MTC: Generative AI vs. Traditional Legal Research Platforms: What Modern Lawyers Need to Know in 2025 🧠⚖️

In today’s ai world, you have to keep up to date on what is the best legal research platform.

We’ve been reporting on AI’s impact on the practice of law for some time now. And in today's rapidly evolving legal technology landscape, attorneys face a crucial decision: rely on cutting-edge AI language models or stick with established research platforms. The emergence of powerful generative AI tools has disrupted traditional legal research methods. Yet questions persist about reliability, accuracy, and practical application in high-stakes legal work.

The Power of AI in Legal Research 🚀

Generative AI has revolutionized how legal professionals conduct research. These systems can process vast amounts of information in seconds, draft documents, summarize cases, and provide quick answers to complex legal questions. The time-saving potential is enormous - what once took hours can now be accomplished in minutes.

AI language models excel at:

• Producing initial legal research summaries

• Analyzing contracts and identifying potential issues

• Drafting first versions of legal memoranda

• Summarizing lengthy case law

• Answering straightforward legal questions

The efficiency gains are substantial. According to recent studies, AI tools can reduce contract analysis time by up to 70%. For time-pressed attorneys, this represents a significant competitive advantage.

Top Five AI Legal Research Tools 💻

1. CoCounsel fka Casetext- Built specifically for legal professionals, CoCounsel combines AI with a robust legal database to provide research assistance, document review, and contract analysis.

2. ChatGPT/Claude AI - General-purpose AI models that have shown remarkable capabilities in legal research. Claude 3 Opus is particularly notable, with Anthropic claiming it's "currently the best AI system for legal research".

3. Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel - Thomson Reuters has integrated AI into its flagship research platform, offering AI-Assisted Research, Claims Explorer, and AI Jurisdictional Surveys.

4. Lexis+ AI - LexisNexis's AI-powered solution that leverages the company's extensive legal database to provide research assistance and document analysis.

5. Perplexity AI - A newer entrant combining search engine capabilities with AI to provide cited legal research results and real-time dat.

Limitations of AI Legal Research Tools ⚠️

AI legal Research and “traditional” research methods are not an “either or” scenario - lawyers need to learn both and how to integrate the two in their legal research.

Despite their impressive capabilities, AI tools face significant challenges in the legal context. Most concerning is their tendency to "hallucinate" or generate false information. Stanford researchers found that legal models hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or more) benchmarking queries.

General Limitations

• Hallucinations and factual errors - AI systems regularly generate non-existent case citations and fabricate legal principles.

• Confidentiality risks - Attorneys must ensure AI platforms don't retain client data or share it with third parties.

• Limited jurisdiction coverage - Many AI tools prioritize federal and popular state jurisdictions while providing less reliable information for smaller jurisdictions.

• Ethical compliance challenges - Bar associations increasingly require attorneys to supervise and verify AI-generated content.

Tool-Specific Limitations

• ChatGPT/Claude: General-purpose models lack specialized legal databases and may mix laws from different jurisdictions.

• CoCounsel: While powerful, it still requires attorney verification and has limitations in specialized practice areas.

• Lexis+ AI: Users report it sometimes struggles with complex legal questions requiring nuanced analysis.

• Westlaw Precision AI: Excellent integration with Westlaw's database but comes with significant cost barriers for small firms.

• Perplexity AI: Newer platform with less established track record in complex legal research scenarios.

Traditional Legal Research Platforms: The Gold Standard 📚

Traditional platforms like LexisNexis, Westlaw, and Bloomberg Law remain essential tools for legal professionals. Their longevity stems from reliability, comprehensiveness, and editorial oversight.

General Strengths

Lawyers need to learn how to balance AI-based legal research with “traditional” legal research methods if they want to stay ahead of the competition!

• Verified and authoritative content - Content undergoes editorial review and verification

• Comprehensive case law coverage across jurisdictions

• Established citation systems that courts recognize and trust

• Advanced filtering and search capabilities refined over decades

• Specialized practice area materials including forms and secondary sources

Platform-Specific Strengths

• Westlaw: Exceptional KeyCite system for checking if cases remain good law and extensive practice guides.

• LexisNexis: Strong integration with Microsoft tools and flexible deployment options via Azure.

• Bloomberg Law: AI-powered Points of Law tool identifies the best case language for particular legal points.

• vLex: Global coverage spanning over one billion legal documents from multiple jurisdictions.

Traditional Platform Limitations

• Cost barriers - Enterprise-level pricing puts these tools out of reach for many small firms and solo practitioners

• Steep learning curves - Complex interfaces require significant training

• Slower adoption of new technologies compared to AI-native platforms

• Limited natural language processing capabilities in traditional search functions

• Time-intensive research processes even for experienced users

The Hybrid Approach: Best of Both Worlds 🔄

The most effective strategy employs both technologies strategically. AI can accelerate initial research and drafting, while traditional platforms verify accuracy and provide authoritative citations.

Practical Implementation Guidelines

1. Use AI for initial research exploration - Begin with AI to quickly understand the legal landscape and identify relevant areas of law.

2. Verify all AI-generated citations - Never submit work with AI citations without verification. Recent cases show attorneys facing sanctions for submitting fabricated AI case citations.

3. Employ traditional platforms for precedential research - Once you've identified the relevant area, use Westlaw or LexisNexis to find authoritative cases and statutes and make sure they are still current and have not been overturned.

4. Let AI summarize lengthy materials - Have AI tools condense long cases or statutes for initial review, then verify important sections in original sources.

5. Use AI to draft and traditional tools to check - Generate first drafts with AI, then verify legal principles using traditional research platforms.

Real-World Application Examples

Example 1: An attorney researching a novel contract dispute could ask Claude or ChatGPT to identify potentially applicable contract principles and relevant UCC sections. They would then verify these principles in Westlaw, finding precise precedential cases before crafting their argument.

Example 2: For a time-sensitive motion, a lawyer might use Westlaw Precision's AI-Assisted Research to draft initial arguments, then verify each citation and legal principle using traditional KeyCite features before filing.

Comparison of AI and Traditional Legal Research Platforms 📊

This table comparing AI and traditional legal research platforms was created (with the help of Perplexity.AI) using information from several authoritative sources, each providing key data points and comparative insights:

• Efficiency and Speed: Legal AI research tools have made remarkable strides in efficiency over the past two years. According to the 2025 Vals Legal AI Report (VLAIR), leading AI platforms like Harvey, CoCounsel, and vLex Vincent AI now complete core legal research tasks six to eighty times faster than human lawyers, often delivering results in under a minute. The 2025 Thomson Reuters “Future of Professionals Report” projects that AI-driven solutions will free up an average of four hours per week for each legal professional, translating to substantial productivity gains. Recent surveys by the ABA and Bloomberg Law further confirm that AI-powered platforms such as Westlaw Edge, Lexis+ AI, and Casetext routinely reduce research and document review times by 50–80%, turning what used to be hours of work into minutes. These findings underscore why over half of legal professionals now cite “saving time and increasing efficiency” as the primary benefit of adopting AI in their legal research workflows.

• Accuracy and Citation Reliability: While AI tools can provide quick answers, they are prone to hallucinations-producing incorrect or fabricated information. A Stanford study found that Lexis+ AI and Ask Practical Law AI produced incorrect information more than 17% of the time, with Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research hallucinating over 34% of the time. This directly informed the “Accuracy” and “Citation Reliability” rows in the table, showing that traditional platforms still offer higher reliability.

• Coverage and Content Breadth: Traditional platforms like Westlaw and LexisNexis offer vast, comprehensive databases-Westlaw, for example, provides access to over 40,000 databases, and LexisNexis over 10,000-covering statutes, case law, and secondary sources. This justifies their higher ratings for “Jurisdiction Coverage” and “Comprehensive Content.”

• Learning Curve and Workflow Integration: AI tools are generally easier to use and require less training, while traditional platforms have steeper learning curves but offer more robust workflow integrations and practice-specific resources.

• Cost and Accessibility: AI tools are often more cost-effective and accessible, especially for smaller firms, whereas traditional platforms can be prohibitively expensive but provide unmatched authority and editorial oversight.

• Court Acceptance and Confidentiality: Traditional platforms are recognized and trusted by courts, with established citation systems, while AI-generated citations require verification due to risks of hallucination and confidentiality concerns.

Final Thoughts: Strategic Integration is Key 🔑

The question isn't whether to choose AI or traditional platforms, but how to strategically integrate both. Legal professionals who master this hybrid approach gain efficiency without sacrificing accuracy.

AI excels at speed, summarization, and generating starting points for research. Traditional platforms provide reliability, authority, and comprehensive coverage essential for legal practice. Together, they form a powerful toolkit for the modern attorney.

As AI technology continues to improve, we can expect greater integration between these systems. The most successful legal professionals will be those who understand the strengths and limitations of each tool and deploy them strategically to serve their clients' needs.

For now, traditional research platforms remain essential while AI serves as a powerful complement. The future belongs to those who can harness the strengths of both.

MTC: Why Every Law Firm Should Invest in AI Training: The Case for Effective, Ethical, and Efficient Practice Transformation

The legal industry is facing a pivotal moment as artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly transforms the way lawyers handle everything from research to document review. Yet, a recent Google study underscores a critical truth: the real value of AI is unlocked only when law firms invest in training their professionals to use these tools effectively, ethically, and efficiently. According to Google’s pilot program, workers who received just a few hours of AI training reclaimed an average of 122 hours per year-time that translates directly into cost savings and reduced stress for legal professionals. For law firms, this is not just an opportunity; it’s a necessity for staying competitive in a fast-evolving marketplace.

The Google Study: Training Unlocks Real AI Value

Google’s report, based on pilot programs across the UK, found that the economic impact of AI could reach £400 billion ($533 billion) if the workforce is properly trained. The key insight? Training is the catalyst. Workers who were given permission and basic instruction to use AI tools saw immediate productivity gains, with administrative tasks-often a major time sink for lawyers-becoming dramatically more manageable. This is not just about technology adoption; it’s about empowering professionals to confidently and competently use AI in their daily workflow.

Empirical Evidence: AI Boosts Legal Work Quality and Efficiency

📊 Improve your firm’s success by teaching lawyers to be Competent and confident in the use of legal leader teaches AI tools that boost firm success.

Skepticism about AI’s reliability persists, especially in a field as high-stakes as law. However, a landmark study involving law students using advanced AI tools (like OpenAI’s o1-preview and Vincent AI) found that AI improved attorney efficiency by up to 140% and the quality of legal work by as much as 28%. These gains were particularly pronounced in complex tasks such as drafting persuasive letters or analyzing complaints. The study’s conclusion is clear: AI, when used properly, consistently elevates both the speed and quality of legal work.

The Real Roadblock: Training, Not Technology

Despite these benefits, many lawyers remain hesitant to use AI, often because they lack the training or “permission to prompt.” Google’s study found that two-thirds of workers-especially those less familiar with technology-had never used generative AI at work. The solution is straightforward: law firms must invest in structured, ongoing AI education. A few hours of targeted training can double adoption rates and unlock exponential returns in efficiency and morale.

Legal AI Tools: What’s Available Now

The landscape of legal AI tools is rich and growing. Here are some of the most impactful platforms and programs, each offering unique benefits for law firms ready to take the leap:

• Clio Duo: Integrates AI into practice management, automating time tracking, billing, and client communications.

• CoCounsel by Casetext: Offers AI-powered legal research, document review, deposition preparation, and contract analysis.

• Harvey AI: Delivers generative AI solutions for drafting, research, and summarization tailored to legal workflows.

• Lexis+ AI, Westlaw Precision AI, and vLex’s Vincent AI: These platforms leverage advanced natural language processing to enhance legal research, with features like Shepard’s integration, KeyCite, and user-driven customization.

• Kira Systems: Specializes in contract review and analysis, using machine learning to extract and organize key information.

• ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot: General-purpose AI tools that, with proper prompt engineering, can assist with drafting, summarizing, and brainstorming legal documents.

Training Programs for Lawyers: Building AI Competency

🤖 AI-powered future: teach lawyers how to work smarter using legal tech tools.

A growing number of educational resources are designed specifically for legal professionals:

• Embracing AI for Legal Professionals (Duke University): A 40-hour, self-paced course covering AI’s role in legal research, document review, contract analysis, predictive analytics, and ethical best practices. Includes hands-on experience with leading tools like ChatGPT, Clio, and Kira Systems.

• Generative AI for the Legal Profession (Berkeley Law Executive Education): An online crash course focusing on prompt engineering, risk management, and responsible AI integration in legal practice. No prior technical experience required.

• AI for Lawyers and Other Advocates (University of Michigan): A four-part online series exploring both the practical uses and risks of AI in law, available free to Michigan students and alumni.

• AI & Law (Lund University, Coursera): Examines AI’s impact on legal responsibility, law enforcement, and intellectual property, providing a foundational understanding for legal professionals.

• Artificial Intelligence and the Rule of Law (National Judicial College & UNESCO): Focuses on the ethical and governance challenges of AI in justice systems, ideal for judges and lawyers.

• Legal Tech and AI for Lawyers (Udemy, NYCU/FutureLearn): Covers eDiscovery, legal research, contract management, and the intersection of law and data science, including blockchain and legal forensics.

• Artificial Intelligence, Industry, and the Law (Penn Carey Law School: An executive education program exploring the convergence of AI, regulation, and law, preparing lawyers for the evolving regulatory landscape.

Why Training Pays Off: Efficiency, Ethics, and Peace of Mind

Empower lawyers with AI training for ethical, efficient practice!

Investing in AI training isn’t just about saving time-it’s about doing better work and avoiding costly mistakes. Properly trained lawyers can:

• Streamline document review and e-discovery, reducing billable hours lost to repetitive tasks.

• Improve legal research accuracy and speed, ensuring no precedent is overlooked.

• Enhance contract analysis, identifying risks and opportunities more quickly.

• Maintain ethical standards by understanding AI’s limitations, such as hallucinations or bias, and knowing how to verify AI-generated results.

• Increase client satisfaction by delivering faster, more accurate, and more transparent legal services.

The up-front investment in training-whether through formal courses, in-house workshops, or self-paced online modules-pays for itself many times over. Firms that prioritize ongoing education see reduced stress, improved morale, and a culture of innovation that attracts both clients and top talent.

Stay Ahead: The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page and Tech-Savvy Saturdays

For those ready to take the next step, resources like The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page and The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcastoffer a wealth of practical tips, reviews, and tutorials on leveraging technology in legal practice. Don’t miss Tech-Savvy Saturdays-monthly sessions where attorneys from around the world discuss the latest in legal tech, share challenges, and highlight innovative tools. These free events are an ideal way to stay current, ask questions, and build a tech-forward legal practice.

Ready to future-proof your practice? Bookmark 📑 “The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page” 📝 , subscribe to "The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast" 🎙️ wherever you get your podcast feeds, and join us for the next the "Tech-Savvy Saturdays!"

🎉

Ready to future-proof your practice? Bookmark 📑 “The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page” 📝 , subscribe to "The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast" 🎙️ wherever you get your podcast feeds, and join us for the next the "Tech-Savvy Saturdays!" 🎉

Final Thoughts

The message is clear: AI is not a threat to legal expertise-it’s a tool that, when used properly, amplifies what lawyers do best. But the key to unlocking AI’s full potential is training: investing a little time and money now to save much more in the long run. Law firms that make AI education a priority will not only save hours and dollars but will also deliver better outcomes for their clients and greater peace of mind for their teams.

Stay tuned to The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page and The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast for more insights, practical guides, and invitations to our next Tech-Savvy Saturdays. The future of law is here-make sure your firm is ready to lead it.

MTC: Google’s Claim Over LSA Client Intake Recordings: Why Lawyers Must Rethink Cloud Service Risks in 2025 ⚖️☁️

Client confidentiality under siege: The legal battle begins!

Google’s recent assertion of ownership rights over Local Services Ads (LSA) client intake recordings should send shockwaves through the legal community. In a quiet but consequential email, Google notified LSA advertisers that, going forward, it claims full creative license and access to all content-ranging from photos and bios to, most alarmingly, recorded phone calls and message conversations with prospective clients routed through Google’s systems. This change, effective June 5, 2025, requires advertisers to opt in or risk losing access to LSA advertising altogether.

The Heart of the Issue: Confidentiality and Control

For lawyers, the implications are profound. The attorney-client privilege is a cornerstone of legal ethics, and the duty to safeguard client confidences is absolute. When a third-party platform like Google claims ownership and unfettered use of intake recordings, the risk to confidentiality is not hypothetical-it is immediate and real. Intake calls often contain sensitive, privileged, or even incriminating information. If Google can analyze, synthesize, and potentially repurpose these recordings for algorithmic optimization or other commercial uses, lawyers may inadvertently breach ethical obligations simply by participating in LSA.  See ABA MRPC 1.1[8] and 1.6.

Cloud Services: Convenience vs. Compliance

Ensure your service providers aren't eavesdropping on confidential client communications!

Cloud-based services have revolutionized law practice, offering flexibility, scalability, and cost savings. However, these benefits come with significant risks, especially when the service provider is not lawyer-centric or fails to prioritize legal ethics. The American Bar Association’s TechReport found that 62% of lawyers cite confidentiality and security as their top concerns with cloud computing. The risk is compounded when vendors can unilaterally change terms of service, as Google has done, or when agencies can accept such terms on behalf of law firms, potentially without direct client notification.

Ethical and Legal Pitfalls

Multiple state bar associations and the ABA have issued opinions permitting cloud adoption-so long as lawyers exercise “reasonable care” to protect client data and maintain ongoing oversight of their providers. ABA MRPC 1.6. This includes:

• Conducting due diligence on security and privacy practices before signing up. ABA MRPC 1.1[8]

• Regularly reviewing provider terms and monitoring for changes that may impact confidentiality. ABA MRPC 5.3[8] and

• Ensuring that cloud vendors do not assert ownership or usage rights over client communications.

Google’s new LSA terms appear to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of these ethical requirements by granting itself broad rights to use, modify, and analyze sensitive client data.

Pricing, Profiling, and AI Risks

Google has no business listening on our conversations!

Google’s access to intake recordings is not just a privacy risk-it’s a competitive one. The company can now aggregate pricing, service details, and other confidential data across the legal industry, potentially using this information to inform its own advertising algorithms or AI-driven pricing models. This could lead to unfair competitive advantages, price manipulation, or even the inadvertent exposure of client strategies.

Practical Steps for Lawyers

Given these developments, lawyers should:

• Reevaluate participation in LSA and similar platforms where data rights are unclear or unfavorable.

• Insist on transparency and control over all client communications, especially intake recordings.

• Choose cloud providers with legal industry expertise and terms that explicitly preserve attorney-client privilege and data ownership.

• Educate staff and clients about the risks of sharing sensitive information through third-party channels.

Final Thoughts: The Stakes Are Higher Than Ever!

The legal profession’s embrace of technology must not come at the expense of client trust and ethical integrity. Google’s move is a stark reminder that not all cloud services are created equal, and that lawyers must remain vigilant-scrutinizing every vendor relationship for hidden pitfalls. The black box of big tech is only getting darker; it is up to the legal community to demand light.

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 💼.