Raik introduces Michael D.J. Eisenberg; Michael shares his background representing veterans before the VA and his work at The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page, including his Amazon #1 bestselling book The Lawyer's Guide to Podcasting

• [01:00] 🕵️ What Is a Deepfake? — Defining deepfakes and the real-world Bethesda incident where a fabricated video triggered a police raid and wasted critical law enforcement resources

• [02:30] ⚖️ Deepfakes in Legal Practice — The serious professional responsibility consequences when attorneys introduce fake or AI-generated evidence into a trial or negotiation — and why "I didn't know" won't always protect you

• [03:00] 📋 ABA Model Rule 1.1 — Competence & Comment 8 — Why technology competence is an ethical obligation, not optional — and what "competent use of technology" actually means for your daily practice

• [05:00] 📶 Public Wi-Fi & VPN Security — The real dangers of using public Wi-Fi at airports, coffee shops, and on planes without a VPN, especially when accessing client portals, trust accounts, or confidential client communications

• [05:45] 🔐 VPN Recommendations — NordVPN vs. ExpressVPN; why the right VPN matters for protecting your clients and your license

• [07:00] 🔍 How to Detect Deepfakes in Evidence — Reviewing file metadata, spotting visual anomalies, and the Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield case (Cal. Super. Ct. 2025) where Judge Victoria Kolakowski spotted deepfake videos — and imposed terminating sanctions

• [08:30] 📜 ABA Model Rule 3.3 — Candor to the Tribunal — Your duty of honesty to the court and the compounding risks of unknowingly submitting falsified AI-generated evidence

• [09:30] 🧑‍⚖️ ABA Model Rule 8.4 — Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit & Misrepresentation — How these rules can stack with Rule 3.3 to multiply your ethical exposure

• [10:30] 🖼️ Live Demo: Accessing File Metadata — A real-time screen share showing how to right-click and access image properties, including GPS coordinates, camera settings, file timestamps, and modification history — using a photo taken right at Capital University Law School

• [14:00] 🗂️ Metadata Scrubbing — Why some law firms strip metadata from outgoing emails and documents, and why "scrubbed" evidence should raise red flags during discovery

• [17:30] 🛡️ Five Basic Safeguards for Legal Professionals in the AI Era:

• Invest in ongoing education — CLEs, podcasts, blogs

• Know and follow your office's technology protocols

• Be transparent with clients about your use of AI — in your engagement letters and contracts

• Update your engagement letters and retainer agreements now

• Stay alert to the rapidly changing AI landscape — ignoring it is not an option

• [20:00] 💬 Student Q&A — George's question: Does the ethical obligation to review metadata create a resource gap between large firms and solo practitioners? What AI tools can help level the playing field?

• [22:00] ⚠️ United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. 2026) — The landmark federal ruling that AI-generated documents used with consumer AI tools are NOT protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine — and why your choice of AI platform is now an ethics decision

• [23:30] 🔒 Consumer AI vs. Secure Legal AI Platforms — The critical difference between free and low-cost consumer AI accounts and enterprise-grade legal AI tools with zero-data-retention contracts

• [25:30] 📚 LexisNexis Protégé & Secure AI — How LexisNexis's zero-retention, end-to-end encrypted AI platform — including access to ChatGPT and Claude — lets attorneys use AI ethically without jeopardizing client data

• [27:00] 💾 Prompt Discoverability — Why your AI prompts may be subpoenaed in malpractice claims or bar investigations, and why documenting and downloading your AI usage history matters

• [28:30] 📁 Cassia's Question — Documenting AI research and adopting a random sampling strategy for metadata review: practical approaches to demonstrating "reasonable" due diligence

• [30:00] 🗃️ eDiscovery Tools for Metadata at Scale — Relativity, Disco, and how these platforms help even resource-limited firms surface metadata anomalies across large document sets

• [33:00] 📰 Current Awareness Resources — Where to stay current on legal tech: law.com, bar association newsletters, The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page blog and podcast, CLEs, and legal listservs

• [33:30] 🚨 Hallucinated AI Citations & Real Consequences — Mata v. Avianca, Wadsworth v. Walmart (Morgan & Morgan pro hac vice revoked), the Chicago firm dissolution case — and why citation-checking is now a non-negotiable litigation skill

• [37:00] 🎲 Book Giveaway — Rolling the virtual dice; congratulations to the winner of Michael's book, The Lawyer's Guide to Podcasting!

• [38:00] 🗓️ Upcoming Events — Michael joins the Capital Law Spring Summit/Bootcamp in April; dinner with students at The Red Door Tavern

Resources

Connect with Professor Jennifer Wondracek:

• E-Mail: jwondracek@law.capital.edu 

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

📌 Mentioned in the Episode

🏛️ ABA Model Rules

• ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence), Comment 8 (Technology Competence): https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/

• ABA Model Rule 3.3 — Candor to the Tribunal: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/

• ABA Model Rule 8.4 — Misconduct (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, Misrepresentation): https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/

⚖️ Case Law

• Mata v. Avianca, Inc. — The landmark hallucinated AI citation case (S.D.N.Y. 2023): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17271435/mata-v-avianca-inc/

• Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., No. 23CV028772 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty., Sept. 9, 2025) — Deepfake terminating sanctions: https://ediscoverytoday.com/2025/09/25/deepfake-videos-and-images-lead-to-terminating-sanctions-ediscovery-case-law/

• United States v. Heppner, 25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026) — AI documents not protected by privilege: https://www.insideprivacy.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-and-legal-privilege-key-takeaways-from-us-v-heppner/

• Wadsworth v. Walmart — Morgan & Morgan pro hac vice revocation over AI citations: (search Westlaw/Lexis for current citation)

🤔 Other

• 🎓 Capital University Law School — Law Library Podcast Club: https://law-capital.libguides.com/c.php?g=1168974&p=11364939

• 📰 Law.com — Legal news and current awareness: https://www.law.com

• 🏛️ Ohio State Bar Association — Ethics Hotline: https://www.ohiobar.org

💻 Hardware Mentioned in the Conversation

• 📱 Google Pixel 3 (used to demonstrate photo metadata and GPS geotagging in the live demo): https://store.google.com/us/category/phones

☁️ Software & Cloud Services Mentioned in the Conversation

• 🤖 ChatGPT (OpenAI) — Consumer & Teams AI platforms: https://openai.com/chatgpt

• 🤖 ChatGPT Teams — Enhanced security tier: https://openai.com/chatgpt/team

• 🤖 Claude (Anthropic) — AI assistant: https://claude.ai

• 📊 CNET — VPN rankings: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/best-vpn/

• 🗃️ CS Disco — AI-powered eDiscovery platform: https://www.csdisco.com

• 🔐 ExpressVPN — VPN service (#1 on CNET): https://www.expressvpn.com

• ⚖️ LexisNexis Protégé — Legal AI platform with zero-retention, encrypted access to ChatGPT and Claude: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/lexis-plus-ai.page 

• 🖥️ macOS Get Info & File Tags — Native macOS metadata tool: https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help 

• 🖥️ Microsoft Windows File Properties (right-click → Properties → Details) — Native OS metadata viewer: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows

• 🔐 NordVPN — VPN service (#1 on Tom's Guide): https://nordvpn.com

• 🤖 Perplexity AI — AI research assistant: https://www.perplexity.ai

• 🗃️ Relativity — eDiscovery platform with metadata analysis: https://www.relativity.com

• 📊 Tom's Guide — VPN rankings: https://www.tomsguide.com/best-picks/best-vpn

• ⚖️ Westlaw — Legal AI research vault: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw

MTC: Even Though AI Hallucinations Are Down: Lawyers STILL MUST Verify AI, Guard PII, and Follow ABA Ethics Rules ⚖️🤖

A Tech-Savvy Lawyer MUST REVIEW AI-Generated Legal Documents

AI hallucinations are reportedly down across many domains. Still, previous podcast guest Dorna Moini is right to warn that legal remains the unnerving exception—and that is where our professional duties truly begin, not end. Her article, “AI hallucinations are down 96%. Legal is the exception,” helpfully shifts the conversation from “AI is bad at law” to “lawyers must change how they use AI,” yet from the perspective of ethics and risk management, we need to push her three recommendations much further. This is not only a product‑design problem; it is a competence, confidentiality, and candor problem under the ABA Model Rules. ⚖️🤖

Her first point—“give AI your actual documents”—is directionally sound. When we anchor AI in contracts, playbooks, and internal standards, we move from free‑floating prediction to something closer to reading comprehension, and hallucinations usually fall. That is a genuine improvement, and Moini is right to emphasize it. But as soon as we start uploading real matter files, we are squarely inside Model Rule 1.6 territory: confidential information, privileged communications, trade secrets, and dense pockets of personally identifiable information. The article treats document‑grounding primarily as an accuracy-and-reliability upgrade, but lawyers and the legal profession must insist that it is first and foremost a data‑governance decision.

Before a single contract is uploaded, a lawyer must know where that data is stored, who can access it, how long it is retained, whether it is used to train shared models, and whether any cross‑border transfers could complicate privilege or regulatory compliance. That analysis should involve not just IT, but also risk management and, in many cases, outside vendors. “Give AI your actual documents” is safe only if your chosen platform offers strict access controls, clear no‑training guarantees, encryption in transit and at rest, and, ideally, firm‑controlled or on‑premise storage. Otherwise, you may be trading a marginal reduction in hallucinations for a major confidentiality incident or regulatory investigation. In other words, feeding AI your documents can be a smart move, but only after you read the terms, negotiate the data protection, and strip or tokenize unnecessary PII. 🔐

LawyerS NEED TO MONITOR AI Data Security and PII Compliance POLICIES OF THE AI PLATFORMS THEY USE IN THEIR LEGAL WORK.

Moini’s second point—“know which tasks your tool handles reliably”—is also excellent as far as it goes. Document‑grounded summarization, clause extraction, and playbook‑based redlines are indeed safer than open‑ended legal research, and she correctly notes that open‑ended research still demands heavy human verification. Reliability, however, cannot be left to vendor assurances, product marketing, or a single eye‑opening demo. For purposes of Model Rule 1.1 (competence) and 1.3 (diligence), the relevant question is not “Does this tool look impressive?” but “Have we independently tested it, in our own environment, on tasks that reflect our real matters?”

A counterpoint is that reliability has to be measured, not assumed. Firms should sandbox these tools on closed matters, compare AI outputs with known correct answers, and have experienced lawyers systematically review where the system fails. Certain categories of work—final cites in court filings, complex choice‑of‑law questions, nuanced procedural traps—should remain categorically off‑limits to unsupervised AI, because a hallucinated case there is not just an internal mistake; it can rise to misrepresentation to the court under Model Rule 3.3. Knowing what your tool does well is only half of the equation; you must also draw bright, documented lines around what it may never do without human review. 🧪

Her third point—“build verification into the workflow”—is where the article most clearly aligns with emerging ethics guidance from courts and bars, and it deserves strong validation. Judges are already sanctioning lawyers who submit AI‑fabricated authorities, and bar regulators are openly signaling that “the AI did it” will not excuse a lack of diligence. Verification, though, cannot remain an informal suggestion reserved for conscientious partners. It has to become a systematic, auditable process that satisfies the supervisory expectations in Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3.

That means written policies, checklists, training sessions, and oversight. Associates and staff should receive simple, non‑negotiable rules:

✅ Every citation generated with AI must be independently confirmed in a trusted legal research system;

✅ Every quoted passage must be checked against the original source; 

✅ Every factual assertion must be tied back to the record.

Supervising attorneys must periodically spot‑check AI‑assisted work for compliance with those rules. Moini is right that verification matters; the editorial extension is that verification must be embedded into the culture and procedures of the firm. It should be as routine as a conflict check.

Stepping back from her three‑point framework, the broader thesis—that legal hallucinations can be tamed by better tooling and smarter usage—is persuasive, but incomplete. Even as hallucination rates fall, our exposure is rising because more lawyers are quietly experimenting with AI on live matters. Model Rule 1.4 on communication reminds us that, in some contexts, clients may be entitled to know when significant aspects of their work product are generated or heavily assisted by AI, especially when it impacts cost, speed, or risk. Model Rule 1.2 on scope of representation looms in the background as we redesign workflows: shifting routine drafting to machines does not narrow the lawyer’s ultimate responsibility for the outcome.

Attorney must verify ai-generated Case Law

For practitioners with limited to moderate technology skills, the practical takeaway should be both empowering and sobering. Moini’s article offers a pragmatic starting structure—ground AI in your documents, match tasks to tools, and verify diligently. But you must layer ABA‑informed safeguards on top: treat every AI term of service as a potential ethics document; never drop client names, medical histories, addresses, Social Security numbers, or other PII into systems whose data‑handling you do not fully understand; and assume that regulators may someday scrutinize how your firm uses AI. Every AI‑assisted output must be reviewed line by line.

Legal AI is no longer optional, yet ethics and PII protection are not. The right stance is both appreciative and skeptical: appreciative of Moini’s clear, practitioner‑friendly guidance, and skeptical enough to insist that we overlay her three points with robust, documented safeguards rooted in the ABA Model Rules. Use AI, ground it in your documents, and choose tasks wisely—but do so as a lawyer first and a technologist second. Above all, review your work, stay relentlessly wary of the terms that govern your tools, and treat PII and client confidences as if a bar investigator were reading over your shoulder. In this era, one might be. ⚖️🤖🔐

MTC