🚨 BOLO: Apple's Emergency Mac Patch Closes a Screen Sharing Backdoor — Lawyers Update Now!

your apple computer may need an update right now!

Here's a security bug that has nothing to do with your caseload and everything to do with your law license. On August 6, 2026, Apple pushed an unusual, single-purpose emergency patch after security researchers discovered that Screen Sharing on the Mac could be tricked into granting full desktop access without a valid password. If you use a Mac to store client files, draft privileged communications, or manage your practice, this is a “Be On the Look Out” moment, and I mean that literally.

What Actually Happened

update your mac and windows os today and keep an eye out for new updates - they are more frequent than you think!!!

Apple's advisory describes the flaw in characteristically understated terms: "An attacker on the network may be able to authenticate to Screen Sharing without valid credentials". Translated out of engineer-speak, a bug in how macOS tracked login attempts meant the system could be fooled into treating an unauthenticated session as verified. Security firm Huntress went further, explaining that the bug exploited the Screen Sharing service's implementation of Secure Remote Password, which "ultimately allows pre-authenticated remote code execution on all supported macOS versions". In plain English: someone on your network, whether that's your building's shared Wi-Fi, a co-working space router, or a compromised office LAN, could potentially run code on your Mac without ever knowing your password. That's not a nuisance bug. That's the kind of hole that keeps ethics counsel up at night.

The flaw has an official tracking number, CVE-2026-65400, which is just a standardized ID security researchers use to reference a specific vulnerability across advisories and news coverage — think of it like a case citation for bugs 📋. It reaches across three generations of macOS: Tahoe, Sequoia, and Sonoma. Apple fixed it with macOS Tahoe 26.6.1, macOS Sequoia 15.7.9, and macOS Sonoma 14.8.9 all released the same day, an unusual move that signals Apple treated this as serious enough to skip its normal beta-testing cycle.

Why This Matters for Your Practice

your ethical duty of technological competence doesn't pause because a vulnerability sounds technical!

I've said it before on here and on the podcast, and I'll say it again: your ethical duty of technological competence doesn't pause because a vulnerability sounds technical. ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8, requires lawyers to "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology" 📚. A screen-sharing bypass that hands an attacker the same control as someone physically at your keyboard is exactly the kind of risk that comment contemplates.

Model Rule 1.6 compounds the stakes. If Screen Sharing was enabled on a Mac holding client files, an attacker exploiting this flaw before the patch could have accessed privileged communications, case strategy, or financial data without leaving an obvious trace 🔐. That's a confidentiality problem regardless of whether you can prove exploitation occurred. And if you're a firm supervising associates or staff under Rule 5.1 or 5.3, this is also a moment to confirm every managed device across your practice, not just your own laptop, has been patched.

The silver lining: Apple has stated there's no evidence this bug was exploited in the wild before the fix shipped, and Screen Sharing is off by default on most Macs. But "off by default" isn't the same as "off on your machine," especially if you or an IT vendor ever turned it on for remote support.

How to Check and Patch Your Mac

This is a five-minute task, and it should not wait until end of day. ⏱️

1. Click the Apple menu → System Settings

2. Select General → Software Update

3. Install whichever applies: macOS Tahoe 26.6.1, Sequoia 15.7.9, or Sonoma 14.8.9

If your firm manages devices through IT and you can't update immediately, disable the feature entirely: Apple menu → System Settings → General → Sharing, then toggle Screen Sharing off. Note that Huntress specifically warns this is a pre-authentication bug, so the usual hardening tricks (removing user accounts, disabling legacy VNC passwords) won't protect you; only the patch or fully disabling the feature will.

The Bigger Pattern Worth Watching

A good rule of thumb is to keep your software os and programs up to date!

This isn't the first time Apple has issued an emergency patch outside its normal cadence, and it won't be the last. Solo and small firms need a patching routine, not just reactive fixes.

The takeaway is simple, even if the underlying vulnerability wasn’t: Almost always, keep your software up to date!  Update your Mac today, verify Screen Sharing's status even if you don't think you use it, and treat this as a reminder that competence under Rule 1.1 is an ongoing obligation, not a box you check once. 🛡️

Follow The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page for updates and alerts!

MTC: Washington’s Bar Exam Meltdown: What It Says About Cyber Risk, Competence, and the Future of Legal Tech ⚖️💻

Washington Bar Exam Cybersecurity Crisis Exposes Legal Technology Risks!

Washington’s last‑minute cancellation of this summer’s bar exam is not just a licensing story; it is a technology and ethics story that should make every practicing lawyer sit up straight. For solo and small‑firm practitioners, this is a case study in how fragile our exam, court, and law‑practice infrastructure has become in the face of sophisticated cyber threats—and how quickly that fragility can collide with our professional duties under the ABA Model Rules.

What Happened in Washington—and Why It Matters

The Washington bar abruptly pulled the plug on its planned exam administration, citing serious concerns about system integrity and the security of the underlying technology. Although details are still emerging, the through‑line is clear: the systems that deliver and proctor high‑stakes exams are now attractive targets for attackers and highly sensitive to infrastructure failures.

Think about the impact on examinees. Months of preparation, financial investment, travel, and childcare planning vanished with a late‑stage cancellation notice. But this is not only about logistics. This is about trust: Trust in the profession’s gatekeeping machinery and in the digital rails we have built for critical legal functions. When that trust erodes, the ripple hits everything from admissions to public confidence in our systems.

For working lawyers, this is a preview of what can happen when core legal processes—hearings, filings, exams, CLEs—depend on infrastructure that may be compromised or simply not resilient enough to withstand modern threats.

From Hotel Wi‑Fi to Bar Exams: The Captive Portal Threat 🚨

If the Washington story feels abstract, pair it with Microsoft’s recent warning about hotel and hospitality Wi‑Fi. Microsoft has identified a campaign, dubbed “CaptiveCrunch,” attributed to Russian‑linked threat actors (Storm‑2945), that hijacks captive portals—the login or “click to accept” pages we all use in hotels and conference centers—to steal credentials and deliver malware.

These attacks work by compromising the network infrastructure that sits between the user and the open internet. When a lawyer or bar examinee connects to the hotel Wi‑Fi and sees what looks like a routine sign‑in or software update prompt, that page may in fact be controlled by a threat actor. Microsoft reports that the attackers can:

• Redirect users to fake Microsoft 365 sign‑in pages and harvest credentials without sending a phishing email.

• Abuse device‑code authentication flows, so even multi‑factor authentication can be sidestepped if the victim enters a code and approves the request.

• Deliver a Windows remote access trojan (“CornFlake”) that can log keystrokes, grab files, record audio and video, and maintain persistent access.

Now layer this onto the bar exam setting. You have hundreds of exam takers in hotels and rented housing, many running locked‑down exam software on laptops that still need network access for downloads, updates, or cloud syncing before or after the exam. If the exam provider’s systems or the candidates’ devices ride on compromised networks, you have a recipe for:

• Actual or suspected compromise of exam content

• Loss or alteration of answer files

• Exposure of highly sensitive personal and biometric data

The bar’s decision to cancel may well reflect a recognition that once you have a credible cyber risk in the mix, it is better to protect exam integrity—even at enormous logistical and human cost—than to run an exam whose validity may later be attacked.  My heart goes out to the affected examinees, who have been left adrift in a difficult professional limbo—unable to move to the next stage of their careers and required to devote still more time, money, and emotional energy to preparing for another exam, with the hope that it will not be disrupted by malicious actors.

Ethics Meets Cyber Reality: ABA Model Rules in Play 📜

CaptiveCrunch Hotel Wi-Fi Attacks Threaten Lawyers’ Digital Security

This is where your daily practice intersects directly with the bar’s meltdown.

Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) explicitly includes a duty to understand “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Cyber threats like CaptiveCrunch are now squarely within “relevant technology.” If you travel for hearings, depositions, client meetings, or bar events and routinely connect to hotel Wi‑Fi without safeguards, you are not just taking a personal risk; you may be jeopardizing client confidences, privileged communications, and case strategy.

Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access to client information. Using untrusted hotel or conference Wi‑Fi without protections—especially when we now have concrete warnings from Microsoft—raises tough questions about whether your security posture is still “reasonable.”

Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) and Rule 5.1 (Supervisory Lawyers) also surface here. When your cloud vendors, exam providers, or outsourced IT teams operate systems on which your work depends, your duty is not satisfied by “we assumed they had it handled.” You must perform due diligence, ask questions about security practices, and be prepared to adjust your workflows when a vendor’s risk profile changes.

The Bar Exam as a Canary in the Cyber Coal Mine 🐤

The Washington bar exam cancellation looks like a one‑off crisis, but it is better seen as a canary in the coal mine for the entire legal ecosystem.

We increasingly rely on:

• Online proctoring systems for bar exams, law school tests, and certifications

• Remote hearing platforms and e‑filing systems for courts

• Cloud‑based case management, timekeeping, and trust accounting tools

Each of these systems sits on infrastructure that can be compromised at the network, platform, or endpoint level. The CaptiveCrunch campaign shows that attackers are willing to invest in compromising hospitality networks globally, in part because those networks handle high‑value corporate and professional traffic.

If attackers can hijack captive portals to intercept Microsoft 365 logins and deliver Remote Access Trojans (RATs) like CornFlake, they can also target:

• Judicial staff connecting from hotels during conferences

• Law firm partners working on the road

• In‑house counsel traveling to negotiation sessions

Once a single endpoint is compromised, attackers can move laterally into cloud resources, email archives, document management systems, and case data.

In other words, the Washington bar’s crisis is the profession’s crisis—just seen in extreme close‑up.

Practical Security Takeaways for Solo and Small‑Firm Lawyers 🛡️

So what do you do differently now?

Microsoft’s recommendations for travelers are a good starting point: assume guest networks are untrusted, favor mobile hotspots or secured private connections, and avoid performing updates or entering credentials through captive portals. Let’s translate that into concrete steps for law practice:

Travel Playbook

• Prefer your phone’s hotspot or a dedicated travel router with a trusted VPN when accessing email, case management, or client files on the road.

• If you have no choice but to use hotel or other public Wi‑Fi, connect only through a reputable VPN and treat the captive portal as a necessary but dangerous doorway.

• Complete only the minimum captive‑portal steps needed to get online, and then avoid entering passwords, approving authentication prompts, or installing updates until your VPN is active and you are past the captive‑portal page.

Authentication Hygiene

• Move to phishing‑resistant authentication where possible (hardware security keys, platform authenticators) and restrict device‑code flows unless truly needed

• Train your team to treat unexpected device‑code prompts or update pages during hotel logins as red flags, not background noise.

Vendor and Exam Provider Scrutiny

• Ask pointed questions about incident response, logging, and how they handle suspected network compromise.

• Build contingency plans—if an exam, hearing, or critical system fails or is compromised, what is your fallback?  (Perhaps a cheap backup laptop? Apple has a pretty good return policy - check provider details for timeliness and other requirements.)

Final Thoughts: Looking Ahead - Resilience, Not Just Compliance ✅

Cybersecurity Competence Is Now Essential for Modern Legal Practice!

The Washington bar’s decision to cancel its exam sends a hard message: compliance checklists and bare‑minimum security are no longer enough. We need resilience—systems and workflows designed to fail gracefully, with clear fallback paths that do not compromise integrity or fairness.

For bar authorities and courts, that means:

• Building redundancy into exam and hearing platforms

• Running adversarial security testing and tabletop exercises

• Communicating transparently with stakeholders about how cyber risk is identified and mitigated

For practicing lawyers, it means re‑framing technology as part of our core competence, not a bolt‑on afterthought. Model Rule 1.1’s commentary on technology is not aspirational; it is a reflection of the reality that our ethical duties now live at the intersection of law and information security.

The bar exam meltdown in Washington is a wake‑up call. Pair it with Microsoft’s warning on hotel Wi‑Fi, and the message is unmistakable: our digital rails are under live fire. The question is whether we treat this as yet another “unprecedented” event—or as the moment we upgrade our tools, our habits, and our ethics posture to meet the threat.

MTC

MTC: Judges Will Be Hunting These AI Tricks After Brazil’s Scandal

it is hard to believe that judges will be happy if lawyer insert “code” into their online filings!

Recently, Brazilian court officials uncovered something that should make every tech‑savvy lawyer sit up straight. In a labor court, staff discovered a filing that looked ordinary to the human eye—until they examined it more closely. Hidden in the document was text written in white font on a white background, invisible to anyone casually reading the PDF but fully legible to the court’s AI system.

That invisible text was not a typo. It was an instruction—what technologists call a “prompt injection”—telling the court’s AI software to review the case only superficially and not to challenge the evidence submitted. In other words, the filing was designed to trick the judiciary’s own AI tools into rubber‑stamping a favorable outcome by smuggling in commands that humans would never see.

Fortunately, court staff caught the scheme before it affected the proceedings. But Brazilian authorities immediately recognized the incident as a new species of digital fraud and began discussing safeguards: automatic detection of invisible text, formatting checks before AI processing, and stronger human oversight at every stage. They also raised the prospect of stricter ethics rules and sanctions for lawyers who try to manipulate court AI systems.

For our purposes, the Brazil case does three important things:

1. It confirms that AI now sits inside judicial workflows—not just law firm workflows.

2. It shows that some lawyers will try to game those systems if they think they can get away with it.

3. It gives us a concrete example of what not to do and what to watch for as courts in the U.S. and elsewhere adopt similar tools.

From an ABA perspective, a “white‑text prompt injection” is not clever lawyering—it’s a direct collision with Model Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) and Model Rule 8.4(c)’s prohibition on conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. And because the Brazil incident exploits the very AI tools that the judiciary is using, it also implicates Model Rule 1.1 and Comment 8: the duty of technology competence now includes understanding how these systems can be abused.

So let’s unpack what we should learn from Brazil—starting with what not to do.

What Not To Do: Hidden Instructions and “Clever” Hacks

The Brazil case is a textbook on the wrong way to think about AI in litigation.

• Do not embed hidden commands in filings (through white‑on‑white text, metadata, or other tricks) with the intent to influence how a court’s AI tools process your case.

• Do not treat court‑side AI as just another system to be “SEO‑optimized” or hacked. Unlike a marketing algorithm, this is part of the machinery of justice; trying to tilt it in your favor crosses a bright ethical line.

• Do not assume that “if the judge doesn’t see it, it doesn’t count.” Malicious prompts aimed at judicial AI are still part of your submission to the tribunal, and they reflect directly on your candor and honesty under Model Rules 3.3 and 8.4.

In short: if you would never say it to the judge in plain black‑and‑white text, you should not whisper it to the court’s AI in invisible text.

What To Watch For: How to Recognize This Behavior

lawyers need to be prepared to vet opposing counsel’s filings for ai injection!

The harder question is how you, as a solo or small‑firm lawyer, can spot similar tactics when others use them—especially when you don’t control the court’s systems.

Here are practical signals and questions:

• Suspicious formatting in PDFs or Word files. Odd spacing, unexpected blank pages, or inconsistent fonts can sometimes signal hidden layers of text. While you won’t always spot white‑on‑white content, unusual formatting should prompt closer inspection.

• Metadata anomalies. If you routinely examine document properties, look for multiple authors, unusual editing histories, or automation tags that do not match the face of the document. These can indicate heavy automated processing or embedded instructions.

• Patterns in AI‑mediated decisions. If certain filings—often from the same party—seem to sail through automated queues or receive unusually favorable, boilerplate orders, you may be seeing the downstream effect of prompt manipulation or aggressive “AI‑targeted” drafting.

Because you usually won’t have direct access to the court’s internal AI, you may need to raise these concerns procedurally: requesting clarification on how filings are screened, asking whether AI systems were involved in certain steps, or moving for relief if you believe your client’s matter was prejudiced by automated processing.

How To Protect Yourself and Your Clients:

Brazil’s experience is a warning shot—not just about bad actors, but about what a healthy response should look like.

Here’s how to translate that into a practical “do this, not that” playbook for your own practice:

1. Assume courts will adopt AI—and plan for it:

Brazil’s judiciary uses AI to prioritize cases, draft reports, and propose decisions in response to massive backlogs. U.S. courts are already experimenting with similar tools, even if not as publicly. Competence under Model Rule 1.1 now includes staying informed about these trends and understanding their implications.

2.     Build “AI integrity” into your litigation strategy.

• Treat any automated system that touches your filings—court e‑filing portals, online forms, AI‑assisted triage tools—as part of the tribunal.

• Resolve that you will never include hidden instructions, misleading metadata, or manipulative formatting in documents submitted to those systems.

3.     Advocate for transparent safeguards.

• In Brazil, authorities responded by exploring automatic detection of invisible text and stronger human oversight.

• When U.S. courts announce AI pilots or tools, comment on proposed rules, advocate for clear notice when AI is used, and request mechanisms for lawyers to challenge AI‑influenced outcomes.

4.     Document your own good‑faith use of AI.

it may be deemed a “fruad upon the court” if a lawyer injects ai into their electronic filings.

• If you rely on AI to format or generate parts of your filings, keep internal records of prompts, outputs, and human review.

• This documentation will help if a court or disciplinary body later asks how you ensured candor and accuracy, especially in a world where Brazil‑style abuses are making judges more skeptical.

Final Thoughts

AI isn’t just something we use; it’s now part of the institutional environment—just like e‑filing, CM/ECF, or digital signatures. The line between legitimate technology use and unethical manipulation is not about whether you use AI, but how you use it and whether you’re honest about it.

MTC

🚨BOLO! Fake Apple App Steals Mac Password Vaults: What Lawyers Must Do Now 🔐⚠️

If you use a Mac in your law practice, this is a “stop and read” moment.

Fake Apple App Threatens Lawyers’ Mac Password Security

A newly identified piece of malware—disguised as a legitimate Apple application—has the ability to trick users into surrendering access to their macOS password vault. That means saved credentials, system access, and potentially client data are all in play. For lawyers, the implications go well beyond inconvenience. This is an ethics issue. 🚨

According to Malwarebytes’ recent threat intelligence report, attackers are distributing a fake Apple app that convincingly mimics legitimate system prompts. Once installed, it requests elevated permissions and can capture macOS Keychain credentials—the same vault many attorneys rely on to store passwords and secure notes.

That should immediately raise a red flag for anyone responsible for client confidentiality.

Why This Matters for Lawyers

Many attorneys assume macOS provides a higher baseline of security. That assumption is not entirely wrong, but it is incomplete. Threat actors are increasingly targeting Mac users because of that very complacency.

If your Keychain is compromised, an attacker may gain access to:

• Email accounts containing privileged communications 📧

• Cloud storage platforms holding client files ☁️

• Practice management systems

• Financial accounts and trust systems 💼

This is not just a cybersecurity issue—it is a professional responsibility issue under multiple ABA Model Rules.

The Ethics Layer You Cannot Ignore

Let’s connect the dots to your obligations.

Mac Malware Mimics Apple Prompts to Steal Keychain Credentials

ABA Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) requires attorneys to make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access to client information. Falling for a well-crafted phishing or malware attack does not automatically mean a violation—but failing to implement reasonable safeguards might.

ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) now explicitly includes technological competence. Comment 8 makes clear that lawyers must understand the “benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

If you are not aware that fake system prompts exist—or that macOS Keychain can be targeted—you are already behind the curve.

ABA Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) also comes into play if your staff installs software or clicks prompts without proper training.

This is why I often emphasize in both my blog and podcast that cybersecurity is no longer optional—it is foundational.

How the Attack Works 🧠

The attack is deceptively simple:

• A user downloads what appears to be a legitimate Apple-related application.

• The app triggers a system-like prompt requesting credentials.

• The interface closely mimics macOS authentication dialogs.

• The user enters their password, believing it is a routine request.

• The attacker captures the credentials and may escalate access.

This is classic social engineering layered with technical sophistication.

And here is the uncomfortable truth: even experienced professionals can be fooled when the interface looks authentic.

Warning Signs You Should Not Ignore

While these attacks are convincing, they are not perfect. Look for:

• Unexpected prompts asking for your Mac password 🔑

• Requests tied to apps you do not recall installing

• Slightly off branding, spacing, or wording

• Prompts appearing outside normal workflows

When in doubt, stop. Do not enter credentials.

Instead, open System Settings directly and verify whether any legitimate action requires authentication.

💡 TIP:  Download Apps directly from the Apple App Store.  These applications are vetted by Apple and are less likely to be malware!

Practical Safeguards for Your Practice 🛡️

You do not need to become a cybersecurity expert. But you do need a defensible baseline.

Start here:

• Use a dedicated password manager instead of relying solely on Keychain.

• Enable multi-factor authentication (MFA) across all critical systems.

• Limit administrative privileges on your Mac.

• Install reputable endpoint protection software.

• Keep macOS and all applications updated.

• Train your staff to recognize suspicious prompts.

Incident Response: What If You Already Clicked?

• If you suspect you interacted with a fake app:

• Disconnect from the internet immediately 🌐

• Change all critical passwords from a separate, clean device

• Run a full malware scan

• Contact a cybersecurity professional

• Assess whether client data may have been exposed

At that point, your ethical obligations may shift toward disclosure.

Under ABA Model Rule 1.4 (Communication), you may need to inform affected clients if their data was compromised. Timing and scope matter, so consult ethics counsel where appropriate.

Lawyers Must Strengthen Mac Cybersecurity and Client Data Protection

The Bigger Picture

This is not just about one fake app.

It is about a shift in the threat landscape. Attackers are no longer relying on obvious scams. They are leveraging trust—your trust in Apple, your trust in familiar interfaces, your trust in your own habits.

That is why vigilance must become part of your daily workflow.

As I have discussed before, technology amplifies both efficiency and exposure. The same tools that make your practice more productive also expand your attack surface.

Final Thought

You do not need to panic. But you do need to pay attention.

The lawyers who thrive in this environment are not the most technical—they are the most aware.

Stay alert. Stay updated. And treat every unexpected prompt like it matters—because it might. 🔍

MTC: ChatGPT, Work Product, and Waiver: New Lessons from Tate Group Automotive ⚖️🤖

Tech‑savvy lawyerS need to be able to defend ChatGPT work product before Texas Business Court.

On June 3, 2026, the Business Court of Texas issued a minute entry in Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC that every tech‑curious lawyer should know about. As of today, this is one of the first reported decisions to tackle whether a non‑lawyer’s ChatGPT conversations are protected attorney work product and, if so, whether using a public AI tool waives that protection.

The court’s answer is nuanced but important: generative AI does not automatically destroy work‑product protection, at least where the disclosure is not made to an adversary under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5(a)(1). For solos and small firms experimenting with AI tools, this is both reassuring and sobering.

What Happened in Tate Group Automotive?

The case arises from a dispute in the Texas Business Court’s Eleventh Division, in which Tate Group Automotive sued Legacy Automotive Capital, The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, and individual defendants. During discovery, the plaintiff withheld “Kris Tate–ChatGPT conversations” on the basis of attorney work‑product protection and submitted them to the court for in camera review.

Defendants challenged that claim. They argued that attorney work‑product protection does not extend to a non‑lawyer’s chats with an AI tool, or alternatively, that any protection was waived when Kris Tate used ChatGPT. They also asked the court to order the plaintiff to identify all discovery materials Mr. Tate or Tate Group had shared with ChatGPT.

Judge Grant Dorfman acknowledged that the issue was “novel,” noting that all case law cited by the parties dated from 2026 and that at least one opinion called the question “a first impression nationwide.” Against that backdrop, he evaluated the ChatGPT conversations under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5(a)(1), which defines work product and addresses waiver.

The key takeaway from the minute entry—based on the Minerva summary—is that the court concluded a non‑lawyer’s chats with ChatGPT did not automatically waive work‑product protection because the disclosure was not made to an adversary. That is a narrow holding, but it marks a significant moment in the emerging law of AI and privilege.

Why This Ruling Matters for Lawyers Using AI

At first glance, Tate Group may look like a niche discovery dispute. In reality, it answers a question many lawyers have quietly asked: “If my client uses ChatGPT, have we blown work product?”

The court’s answer is “not necessarily.” By focusing on whether the disclosure was made to an adversary, Judge Dorfman signaled that the waiver analysis for AI platforms should track the familiar contours of work‑product doctrine, at least in Texas. That gives practitioners a framework instead of a panic button.

At the same time, this is a minute entry in a specific context—not a blanket blessing for all AI use. The court still treated the issue as novel, still conducted in camera review, and still scrutinized how the AI tool was used. For lawyers, that means AI usage is now part of the discovery and privilege landscape, and courts will expect thoughtful, documented positions—not hand‑waving about “just using a tool.”

From an ABA perspective, this aligns with Model Rule 1.1 and Comment 8: competence now includes understanding the “benefits and risks associated with relevant technology,” including how generative AI intersects with privilege and work product. Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) and Rules 5.1/5.3 (supervision of lawyers and non‑lawyers) also come into play when clients or staff use tools like ChatGPT in ways that touch litigation strategy.

Lesson 1: Treat Client AI Use as Discoverable Reality, Not a Side Note

One of the most striking aspects of Tate Group is procedural: the court required in camera review of the ChatGPT conversations and entertained requests that plaintiff identify all discovery materials shared with ChatGPT. That tells us courts are prepared to treat AI interactions as real, reviewable artifacts in discovery.

If your clients or internal teams use AI to draft, summarize, or analyze case materials, those interactions can become part of the discovery conversation, just as drafts, notes, and emails have always been. Under Model Rules 1.1 and 1.6, you cannot stay competent or protect confidentiality if you do not know whether and how AI is being used on your matters.

Practically, that means:

• Ask clients early whether they have used tools like ChatGPT or other AI services to “get help” on their case.

• Document the scope and purpose of any AI use, especially if it involves draft pleadings, strategy, or privileged communications.

• Be prepared to defend or adjust your privilege and work‑product positions in light of those uses, as plaintiff did in Tate Group by asserting work‑product and submitting chats for in camera review.

Lesson 2: Public AI Platforms Are Not Automatic Waiver Machines

Solo attorneys need to protect their privileged work product from risky AI tools.

Defendants in Tate Group argued that a non‑lawyer’s chats with an AI tool either are not work product at all or, at minimum, effect a waiver. The court rejected the idea that simply using ChatGPT automatically destroys protection under Texas Rule 192.5(a)(1) when there is no disclosure to an adversary.

That matters, because there has been a real fear—sometimes stoked by vendors—that “if anyone touches ChatGPT, all privilege is gone.” This ruling shows courts can adopt a more nuanced view, at least under a work‑product framework.

For ABA‑Model‑Rules lawyers, this should not be read as a free pass. Model Rule 1.6 still requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information, and using a public AI platform can create confidentiality risk even if work product is technically preserved. But Tate Group suggests that waiver analysis will still look to core principles like whether disclosure reached an adversary.

In practice:

• You should not assume that any AI use destroys work product, but you should be ready to explain why your use did not involve disclosure to an adversary or the public.

• Engagement letters and internal policies should clarify whether and how you will use AI tools and what safeguards you apply, consistent with Model Rules 1.1, 1.4, and 1.6.

Lesson 3: In Camera Review Will Become Common for AI Disputes

The court’s process—ordering in camera review of the ChatGPT conversations before ruling—signals a likely pattern for AI‑related privilege disputes. Judges will want to see how AI was used, not just hear generalities, before deciding whether protection applies or has been waived.

That has three implications for practicing lawyers:

• You should assume that AI‑related materials can be reviewed by courts under appropriate safeguards.

• You need internal workflows to collect and present those materials when necessary without scrambling through chat histories.

• You should approach AI use with the expectation that a judge, someday, may read the raw prompts and outputs and ask whether your supervision met the standards of Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3.

This is a shift from treating AI as a “black box” helper to treating it as a discoverable component of your litigation process.

Lesson 4: Non‑Lawyers and AI Need Clear Supervision

In Tate Group, the conversations at issue were between Kris Tate—a non‑lawyer—and ChatGPT, yet they were withheld under an attorney work‑product theory. The court’s willingness to consider work‑product protection in that context underscores a point many of us have made: non‑lawyers can participate in the creation of protected material if they are acting at the direction of counsel.

But it also heightens the importance of supervision. Model Rule 5.3 requires lawyers to ensure that non‑lawyer assistants’ conduct is compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations. When non‑lawyers use AI tools on client matters, they are effectively acting as an extension of the legal team.

Practical steps include:

• Training non‑lawyers on what they may and may not share with AI platforms.

• Setting clear rules about which tools are approved, for what purposes, and under whose supervision.

• Reviewing AI outputs and underlying prompts when they feed into litigation strategy, to ensure accuracy and compliance with Model Rules 3.3 and 4.1.

As we have discussed in episodes of The Tech‑Savvy Lawyer podcast, AI is not just a “lawyer tool”; it is often a staff and client tool. Your ethical obligations follow it wherever it goes. 💼🤖

Lesson 5: This Is Only the Beginning—But You Can Prepare

Texas judges along with others will be weighing ChatGPT privilege and waiver in generative AI era.

Judge Dorfman noted that all the case law cited by the parties dated from 2026 and that one authority called its ruling a “question of first impression nationwide.” That means we are at the very start of AI‑and‑privilege jurisprudence, not the end.

Every new decision—whether from Texas Business Courts or elsewhere—will refine the analysis. Some may take a stricter view of waiver for public AI tools; others may distinguish between work product and attorney‑client privilege. Regardless, Model Rule 1.1’s technology‑competence requirement demands that we follow these developments and integrate them into our practice.

You do not need to become an AI engineer, but you do need a plan:

• Inventory where AI is used in your matters (by you, your staff, your clients).

• Align that usage with your duties of competence, confidentiality, and supervision.

• Be prepared for in camera review of AI‑related materials, as in Tate Group.

• Update your engagement letters and internal policies to reflect reality, not wishful thinking.

If you approach AI as you approached email, e‑filing, and cloud storage when they were “new,” you will be ahead of many peers—and aligned with the spirit of both the ABA Model Rules and emerging case law.

MTC

MTC: Law School, Laptops, and AI: Why Banning Computers Misses the Point!

Law schools are throwing out the baby with the bathwater by banning laptops from the classroom as an effort to combat improper ai use.

On July 10, 2026, the conversation around artificial intelligence in legal education reached a new level. Reports of universities banning both AI tools and laptops in classrooms reflect a growing anxiety: how do we preserve critical thinking in an age of automation? ⚖️

It is a fair question. It is also the wrong solution.

Let me be clear at the outset. A first-year ban on AI tools makes sense. A blanket ban on laptops does not.

The Case for Limiting AI—At First

Legal education has always been about building judgment. That means learning how to analyze facts, synthesize doctrine, and construct arguments from scratch. AI short-circuits that process if used too early.

Under ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence), lawyers must provide knowledgeable and skilled representation. That competence begins in law school. If students rely on AI before they understand the law themselves, they risk becoming operators instead of thinkers.

As I have noted in prior discussions on legal technology, AI should augment—not replace—legal reasoning.

So yes, a structured limitation on AI during the first year is defensible. It creates a foundation. It forces students to wrestle with ambiguity. It builds intellectual muscle. 💡

But Banning Laptops? That Is an Overreach

This is where the policy breaks down.

When I entered law school then graduated in 2002, laptops were just beginning to appear in classrooms. They were not universal. They were not always welcome.

For me, the laptop was not a distraction. It was essential.

My handwriting was and sadly still is poor. My ability to type, organize notes, and revise quickly made the difference between struggling and succeeding. My laptop was not a shortcut. It was an accessibility tool before we used that term widely.

Fast forward to today. Students are typing far more than they write. Many have never learned cursive. Their academic workflows are digital from the start.

To remove laptops is not to level the playing field. It is to shift it—often unfairly.

The Practical Reality of Modern Learning

Legal education does not exist in a vacuum. Law practice is digital.

Law students who learned on laptops will be disadvantaged if classrooms suddenly ban them.

Under ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8, lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of technology. That obligation does not begin after graduation. It begins in law school.

Students today must learn:

• How to organize digital research

• How to draft and revise efficiently

• How to manage documents and workflows

• How to integrate technology into legal reasoning

You cannot teach modern legal competence while removing the primary tools of modern legal work. 🖥️

A laptop is not the problem. Misuse is.

The Enforcement Problem No One Is Talking About

There is also a practical issue. Banning AI is difficult to enforce. Banning laptops is easy.

That does not make it the right policy.

If anything, banning laptops is a workaround for the harder problem of AI enforcement. It is a policy by convenience.

And it raises a deeper concern under ABA Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance), which increasingly applies to AI tools. Lawyers—and future lawyers—must learn to supervise and evaluate AI outputs.

You cannot teach supervision by eliminating exposure.

A Better Approach: Controlled Access, Not Prohibition

Law schools should be experimenting with smarter controls instead of blunt bans.

Some possibilities include:

• Disabling Wi-Fi and cellular signals in certain classrooms 📶

• Using locked-down exam or classroom software environments

• Creating AI-permitted and AI-prohibited assignments with clear boundaries

• Requiring disclosure of AI use in coursework

• Teaching prompt engineering and AI verification as part of the curriculum

This approach aligns with ABA Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality) as well. Students must learn what data can and cannot be shared with AI systems.

Exposure with guardrails is more effective than prohibition. That principle applies directly to how law schools should approach AI.

Critical Thinking and Technology Are Not Opposites

There is a persistent myth underlying these bans: that technology erodes thinking.

That is not inherently true.

Technology can weaken thinking if it replaces effort. It can strengthen thinking if it supports it.

A student who uses a laptop to organize case law, annotate notes, and refine arguments is not thinking less. They are thinking differently—and often more effectively.

The same will eventually be true of AI.

The goal is not to create lawyers who avoid technology or who think less by using AI. It is to create lawyers who use it wisely. ⚖️

What Law Schools Should Be Teaching Instead

If I were designing a first-year curriculum today, I would include:

THE MODERN LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW HOW TO BALANCE JUDGMENT WITH AI USE IN THEIR WORK!

• A temporary restriction on AI-generated work

• Mandatory instruction on how AI tools function

• Exercises in verifying AI outputs against primary sources

• Training on ethical risks, including hallucinations and confidentiality

• Continued use of laptops as standard tools

This approach respects both sides of the equation: foundational thinking and technological competence.

Final Thought: Do Not Solve the Wrong Problem

Law schools are right to be concerned. AI is reshaping the profession at a rapid pace.

But banning laptops is not a solution. It is a signal of discomfort.

The better path is harder. It requires nuance. It requires experimentation. It requires trust in students, guided by structure.

Most importantly, it requires recognizing that the future lawyer will not choose between thinking and technology.

They will need both.

And law school is exactly where they should learn how to do that. 🚀

📣 Announcing the Lawyer’s Podcasting Conference – Coming This November

At MacStock 2026, during my presentation, “Podcasting with Apple: From Idea to Launch Using the Gear You Already Own”, I explored how lawyer‑hosted podcasts help attorneys educate clients, build authority, and grow their practices. Those insights sparked an idea that I first announced right after my session—and now it’s time to share it with you. 🚀

I’m excited to announce that we’re planning the first Attorneys Podcasting Conference, tentatively scheduled for Friday and Saturday, November 12–13, in the Washington, DC metro area. This event is for solo practitioners, small and midsize firm lawyers, AI‑curious legal professionals, and anyone interested in practical, real‑world legal technology—whether you live in Windows, macOS, or a mix of both.

Why an Attorneys Podcasting Conference?

Legal podcasting sits at the intersection of client development, education, and professional responsibility. A well‑run podcast can support your law‑firm business by:

• Showcasing your subject‑matter expertise in ways a static bio never will 😊

• Deepening trust with current and prospective clients by explaining complex issues in plain language

• Keeping you top‑of‑mind with referrals, colleagues, and community partners

When you publish, you are speaking to the public about legal issues, and that triggers real ethical considerations. Under ABA Model Rule 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services), your podcast content must not be false or misleading, including how you describe your experience, results, or fees. Under Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), you must avoid sharing identifiable client information or facts that could reasonably lead to identification—even in anonymized stories. And Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) matters when you engage producers, editors, or marketing vendors to help with your show.

This conference will not only help you start and grow a podcast, it will help you do so ethically, in alignment with your jurisdiction’s version of the ABA Model Rules. ⚖️

What This Conference Is About

lawyer’s learn how to improve your Brand, seo and geo through podcasting!

This event is designed for attorneys who want podcasting to be a strategic business tool, not just a hobby. We’ll focus on:

• Why podcasting grows your law‑firm business
  We’ll dig into how a consistent, well‑targeted show supports client development, referral relationships, and thought leadership—without violating Rules 7.1 or 7.2 on lawyer advertising.

• From Hanging a Shingle to Yellow Pages to SEO to GEO
  For generations, law‑firm marketing has evolved step by step: you started by hanging a shingle, then moved into Yellow Pages ads, then into websites and search engine optimization (SEO). Today we’re entering a new phase: Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)—how your content is discovered, summarized, and surfaced by AI‑driven tools and generative engines.
  
  In this conference, we’ll talk about where podcasting fits in that progression: how a well‑structured show can support traditional SEO while also positioning you for GEO, so that when clients or referral sources ask AI‑powered tools legal questions in your niche, your expertise is more likely to be surfaced.

• How to start the right way
  We’ll walk through choosing a niche, format, and editorial calendar; building a workflow that respects your docket; and creating a basic compliance checklist so each episode stays within ethical guardrails.

• How to grow and sustain your podcast
  You’ll learn practical tactics for audience growth, repurposing episodes into blogs and newsletters, and integrating your podcast with email, social media, and AI‑assisted workflows—still mindful of Rule 1.6 when using cloud or AI tools.

• Tools, tech, and services for Windows and Mac
  We’ll explore microphones, interfaces, recording and editing tools, hosting platforms, and production services that work well in both Windows and macOS environments. Whether you’re recording in Audacity on Windows, GarageBand or Logic Pro on Mac, or a web‑based platform, you’ll see realistic, law‑practice‑friendly setups. 💻🖥️

The goal is a practical, hands‑on conference that helps you either launch a podcast or take your existing show to the next level, with clear, concrete connections back to law‑firm business growth and professional responsibility.

Who This Conference Is For

This conference is ideal for:

Lawyers, learn from seasoned podcasters and professionals how to start, ethically operate, and grow your podcast and your law practice!

• Solo and small‑firm attorneys who want a cost‑effective, authentic way to reach clients and referral sources

• Midsize firm lawyers and practice group leaders who want to align podcasting with broader content and business‑development strategies

• AI‑curious legal professionals who want to understand where AI‑driven transcription, summarization, and editing tools fit into podcast workflows, while staying within ethics rules on confidentiality and supervision

• Law‑firm marketing and business development professionals responsible for managing risk while helping lawyers stand out

• Vendors and sponsors offering equipment, software, production, hosting, AI tools, and marketing services for attorney podcasters

You do not need to be “tech‑forward” to benefit. If you can draft a motion, send an email, and open a file, you can learn this. The goal is to make the technology approachable, not overwhelming.

Windows and Mac: Equal Focus

Although much of my work at The Tech‑Savvy Lawyer ecosystem has featured Apple platforms, this conference explicitly serves users on Windows, Mac, or both:

• Demonstrations will include Windows‑friendly tools, Mac‑specific workflows, and browser‑based platforms that live above the OS line.

• We’ll highlight cross‑platform best practices, so your workflows survive hardware refreshes, lateral moves, or firm‑wide technology changes.

• We’ll talk candidly about IT and security considerations, including how to vet podcast tools under Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) and its comments on technology.

Your podcast should follow you, not the other way around. 😊

Vendors, Sponsors, and Live Recordings

We are building an expo experience that is more than just branded tables and pens:

• Vendor booths will include podcast production services, hosting platforms, AI‑assisted tools, microphones and interfaces, and legal marketing consultancies that understand law‑firm constraints.

• Sponsors will be able to support the event through traditional tiers and in‑kind contributions such as Wi‑Fi, coffee breaks, breakfast, lunch, or A/V and recording services.

• We plan to offer live‑recording opportunities, including:

  • Reserved slots to record your podcast on‑site

  • Live episode demos with an audience

  • Workflow walk‑throughs that highlight both Windows and Mac setups

Throughout, we will keep an eye on confidentiality, consent, and any necessary disclosures to stay within Rules 1.6, 7.1, and 7.2.

Want to Stay in the Loop?

If you’re:

come join your fellow professionals and enter the world of lawyer podcasting!!!

• An attorney with a podcast

• A lawyer seriously considering starting one

• A law‑firm leader or marketing professional interested in podcasting

• A vendor or sponsor looking to support attorney podcasters

…I’d love for you to get on the early‑info list.

Just click this link and enter your email address to join the list!

When you sign up, you’ll be able to:

• Receive final date, venue, and registration details as they’re confirmed

• Get speaker announcements and information on ways to participate, including suggesting topics, formats, and panels you’d like to see

• Learn about live‑recording opportunities, such as signing up to record your podcast on‑site or participating in live demos and audience sessions 🎙️

• See sponsorship and vendor information once packages are set

• Share any questions you have and what you’re hoping to get from this kind of conference—topics you want covered, tools you want to see, or business challenges you’d like help solving

🎙Bonus Episode: TSL Labs's 🧪 Deep Dive into our July 13, 2026, Editorial, Law School, Laptops, and AI: Why Banning Computers Misses the Point!

Join us for an AI-powered deep dive into the ethical challenges facing legal professionals in the age of generative AI. 🤖 In this episode, we unpack our editorial “Law School, Laptops and AI: Why Banning Computers Misses the Point,” and explore why laptop bans in law schools are less about ethics and more about administrative convenience — and how that choice could leave future lawyers unprepared for a fully digital profession.

In our conversation, we cover the following

00:00:00 — From “no calculators” to “no laptops”: how old tech panics mirror today’s AI fears in legal education 📚🧮

00:01:00 — AI panic hits law schools: blanket bans on generative AI and even laptops in the classroom 🎓⚠️

00:02:00 — Why Michael supports limiting AI in 1L while still opposing laptop bans: building foundational legal judgment 💪⚖️

00:03:00 — ABA Model Rule 1.1 and competence: why early overreliance on AI short-circuits “intellectual muscle” 🧠

00:05:00 — Why banning laptops “misses the point”: the scalpel vs leeches analogy and modern legal training 🩺🖥️

00:06:00 — Accessibility and fairness: Michael’s 2002 law school story and laptops as essential accessibility tools ✍️💻

00:07:00 — Digital-native students and analog exams: how bans unfairly shift the playing field instead of leveling it 🎯

00:08:00 — Law practice is 100% digital: e‑discovery, e‑filing, and why stripping laptops undermines tech competence 🌐📑

00:08:30 — ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8: the ethical duty to understand the benefits and risks of relevant technology 📘

00:09:30 — Lazy enforcement: why laptop bans are about visual policing, not thoughtful AI policy 🧍‍♂️👀

00:10:00 — ABA Model Rule 5.3: supervising AI as a “digital clerk” and why hiding the tech creates ethical gaps 🤖📎

00:11:30 — Guardrails, not prohibitions: network geofencing, offline laptops, and locked‑down software environments 🧱📶

00:12:30 — Clear AI policies in assignments: when AI is permitted, when it is prohibited, and how disclosure builds discipline 📝

00:13:00 — Teaching prompt engineering as a core legal skill: delegation, context, and structured AI use 🧩

00:13:30 — ABA Model Rule 1.6 and confidentiality: the risks of pasting client secrets into public AI tools 🔐

00:14:30 — Cognitive offloading vs cognitive atrophy: why tech can strengthen legal reasoning when used wisely 🧠⚙️

00:16:00 — Verifying AI outputs: hallucinations, fake cases, and training students to check everything against primary law 📚

00:17:00 — Temptation vs discipline: why bans don’t teach judgment, but supervised AI use can 🎯

00:18:00 — The false dichotomy: foundational human judgment vs tech competence and why future lawyers must have both ⚖️💡

00:19:00 — The future horizon: when AI becomes the “senior partner” and the lawyer becomes the supervisor‑in‑chief 🧑‍⚖️🤖

00:20:00 — Final challenge: law schools can’t ban their way out of the future — they have to teach students to wield the tools safely 🔍🚀

RESOURCES

Mentioned in the episode

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

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) — https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/

• ABA Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) — https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_3_responsibilities_regarding_nonlawyer_assistance/

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation

• ChatGPT and generative AI tools (public models) — https://openai.com/chatgpt

If you care about the future of legal education, client protection, and real‑world tech competence, hit play now and then share this episode with a colleague who still thinks “just ban the laptops” is a solution. 🎧💬

🎙️BONUS EPISODE: MacStock X Preview: Podcasting with Apple for Lawyers – From Idea to Launch Using the Gear You Already Own ⚖️🎙

In this special The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast episode, I join Chuck Joiner on MacVoices’ “Road to MacStock X” to preview my presentation, “Podcasting with Apple: From Idea to Launch Using the Gear You Already Own,” and to show legal professionals how to design, launch, and improve a podcast using Apple devices and workflows they already have. 🎧

Join Chuck and me as we discuss the following questions and more!

• How can lawyers and new podcasters launch a professional‑quality show using only their existing Apple hardware and built‑in macOS and iPadOS tools?

• What practical, Apple‑centric workflow—from idea generation to recording, editing, distribution, and guest management—underpins “Podcasting with Apple: From Idea to Launch Using the Gear You Already Own”?

• How should legal podcasters think about ethics, defamation, and cross‑border risks when discussing law, politics, or controversial topics?

• In what ways does podcasting improve a lawyer’s visibility and “generative engine optimization,” making them more discoverable to clients and AI systems?

• How do hardware and software choices evolve from Mac laptop and earbuds to 4K cameras, better mics, Ecamm, and AI‑assisted editing?

In our conversation, we cover the following

• 00:00:00 – Michael joins Chuck to talk MacStock X and preview “Podcasting with Apple: From Idea to Launch Using the Gear You Already Own.”

• 00:01:00 – Overview of The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting: idea generation, recording, inviting guests, editing, distribution, and a dedicated ethics chapter for lawyers.

• 00:02:00 – Why Apple users already have enough equipment to start a podcast; framing MacStock X as a hands‑on walkthrough using Macs, iPads, and built‑in software.

• 00:02:30 – What attendees should bring to MacStock X: themselves, their Apple devices, and why editing is easier on a Mac laptop than on an iPad.

• 00:02:45 – Early iPad‑based editing with Apple Pencil, manually trimming ums, ahs, gaps, and retakes, and how that led to more automated workflows.

• 00:03:00 – Moving to more efficient editing tools that automatically flag issues while still requiring human review; AI as a powerful tool, not a final answer. 🤖

• 00:03:30 – Why new podcasters—especially lawyers—must review AI output to avoid errors and ethical problems.

• 00:04:00 – The importance of starting: accepting that early episodes won’t equal mature work, and why improvement comes through practice.

• 00:05:00 – Low‑cost and no‑cost approaches, doing tasks manually first, and then delegating or using AI to reclaim time and focus on higher‑value work.

• 00:06:00 – Treating podcasting as a learning adventure: exploring Apple tools, enjoying subject matter, and embracing continuous technical and editorial improvement.

• 00:07:00 – Hardware evolution: from Mac laptop and earbuds to an Osbot 4K camera and Shure MV7 mic, plus travel‑friendly setups.

• 00:08:00 – Post‑COVID boom in content creation and how hardware and software now target “content creators,” including legal podcasters.

• 00:09:00 – Audience size versus enjoyment: why a niche audience can be enough when the creator values the conversations and the impact.

• 00:10:00 – How podcasting enhances “generative engine optimization” by creating high‑quality, indexable content about your expertise.

• 00:11:00 – The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast: focusing on how lawyers, judges, and others use technology to improve services, enhance products, and recapture time. ⚖️💻

• 00:12:00 – Tech stack evolution: from a Blue Yeti travel mic to the Shure MV7, emphasizing incremental upgrades rather than big upfront spending.

• 00:12:30 – Ethics and defamation fundamentals: avoiding slander, false statements, and understanding that truth is a crucial defense.

• 00:13:00 – Cross‑border implications: podcasts crossing state and international lines and why deeper legal topics warrant caution and advice from counsel.

• 00:14:00 – Political speech, emotion, and the need to “be the adult in the room” to avoid escalating into litigation.

• 00:15:00 – Differences in lawyer ethics and advertising rules across states; ABA model rules and local nuances.

• 00:15:30 – Recommendation to review Gordon Firemark’s content‑creation law resources for podcasters.

• 00:16:00 – Disclaimers: no legal advice, no attorney‑client relationship, and why these are essential in legal‑tech podcasting.

• 00:17:00 – MacStock X discount codes: TECHSAVVYLAWYER and MACVOICES for $50 off registration, plus in‑person $5 discount on The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting.

• 00:18:00 – Ecamm’s all‑day MacStock X session: from basics to advanced, positioning Ecamm as a virtual TV studio for audio and video podcasting.

• 00:19:00 – Ecamm’s limited‑seat format, Creator Camp in Birmingham, and using Ecamm to record this conversation.

• 00:20:00 – Invitation to attend MacStock X in Crystal Lake, join the community, and learn alongside other Apple‑focused creators.

• 00:21:00 – Where to find Michael: TheTechSavvyLawyer.Page, The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast, and The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting on Amazon.

RESOURCES

Connect with Chuck

• Contact Page: https://macvoices.com/contact/

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/

• MacVoices - https://macvoices.com/

Mentioned in the episode

• American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/?login

• Book: The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting – https://www.amazon.com/Lawyers-Guide-Podcasting-Tech-Savvy-Lawyer-Pages/dp/B0GGX32DZH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3VOS3UEZNSIMB&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.AGEuOQwftq-s5O0PqDNjd3zedjDpqdT9pTmLUNktKoMgLL8i6DXC1FKO_L3eWhhLwfONlBZ780wTm15KELZNjUM6wU27377u7SJZ-1k7ZWnkrVmcdTShPkVcjSqMoj79EbRD9I8UP_DzX-X8E2UJ0VP9UqMZoJIwCF4WRIm15wWn32iPZ0kY50a4Lj-BYk1uuaOE5sT8ShPKV7ZgE4JxabTE_b5ppI3AUNhh64nRU6Q.EZF7hiJiOUHarYUE255hezBGcNbXjZz_wrt6eC-z9gg&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+lawyers+guide+to+podcasting&qid=1784764741&sprefix=the+lawyers+guide+to+podcasting%2Caps%2C109&sr=8-1

• GEO – "generative engine optimization” - https://www.thetechsavvylawyer.page/blog/2026/3/26/-word-of-the-week-geo-generative-engine-optimization?rq=GEO

• Gordon Firemark - https://www.thetechsavvylawyer.page/search?q=Firemark

• MacStock X Conference & Expo, Crystal Lake, Illinois - https://macstockconferenceandexpo.com/

Hardware mentioned in the conversation

• Apple Pencil - www.apple.com/apple-pencil/

• Apple Products - www.Apple.com

• Blue Yeti microphone - https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/shop/p/yeti-premium-usb-microphone

• iPad - https: - www.apple.com/ipad/

• Osbot 4K camera - https://www.obsbot.com/obsbot-meet-2-4k-webcam

• Shure MV7i microphone - https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/microphones/mv7i?variant=MV7i

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation

• Ecamm (Mac‑based live production and recording software) - www.ecamm.com

MTC: When Your CEO Asks ChatGPT How to Take Over: Lessons for Lawyers on Public AI, Ethics, and Confidentiality 🧠⚖️

Lawyers need to evaluate public AI chatbot against ABA confidentiality and privilege rules

In March 2026, the Delaware Court of Chancery in Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Krafton, Inc. handed lawyers one of the clearest cautionary tales yet about public AI chatbots, corporate governance, and the limits of “move fast and break things.” A South Korean gaming conglomerate, Krafton Inc., used an artificial intelligence chatbot to help devise an internal “Project X” takeover plan against its own studio, Unknown Worlds Entertainment, and then tried to defend the fallout in court. The result: a detailed opinion reinstating the studio’s CEO, extending a $250 million earnout period, and spotlighting how AI misuse can become Exhibit A when things go wrong.

If you’re a solo, a small-firm lawyer, or an AI‑curious practitioner dabbling with ChatGPT or similar tools, this case is your wake‑up call. The message is not “don’t use AI.” The message is: treat public chatbots the same way you treat email, cloud storage, or texting — through the lens of ABA ethics, client confidentiality, and privilege. 😬

In this editorial, I’ll unpack what happened, how the court framed the misuse of a chatbot, and what you should do in your own practice to stay on the right side of the rules.

The Case in a Nutshell: AI as a Takeover Co‑Pilot

Krafton bought Unknown Worlds — the studio behind Subnautica — for $500 million upfront plus up to $250 million in contingent earnout payments, with a contractually guaranteed structure: the founders and CEO (the “Key Employees”) retained operational control and could only be fired for defined “Cause.”  As Subnautica 2 approached early‑access launch, internal projections showed the game would easily trigger a massive earnout.

The CEO of Krafton grew concerned he looked like a “pushover” under the deal and turned to a public AI chatbot for advice on how to avoid paying the earnout and seize control of the studio. The chatbot’s “response strategy” included:

• Locking down publishing rights and code access.

• Crafting messaging to “secure public support” and undermine the “large corporation vs. indie” narrative.

• Preparing a “takeover” path that blended hardball legal tactics with PR framing. 

Krafton’s internal team implemented much of that plan — cutting off the studio’s access to its Steam publishing console, posting unilateral public statements, and ultimately terminating the founders and CEO on a pretext of “premature release” risk.  When sued, Krafton tried to pivot to new justifications, including the executives’ role changes and their defensive downloads of company data. 

The court was having none of it. Vice Chancellor Will held that:

• The terminations were not “for Cause” under the negotiated contract.

• The “Project X” takeover guided by the chatbot was a pretext to avoid the earnout.

• The studio’s CEO, Ted Gill, must be reinstated with full operational control, and the earnout period equitably extended by the length of his ouster. 

In other words, the AI‑assisted takeover strategy became part of the factual narrative of bad faith and breach — not a clever workaround.

Public Chatbots and ABA Model Rules: Three Pressure Points ⚖️

Attorneys must consider ethical AI chatbot use for confidential client case analysis

Even though this is a corporate earnout case, the opinion gives lawyers a concrete frame for thinking about public AI tools under the ABA Model Rules.

1. Confidentiality — Model Rule 1.6

Rule 1.6 requires lawyers to keep “information relating to the representation of a client” confidential, absent informed consent or a specific exception. Public chatbots are not your firm’s Document Management System (DMS) — they’re third‑party services that typically ingest prompts for training, quality, and logging. When Krafton’s CEO ran “Project X” through a chatbot, he was effectively outsourcing high‑stakes strategy to a non‑privileged third‑party system that could store and learn from those prompts. 

For lawyers, the parallels are obvious:

• Dropping fact patterns, names, or deal structures into a public chatbot can mean you’ve disclosed client information to a non‑controlled vendor.

• Even “sanitized” prompts can be re‑identified when combined with other data.

Under 1.6, that’s a potential confidentiality breach unless you’ve vetted the tool, negotiated appropriate terms (including data handling and retention), and obtained informed client consent for that mode of assistance. Emojis and “it’s just drafting help” don’t change that. 😉

2. Privilege — Model Rules 1.1 and 1.4 (Competence and Communication)

Privilege isn’t framed in the Model Rules, but Rule 1.1 (competence) and 1.4 (communication) require you to understand how your technology choices affect the protection of client communications. When you route strategy discussions through a public chatbot:

• You may jeopardize attorney–client privilege by involving a third‑party with no need‑to‑know and no formal role in the representation.

• You may create discoverable records that live outside your control, just as Krafton’s CEO created chat logs he then tried to delete. 

The court noted that relevant chatbot logs were deleted, which did not play well in evaluating Krafton’s narrative.  Privilege analysis is already complex with cloud tools; adding public AI as a “secret co‑counsel” without protections only compounds that risk. 

Competent use of technology now includes understanding whether your AI stack is preserving or eroding privilege and communicating those risks to clients when you propose AI‑assisted workflows.

3. Candor and Misrepresentation — Model Rule 4.1 and 8.4(c) 🚨

Although this case turns on contractual “Cause” and good faith, the court’s language about “pretextual” justifications and manufactured defenses should resonate with litigators. Model Rule 4.1 prohibits knowingly making false statements of material fact to third parties; Rule 8.4(c) bars conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 

When you:

• Use a chatbot to generate strategic messaging designed to mislead stakeholders.

• Craft public statements or demand letters that you know are pretextual, but you’ve optimized with AI for tone and impact.

… you’re still responsible for the truthfulness of that content. The court saw through Krafton’s attempt to re‑frame events after the fact, and its internal AI‑assisted playbooks did not help. 

For lawyers, the lesson is simple: AI‑generated output is yours once you sign or speak it. If it’s misleading, you own the ethics problem — not “the algorithm.”

Practical Takeaways for Solo and Small‑Firm Lawyers 🧩

So what do you do if you’re a tech‑savvy lawyer who likes AI, but doesn’t want your prompts quoted in an opinion like this?

Here are grounded, practice‑ready steps.

1. Establish an AI Use Policy

Even if you’re a solo, write down what you will and won’t do with public chatbots.

lawyers need to build practical, ethical AI policies for practice.

• No client names, exact fact patterns, or identifiable deal terms in public tools.

• Use AI for structure and language, not for strategy or confidential analysis.

• Prefer client‑specific, non‑logging enterprise tools when handling sensitive material.

Treat this like you treat your cloud storage or remote‑work policy — it’s part of your competence under Model Rule 1.1 and your supervisory obligations under 5.1/5.3 if you have staff.

2. Separate “Public Prompting” from “Privileged Thinking” 🧠

Use public chatbots for:

• Headline and meta description drafting.

• Blog outlines, post ideas, or simple explainer language for non‑client scenarios.

• Rough templates for standard documents that you will heavily edit.

Avoid using them for:

• Fact‑specific case assessments.

• Litigation strategy, negotiation plans, or internal “playbooks” like Krafton’s “Project X.” 

• Anything that feels like the kind of conversation you’d normally have only with a colleague behind closed doors.

This separation keeps your privileged work product inside tools and workflows you control.

3. Vet Vendors Like You Vet e‑Discovery Platforms

If you move beyond public chatbots to paid AI tools, evaluate them as you would any major legaltech vendor:

• Where is data stored?

• Is training on your material disabled by default?

• Can you get a Business Associate Agreement or Data Processing Agreement / Data Protection Impact Assessment that aligns with your jurisdiction’s expectations?

The ABA’s Formal Opinion 477R on secure communications and cloud ethics opinions from state bars all provide analogies: reasonable steps, not perfection, are required — but “type client memo into random website” is not reasonable. 😄

4. Document Client Consent When AI Is Material to the Representation

If you expect to use AI in a way that materially affects how you deliver legal services, communicate that to clients under Rule 1.4:

• Explain benefits (efficiency, faster drafting).

• Explain risks (data handling, reliability, hallucinations).

• Offer an AI‑free option.

Written engagement terms that address AI use can save hard conversations later if something goes sideways.

5. Revisit Your “Bad Facts” Mindset

Reading this Delaware opinion, you see how internal strategy — including AI‑assisted plotting — can become a litigation exhibit.  For lawyers, that’s an invitation to ask: 

“If this prompt or chatbot conversation showed up in an opinion, would I be comfortable defending it under the Model Rules?”

If the answer is no, don’t send it. That simple heuristic scales across tools and platforms.

What This Case Signals for the Next Wave of Legal Tech 🌊

There can be significant legal consequences for AI chatbot misuse in legal disputes.

The opinion in Fortis Advisors v. Krafton is not an ethics decision aimed at lawyers, but it shows courts will:

• Scrutinize AI‑assisted strategies as part of broader narratives about good faith, bad faith, and pretext.

• Expect parties — and by extension, counsel — to maintain and produce AI‑related records where relevant.

• Be unimpressed by attempts to retroactively justify decisions made for economic reasons with thin “quality” or “readiness” arguments. 

As public models get more powerful and more embedded in practice, ABA Model Rules on competence, confidentiality, supervision, and candor apply just as they did when lawyers moved to email, smartphones, and the cloud. AI is just the next tool — but it’s a tool that makes it very easy to generate sophisticated bad ideas quickly.

Your job is to keep your ethical compass steady, even when the chatbot is very persuasive. 🧭

MTC