MTC: Legal Cybersecurity Crisis - How the CVE System's Defunding Compromises Digital Safety for Law Firms 🚨

In the chaos, Lawyers need to defend client data as CVE shield may be in jeopardy!

CVE Program’s Last-Minute Rescue: What Lawyers Must Learn from the Cybersecurity Near-Crisis 🚨

The legal world narrowly avoided a digital disaster last week week. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program—the backbone of global cybersecurity—came within hours of losing its federal funding, sending shockwaves through the legal and cybersecurity communities. In an eleventh-hour move, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) extended funding for MITRE to continue operating the CVE program, averting a shutdown that could have left law firms and their clients exposed to unprecedented cyber risk. The episode is a wake-up call for every legal professional: Our reliance on a single, government-funded system for vulnerability intelligence is a vulnerability in itself.

The Alarm: How Close We Came to Losing the CVE Program ⚠️

On April 16, 2025, MITRE, the non-profit that manages the CVE database, announced its contract with the Department of Homeland Security would expire at midnight. The news triggered widespread alarm across the cybersecurity sector, as the CVE program is essential for tracking, cataloging, and sharing information about software vulnerabilities. Legal technology vendors, law firm IT teams, and risk managers all depend on CVE data to prioritize security updates and defend against cyber threats.

The potential consequences were immediate and severe. Experts warned that a lapse in CVE services would delay vulnerability disclosures, disrupt incident response, and create a dangerous window for attackers to exploit unpatched systems. Law firms, which handle highly sensitive client information, would have faced heightened risks of data breaches, malpractice claims, and regulatory penalties.

The Save: CISA Steps In—But Only for Now ⏳

CISA’s rescue: Legal cybersecurity lifeline survives—uncertainty remains.

In response to the outcry, CISA executed a last-minute contract extension, ensuring there would be no interruption in CVE services for at least the next 11 months. MITRE confirmed that the funding would keep the program running, and the global cybersecurity community breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Yet, this solution is temporary. The extension lasts less than a year, and the long-term sustainability of the CVE program remains uncertain. The episode has already spurred the formation of a new nonprofit, the CVE Foundation, aimed at ensuring the program’s independence and stability beyond government sponsorship.

Why This Matters for Lawyers and Law Firms ⚖️

The CVE program is more than a technical tool—it is a legal lifeline. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules require lawyers to safeguard client confidentiality, maintain technological competence, and supervise staff and vendors on cybersecurity practices. See MRPC 1.1[8] & 1.6. Without reliable, up-to-date vulnerability intelligence, law firms cannot meet these obligations.

If the CVE program had gone dark, lawyers would have faced:

• Increased risk of data breaches: Without a unified system for tracking vulnerabilities, attackers would have more time and opportunity to exploit unpatched systems, putting client data at risk.

• Malpractice exposure: Failing to implement timely security updates could be seen as a breach of the duty of competence and confidentiality, opening the door to claims of negligence or breach of fiduciary duty.

• Compliance headaches: With regulatory requirements around breach notification and data protection tightening, law firms would struggle to demonstrate they had taken “reasonable efforts” to protect client information.

• Vendor management chaos: Many legal technology providers rely on CVE identifiers to communicate security patches. Without them, law firms would face confusion and delays in applying critical updates.

Lessons Learned: What Lawyers Should Do Next 🛡️

The CVE funding scare revealed that even the most established cybersecurity programs can be vulnerable. For the legal profession, this is a clear signal to take proactive steps:

Lawyers have a duty to protect their clients’ PII from cyberattacks!

• Diversify threat intelligence sources: Don’t rely solely on the CVE program. Lawyers and IT teams should monitor additional resources such as the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), CISA Alerts & Advisories, and vendor-specific feeds.

• Review and update incident response plans: Ensure your breach response protocols account for the possibility of disruptions in vulnerability intelligence. Document your reliance on CVE and alternative sources for compliance purposes.

• Strengthen vendor contracts: Require legal technology providers to maintain robust vulnerability management practices, even if the CVE system is disrupted.

• Stay engaged and advocate: Support efforts to make the CVE program sustainable and independent. The legal community should join calls for diverse funding and governance to avoid future crises.

• Educate staff and clients: Communicate the importance of cybersecurity vigilance and the evolving landscape. Make sure everyone understands their role in protecting client data.

Final Thoughts: A Fragile Peace and a Call for Vigilance 🔍

The CVE program’s last-minute rescue is a relief, but not a resolution. The legal sector must recognize that the stability of our cybersecurity infrastructure is not guaranteed. With only 11 months of assured funding, the risk of another crisis looms. The new CVE Foundation may provide a path forward, but it will require broad support from both public and private sectors.

Lawyers must remain vigilant, proactive, and informed. The next funding scare could come with less warning—and with even higher stakes for client confidentiality, professional responsibility, and the very trust that underpins the legal profession.

MTC

Breaking News: Trump Pauses Tariffs, Exempts China Electronics—Relief for Legal Tech Costs ⚖️💻

President Donald Trump has announced a 90-day suspension of his controversial tariffs and excluded key electronics—including laptops, smartphones, tablets, and phones—from Chinese imports. This decision offers temporary relief to legal professionals who rely on these tools for daily operations. The move directly impacts the concerns raised in my recent editorial, "The Impact of Trump's Tariffs on Legal Technology Costs: A Strategic Assessment," which highlighted the financial strain tariffs were imposing on law firms.

Immediate Implications for Legal Professionals
The exemption of Chinese electronics from tariffs underlines a significant shift in trade policy. Previously, as detailed in The Tech Savvy Lawyer’s editorial analysis, tariffs were driving up costs on essential legal technology by as much as 54% for Chinese-made goods. This temporary pause provides a critical window for law firms to strategize technology investments without facing imminent price hikes.

Legal professionals should seize this opportunity to upgrade aging hardware or stockpile essential devices while prices remain stable. My editorial emphasized the importance of extending the lifecycle of existing technology—a strategy that remains prudent given the uncertainty surrounding future tariff policies.

Strategic Considerations Moving Forward

Tariff Pause = Time to Upgrade?

While this pause offers short-term relief, it is not a permanent solution. Experts have warned that tariffs could return with sector-specific focus, particularly targeting semiconductors and other critical components. Law firms must remain vigilant and adopt a calculated approach to technology procurement. As suggested in the editorial, practices should prioritize critical upgrades while monitoring policy developments closely.

Additionally, firms relying heavily on data-intensive workflows may want to act now to secure high-performance devices before potential cost increases resurface. For those with lighter technology needs, maintaining current equipment through proper upkeep remains a viable strategy.

What’s Next?
Trump’s decision to exempt Chinese electronics aligns with broader concerns about inflationary pressures and global supply chain disruptions. However, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has hinted at possible future tariffs targeting other sectors. Legal professionals should continue following updates from trusted sources like The Tech Savvy Lawyer to stay informed and prepared for any changes that could impact their practice's operational costs.

For more insights into this developing story, revisit the original editorial on The Tech Savvy Lawyer’s blog:"The Impact of Trump's Tariffs on Legal Technology Costs: A Strategic Assessment."

MTC: The Impact of Trump's Tariffs on Legal Technology Costs: A Strategic Assessment

⚠️💸 how do lawyers plan as Costs for tech equipment will likely raise uner trump’s tariffs!

The expense of technology is often the cost of doing business for most lawyers. Lawyers need to be both prudent and practical with their purchases of the tools we need to do our job - both professionally and efficiently. Legal professionals need to know if we have to be worried about the price of computers going up just we once did when the price of paper and pens increased years ago. But before delving into the details, here's the key takeaway: Trump's global tariffs are driving up costs for essential legal technology, necessitating strategic planning for technology investments and potentially extending the lifecycle of existing equipment until market conditions stabilize.

Understanding the New Tariff Landscape

Trump's sweeping tariff policies have created unprecedented changes in the global electronics market, particularly affecting technology products widely used by legal professionals. These tariffs establish a baseline 10% duty on virtually all imports, with substantially higher rates applied to major technology manufacturing countries. China, which produces most consumer electronics, faces a staggering 54% tariff rate, while Vietnam—where Apple has shifted some production—is subject to a 46% tariff. Designed ostensibly to stimulate domestic manufacturing, these measures are already reshaping global supply chains and cost structures for essential legal technology.

Current Impact on Legal Technology Prices

📡📛 We are undergoing Chaos as lawyers like almost everyone else around the world cannot predict future (tech) spending because of these tariffs!

While immediate price increases may not yet be fully visible due to inventory stockpiling by manufacturers anticipating these tariffs, significant cost implications are imminent for law firms. According to economic analyses, approximately 25% of tariff costs will be passed directly to consumers through higher prices. For electronic devices frequently used in legal practices—laptops, smartphones, tablets, and specialized legal technology—this translates to substantial budget implications. The Consumer Technology Association estimates that laptop prices alone could rise by approximately $357 on average, a considerable expense when multiplied across an entire legal team and still an aggregate impact on solo and small firms when you add up the various tech devices we all use - phone, tablets, laptops, desktops, printers, storage and so on.

Future Projections for Technology Costs

Economic forecasts suggest the tariff situation may intensify rather than resolve in the near term. Supply chain experts from Michigan State University warn that inflationary effects from these tariffs will become increasingly apparent by mid-summer and certainly during back-to-school shopping season. Many economists express concern that these measures could trigger one of the most substantial transformations in global trade in decades, potentially leading to increased prices and heightened inflation. For law practices dependent on current technology, this foretells a challenging procurement environment with progressively escalating costs for essential equipment.

Strategic Technology Investment Recommendations

🧠💰 lawyers Think Smart and plan ahead your tech purchases given the threat of Tariffs!

Law firms must now adopt a more calculated approach to technology purchases and maintenance. For critical operational needs where performance directly impacts client service or security requirements, immediate investment may be prudent before prices increase further. (If your firm does a lot of data crunching or large file manipulation (pdfs, jpegs, inter alia), you may now want to examine if your current tech is fast enough). However, where existing technology remains serviceable, extending equipment lifecycle through proper maintenance represents a viable strategy until market conditions stabilize. (If your firm is mostly on the cloud, consists of using MS Word, Google Docs, or Apple Pages, and some web browsing, your probably don’t need to upgrade soon - unless your system is so old that you can’t keep up-to-date its OS or recent/current versions of the applications you are using - or quite frankly, if its dying). Consider developing a tiered procurement strategy that prioritizes critical versus optional technology upgrades while monitoring price trends and potential policy adjustments.

Final Thoughts

The current tariff landscape presents unique challenges for legal technology purchases that require thoughtful strategy rather than reflexive action. By carefully evaluating genuine technology needs against rising cost pressures, law practices can maintain operational effectiveness while managing budget impacts. This balanced approach recognizes both the necessity of current technology for competitive legal practice and the financial pragmatism required during periods of market volatility.

MTC

MTC: The Critical Role of Lawyers in Protecting Sensitive Data in an Era of Digital Vulnerability

Lawyers, ARE YOU AWARE OF where your client’s pii may have been exposed or is vulnerable?

The march on the fragility of personal data in our hyperconnected world continues from my editorial three weeks ago! From Elon Musk’s DOGE team attempting to access Social Security Administration (SSA) records, to Cabinet officials discussing military strike details on Signal, to 23andMe’s bankruptcy risking genetic data exposure, these incidents underscore systemic vulnerabilities. Lawyers now operate on the front lines of this crisis, bound by ethical mandates and legal obligations to shield personally identifiable information (PII) from misuse. Let’s discuss how the legal profession must adapt to safeguard client trust in the digital age.

The Expanding Threat Landscape

1. DOGE’s Overreach at SSA
   A federal judge halted Elon Musk’s DOGE team from accessing SSA databases containing sensitive PII—including Social Security numbers and employment histories—after finding “unbridled access” violated privacy laws. Judge Hollander condemned the operation as a “fishing expedition” lacking justification, ordering the deletion of improperly obtained data. This case highlights risks when private entities bypass oversight to exploit bulk data repositories like SSA’s “crown jewel” Numident database.

2. Signal’s False Sense of Security
   The Atlantic’s release of Signal chats among Trump administration officials revealed shockingly detailed military plans, including F-18 strike windows and target coordinates. While Signal offers encryption, experts warn it’s no substitute for secure government systems. Former NSA analyst Jacob Williams noted that desktop-linked Signal accounts create vulnerabilities via malware-prone devices. The incident illustrates how convenience-driven tools can jeopardize national security and client confidentiality alike.

3. 23andMe’s Genetic Gamble
   23andMe’s bankruptcy filing exposes 12 million users’ DNA data to sale, raising fears of insurance discrimination and identity theft. Despite the protections of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) against health insurer bias, gaps remain in life/disability coverage. Lawyers must now confront novel risks as biometric data enters commercial markets.

Legal and Ethical Imperatives for Practitioners

Lawyers have to balance the convenience of a hyperconnected world and maintaining client PII!

A. Foundational Duties
Under ABA Model Rule 1.6(c), attorneys must employ “reasonable efforts” to prevent unauthorized PII disclosure.1, 2 This requires:

• Risk assessments: Evaluate data sensitivity, threat likelihood, and safeguard costs - Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information - Comment.

• Encryption: Protect communications and stored files, especially when using third-party platforms.

• Access controls: Limit PII exposure through role-based permissions and audit trails.3, 4

B. Emerging Best Practices

1. Client Consent & Transparency

• Disclose data collection purposes per FTC Act/GDPR principles. 5, 6

• Obtain explicit authorization for third-party transfers. 7, 8

2. Incident Response

• Conduct breach analyses under ABA Opinion 498.

• Notify affected clients promptly.

3. Tech Competence

• Track compliance across the jurisdictions where you practice.

• Train staff on phishing/social engineering risks highlighted in the SSA and Signal breaches.

A Call to Action

GIven third-party activity, lawyers may be the publics best line of defense to maintaining PII!

The DOGE, Signal, and 23andMe cases are not outliers—they signal a paradigm shift. As Perkins Coie’s privacy team emphasizes, “reasonable efforts” now demand proactive measures:

• Audit legacy systems: Identify where PII resides, as SSA failed to do.

• Purge obsolete data: Align retention policies with storage limits in ABA guidelines.

• Leverage AI cautiously: While predictive tools aid fraud detection (“ironically” DOGE’s stated goal), they risk algorithmic bias without human oversight.

Lawyers who treat data security as an afterthought risk disciplinary action, malpractice claims, and reputational harm. The alternative? Embrace plans to transform from reactive advisors to strategic guardians of the digital trust ecosystem.

MTC

MTC: ⚖️ ChatGPT and the Supreme Court: Two Years of Progress in Legal AI ⚖️

What can we learn about the evolution of generative aI in its ever growing analysis of the supreme court?

Ed Bershitskiy’s recent SCOTUSblog article, “We’re not there to provide entertainment. We’re there to decide cases,” offers a compelling analysis of how ChatGPT has evolved since its launch in 2023, particularly in its application to Supreme Court-related questions. The article highlights both the successes and shortcomings of AI models, providing valuable insights for legal professionals navigating this rapidly advancing technology.

In 2023, the original ChatGPT model answered only 42% of Supreme Court-related questions correctly, often producing fabricated facts aka “hallucinations” and errors. Fast forward to 2025, newer models like GPT-4o, o3-mini, and o1 have demonstrated significant improvements. For instance, o1 answered an impressive 90% of questions correctly, showcasing enhanced accuracy and nuanced understanding of complex legal concepts such as non-justiciability and the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Krantz’s analysis also underscores the importance of verifying AI outputs, as even advanced models occasionally produce mistakes or hallucinations.

Always Check Your Work When Using Generative AI - It Can Create Hallucinations!

🚨

Always Check Your Work When Using Generative AI - It Can Create Hallucinations! 🚨

The article compares three distinct AI models: GPT-4o is detail-oriented but prone to overreach; o3-mini is concise but often incomplete; and o1 strikes a balance between depth and precision. This comparison is particularly relevant for legal professionals seeking tools tailored to their needs. For example, GPT-4o excels at generating detailed narratives and tables, while o1 is ideal for concise yet accurate responses.

Lawyers are not going to be replaced by ai but those lawyers who do not know how to use ai in their practice and mindful of its constant changes will be left behind!

Krantz also explores how the line between search engines and AI-powered tools is blurring. Unlike traditional search engines, these AI models analyze queries contextually, offering more comprehensive answers. However, legal practitioners must exercise caution when relying on AI for research or drafting to ensure ethical compliance and factual accuracy - in other words, always check your work when using AI!

As AI continues to evolve, its role in legal practice is becoming indispensable. By understanding its strengths and limitations, lawyers can leverage these tools effectively while safeguarding against potential risks. Krantz’s article provides a detailed roadmap for navigating this technological transformation in law.

PS: I can’t stress enough to always check your work when using AI!

Happy Lawyering!

MTC

MTC: Editorial: "Masters of Their Domain: Why Lawyers Must Control Their Firm's Online Presence" 📊💻

Lawyers are the first line defenders of their online reputation by owning their firm’s domain name!

In today's digital age, having a strong online presence is crucial for law firms. One often overlooked aspect of this presence is their (e-mail/website) domain name ownership. Lawyers should be aware of who owns their firm's domain name, as it can have significant legal implications, especially if the firm splits or even if a solo practitioner is involved. I’d like to discuss the importance of domain name ownership, the risks associated with using website builders like Wix, Squarespace* or LawLytics and how lawyers can independently purchase and manage their domain names to ensure flexibility and security.

Importance of Domain Name Ownership

Domain names are more than just web addresses; they are valuable assets that can significantly impact a firm's identity and reputation. When a law firm splits, disputes over domain name ownership can arise, leading to potential legal battles. For instance, if one partner retains the domain name, it could cause confusion among clients and hinder the ability of other partners to establish their new practices effectively 🤝. Recently attorneys in a (former) firm in Kansas had a similar dispute that led to litigation. Thus, it is essential for lawyers to ensure they have control over their domain names from the outset.

Risks with Website Builders

Using website builders like Squarespace* or LawLytics services can simplify the process of creating a website, but it often comes with a hidden cost: potential loss of domain name ownership. When you register a domain through these platforms, you might not fully own the domain. Squarespace*, for example, acts as a middleman, facilitating domain registration but not retaining ownership 📈. However, if you rely solely on their services, you could face issues if you decide to switch providers. This is why it's prudent to purchase and manage your domain name independently (and likely before you go public with your site through one of these builders).

Independent Domain Name Management

Lawyers need to be savvy about using website builders and who owns the site’s domain name

To maintain control over your domain name, it's advisable to register it through a registrar like GoDaddy, hover* or Namecheap. This allows you to manage your domain settings, transfer it to different web hosts, and ensure continuity even if you change website builders 🚀. Here’s how you can do it:

1. Choose a Registrar: Select a reputable domain registrar where you can purchase your domain name.

2. Register Your Domain: Ensure the domain is registered in your name with your contact information.

3. Set Up DNS: Configure your DNS settings to point to your desired web host.

4. Transfer if Needed: If you switch web hosts, you can easily transfer your domain without losing control.

Legal Implications

Legal implications arise when domain name ownership is not clearly established. Disputes can lead to costly legal battles, especially if cybersquatting or trademark infringement is involved 🚫. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) provide frameworks for resolving such disputes, but prevention is always better than cure. By owning your domain name outright and from the start, you avoid potential conflicts and protect your firm's online identity.

Final Thoughts

The type of domain, .e.g., “.com”, “.biz”, “.law”, etc., can help identify the type of business you have.

Lawyers must prioritize domain name ownership to safeguard their firm's online presence and avoid potential legal issues. By understanding the risks associated with website builders and taking steps to independently manage their domain names, lawyers can ensure they remain masters of their digital domain 🌐.

Happy Lawyering!

MTC

MTC: Navigating the Legal Landscape of DOGE: Lessons for Lawyers from Ongoing Litigation 🚀

many are worried doge is mishandling citizens’ pii!

The recent involvement of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in accessing sensitive government databases has sparked a wave of lawsuits, raising significant concerns about data privacy and security 🚨. For lawyers, these legal challenges offer valuable insights into how to protect your clients’ personally identifiable information (PII) in light of DOGE's actions. I’d like to share some of the key takeaways from these lawsuits and explore how lawyers can apply these lessons to safeguard sensitive data, focusing on the ABA Model Rules and best practices for data protection.

Understanding the Legal Challenges:

At least a dozen lawsuits have been filed to stop DOGE from accessing tax records, student loan accounts, and other troves of personal data, often invoking the Privacy Act of 1974 📜. Created in response to the Watergate Scandal, this law restricts the sharing of sensitive information without consent, making it a crucial tool for plaintiffs seeking to limit DOGE's access to personal data 📝.

Legal and Ethical Responsibilities

Lawyers have a legal duty to protect client confidentiality, as outlined in ABA Model Rule 1.6 📜. This rule prohibits revealing information related to a client's representation unless exceptions apply, such as informed client consent or implied authorization to carry out the representation 📝. The duty of confidentiality extends beyond attorney-client privilege, covering all information related to the representation, regardless of its source 🌐.

Key Takeaways for Lawyers

are you ready to help protect your client'S DATA IF THE GOVERNMENT BREACHES Their pii?

1. Privacy Act of 1974: Lawyers should be aware of the Privacy Act's provisions, which prohibit unauthorized disclosure of personal information from federal systems of records 📊. This law is being used to challenge DOGE's access to sensitive data, highlighting its importance in protecting client confidentiality 🚫.

2. Standing and Harm: Courts have often ruled that plaintiffs must demonstrate irreparable harm to succeed in these lawsuits 📝. Lawyers should ensure that their clients can establish a clear risk of harm if seeking injunctive relief against similar data access efforts 🚨.

3. Data Security Protocols: The lawsuits emphasize the need for robust data security measures to prevent unauthorized access. Lawyers should implement strong encryption and access controls to protect client data, as suggested by ABA Formal Opinion 483, which emphasizes the duty to notify clients of data breaches and take reasonable steps to safeguard confidential information 🔒.

4. Compliance with Data Protection Regulations: Beyond the Privacy Act, lawyers must comply with other data protection laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) 🌎. Ensuring compliance with these regulations can help prevent unauthorized disclosures and maintain client trust 📨.

5. Transparency and Consent: The lawsuits highlight the importance of transparency and consent in handling personal information. Lawyers should ensure that clients are informed about how their data is used and processed, as required by ABA Model Rule 1.4, which mandates explaining matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation 📝.

Lessons from Specific Lawsuits:

Multiple law suits have been filed to enusre doge is not misusing pii - are your client’s pii at risk?

• Social Security Data Access: A lawsuit by labor unions seeks to prevent DOGE from accessing Social Security data, citing concerns about privacy protocols and the lack of clarity regarding DOGE's intentions 📊. This case underscores the need for clear policies on data access and use, aligning with ABA Model Rule 1.6, which requires lawyers to protect client information unless exceptions apply 📜.

• IRS Taxpayer Data: Privacy advocates have filed a lawsuit to block DOGE from accessing IRS taxpayer data, emphasizing the need to protect sensitive financial information 📊. This highlights the importance of safeguarding client financial data, consistent with ABA Model Rule 1.6, which prohibits revealing information related to client representation without consent 📝.

Implementing Best Practices

To safeguard client data effectively, lawyers should:

1. Conduct Regular Audits: Regularly review data handling practices to ensure compliance with privacy regulations and ethical standards 📊.

2. Enhance Data Security: Implement robust data encryption and access controls to protect client information, aligning with ABA Model Rule 1.6's requirement to prevent unauthorized disclosure 🔒.

3. Stay Informed: Keep up-to-date with legal developments and court rulings related to DOGE's access to sensitive data, ensuring compliance with ABA Model Rules 1.1 and 1.1[8], which requires lawyers to stay abreast of the benefits and risks associated with technology used in client services 📰.

Final Thoughts

The ongoing litigation surrounding DOGE provides valuable lessons for lawyers on protecting clients and personally identifiable information. By understanding legal obligations, implementing robust data security measures, and complying with data protection regulations, lawyers can uphold the trust that is fundamental to the client-lawyer relationship 💼.

MTC: Apple's UK Retreat - Navigating Client Confidentiality in a Post-ADP World 🌍🔐

Lawyers need to be aware of foreign governments’ software security permissions when traveling abroad! ✈️

In the wake of Apple's recent withdrawal of Advanced Data Protection (ADP) from the UK, lawyers face a critical challenge in safeguarding client confidentiality. This development underscores the ongoing tension between government surveillance demands and the legal profession's ethical obligations. As tech-savvy legal professionals, we must adapt our practices to ensure robust data protection, particularly when traveling with Apple devices.

The New Landscape of Digital Security 📱💼

Apple's decision to remove ADP from the UK market stems from governmental pressure to create backdoors for law enforcement access. This move significantly impacts the level of encryption available to UK users, potentially exposing sensitive client information to increased vulnerabilities. Lawyers must now reassess their digital security strategies, especially when crossing borders with client data.

* The US government has come out in support of Apple on this issue - I don’t quite know what to make of it. 🤔

* The US government has come out in support of Apple on this issue - I don’t quite know what to make of it. 🤔

Practical Steps for Lawyers 🛡️📊

1. Device Sanitization: Before international travel, thoroughly sanitize your devices. Remove non-essential client data and consider using "travel-only" devices with minimal sensitive information1.

2. Encryption Alternatives: With ADP unavailable, explore third-party encryption tools compatible with Apple devices. Solutions like VeraCrypt or Cryptomator can provide an additional layer of security for client files.

3. VPN Usage: Always use a reputable VPN when connecting to public Wi-Fi networks. This practice encrypts your internet traffic, making it significantly harder for malicious actors to intercept sensitive data4.

4. Cloud Storage Considerations: Reevaluate your use of iCloud for storing client information. Consider alternative cloud services with robust encryption or, preferably, on-premises storage solutions for highly sensitive data.

5. Two-Factor Authentication: Implement strong two-factor authentication on all accounts. This adds an extra layer of security, even if passwords are compromised3.

Advising Clients on Data Protection 📝🔒

When counseling clients on data security while traveling:

Cybersecurity should be on your mind before you travel overseas! Know before you go!

1. Education is Key: Inform clients about the risks associated with international data transfer and storage. Emphasize the importance of encryption and cautious data handling practices.

2. Device Management: Advise clients to use dedicated travel devices when possible, containing only essential data. Encourage the use of strong, unique passwords and biometric authentication.

3. Data Minimization: Recommend that clients only carry necessary data when traveling. Sensitive information should be securely stored and accessed remotely only when absolutely required.

4. Secure Communication Channels: Suggest using end-to-end encrypted messaging apps for sensitive communications. Apps like Signal or WhatsApp provide a higher level of security compared to standard SMS or email.

5. Regular Security Audits: Encourage clients to regularly review their device and account security settings. This includes checking for unauthorized access and updating software promptly.

Crossing Borders: ADP vs. Non-ADP Countries 🛂🔐

When traveling between countries with different ADP policies, lawyers and their clients must take additional precautions:

1. Data Backup: Before leaving an ADP-permitted country, securely back up all ADP-protected data to a trusted cloud service or encrypted external drive.

2. Disable ADP: When entering a non-ADP country, disable ADP on your devices. This prevents potential conflicts with local laws and reduces the risk of forced access.

3. Temporary Device Switch: Consider using a separate, "clean" device when entering non-ADP countries, leaving your ADP-enabled device securely stored elsewhere.

4. Re-enable ADP: Upon returning to an ADP-permitted country, re-enable the feature and restore your data from the secure backup.

5. Client Notification: Inform clients about the potential risks and your mitigation strategies when traveling between ADP and non-ADP jurisdictions.

The Broader Implications 🌐⚖️

lawyers need to be aware of other countries security standards when advising their clients who travel internationally! 🌎 🌍 🌏

The removal of ADP in the UK sets a concerning precedent that may embolden other governments to demand similar concessions. This trend could lead to a global weakening of encryption standards, posing significant challenges to attorney-client privilege and data security worldwide.

As legal professionals, we must stay informed about these developments and advocate for policies that protect client confidentiality. Engaging with bar associations and legal organizations to take a stand against government-mandated backdoors is crucial for preserving the integrity of our legal system.

Final Thoughts: Vigilance in a Changing World 🚀🔐

The withdrawal of Apple's ADP from the UK serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of digital privacy. As guardians of client confidentiality, lawyers must rise to this challenge, implementing robust security measures and staying informed about technological developments. By doing so, we can continue to uphold our ethical obligations and protect our clients' interests in an increasingly complex digital world. Remember, in the realm of digital security, complacency is our greatest enemy. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and always prioritize the protection of your clients' sensitive information.

MTC

Shout Out to Robert Ambrogi: AI Legal Research Platforms - A Double-Edged Sword for Tech-Savvy Lawyers 🔍⚖️

The use of ai is a great starting point - but always check your work (especially your citations)!

Robert Ambrogi's recent article on LawNext sheds light on a crucial development in legal tech: the comparison of AI-driven legal research platforms. This "AI smackdown" reveals both the potential and pitfalls of these tools, echoing concerns raised in our previous editorial about Lexis AI's shortcomings.

The Southern California Association of Law Libraries' panel, featuring expert librarians, put Lexis+AI, Westlaw Precision AI, and vLex's Vincent AI to the test. Their findings? While these platforms show promise in answering basic legal questions, they're not without flaws.

Each platform demonstrated unique strengths: Lexis+AI's integration with Shepard's, Westlaw Precision AI's KeyCite features, and Vincent AI's user control options. However, inconsistencies in responses to complex queries and recent legislation underscore a critical point: AI tools are supplements, not replacements, for thorough legal research.

This evaluation aligns with our earlier critique of Lexis AI, reinforcing the need for cautious adoption of AI in legal practice. As the technology evolves, so must our approach to using it.

Mark Gediman's wise words from Bob’s article serve as a fitting conclusion:

“Whenever I give the results to an attorney, I always include a disclaimer that this should be the beginning of your research, and you should review the results for relevance and applicability prior to using it, but you should not rely on it as is.”

— Mark Gediman

For tech-savvy lawyers, the message is clear: Embrace AI's potential, but never forget the irreplaceable value of human expertise and critical thinking in legal research. 🧠💼

MTC

MTC: AI in Legal Email - Balancing Innovation and Ethics 💼🤖

lawyers have an ethical duty when using ai in their work!

The integration of AI into lawyers' email systems presents both exciting opportunities and significant challenges. As legal professionals navigate this technological frontier, we must carefully weigh the benefits against potential ethical pitfalls.

Advantages of AI in Legal Email 📈

AI-powered email tools offer numerous benefits for law firms:

• Enhanced efficiency through automation of routine tasks

• Improved client service and satisfaction

• Assistance in drafting responses and suggesting relevant case law

• Flagging important deadlines

• Improved accuracy in document review and contract analysis

These capabilities allow lawyers to focus on high-value work, potentially improving outcomes for clients and minimizing liabilities for law firms.

AI Email Assistants 🖥️

Several AI email assistants are available for popular email platforms:

1. Microsoft Outlook:

• Copilot for Outlook: Enhances email drafting, replying, and management using ChatGPT.

2. Apple Mail:

• Apple Intelligence in Apple Mail: Generates, translates, and optimizes professional emails.

3. Gmail:

• Gemini 1.5 Pro: Offers email summarization, contextual Q&A, and suggested replies.

4. Multi-platform:

• Mailbutler's Smart Assistant: Works with Apple Mail, Gmail, and Outlook, offering smart compose, smart respond, and task finding features.

Always Proofread Your Work and Confirm Citations!

🚨

Always Proofread Your Work and Confirm Citations! 🚨

Ethical Considerations and Challenges 🚧

Confidentiality and Data Privacy

The use of AI in legal email raises several ethical concerns, primarily regarding the duty of confidentiality outlined in ABA Model Rule 1.6. Lawyers must ensure that AI systems do not compromise client information or inadvertently disclose sensitive data to unauthorized parties.

To address this:

lawyers should always check their work; especially when using AI!

1. Implement robust data security measures

2. Understand AI providers' data handling practices

3. Review and retain copies of AI system privacy policies

4. Make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure

Competence (ABA Model Rule 1.1)

ABA Model Rule 1.1, particularly Comment 8, emphasizes the need for lawyers to understand the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. This includes:

• Understanding AI capabilities and limitations

• Appropriate verification of AI outputs (Check Your Work!)

• Staying informed about changes in AI technology

• Considering the potential duty to use AI when benefits outweigh risks

The ABA's Formal Opinion 512 further emphasizes the need for lawyers to understand the AI tools they use to maintain competence.

Client Communication

Maintaining the personal touch in client communications is crucial. While AI can streamline processes, it should not replace nuanced, empathetic interactions. Lawyers should:

1. Disclose AI use to clients

2. Address any concerns about privacy and security

3. Consider including AI use disclosure in fee agreements or retention letters

4. Read your AI-generated/assisted drafts

Striking the Right Balance ⚖️

To ethically integrate AI into legal email systems, firms should:

1. Implement robust data security measures to protect client confidentiality

2. Provide comprehensive training on AI tools to ensure competent use

3. Establish clear policies on when and how AI should be used in client communications

4. Regularly review and audit AI systems for accuracy and potential biases

5. Maintain transparency with clients about the use of AI in their matters

6. Verify that AI tools are not using email content to train or improve their algorithms

Ai is a tool for work - not a replacement for final judgment!

By carefully navigating ⛵️ these considerations, lawyers can harness the power of AI to enhance their practice while upholding their ethical obligations. The key lies in viewing AI as a tool to augment 🤖 human expertise, not replace it.

As the legal profession evolves, embracing AI in email and other systems will likely become essential for remaining competitive. However, this adoption must always be balanced against the core ethical principles that define the practice of law.

And Remember, Always Proofread Your Work and Confirm Citations BEFORE Sending Your E-mail (w Use of AI or Not)!!!