🎙️ Ep. 113 - How Seth Price Scaled a 50-Lawyer Firm and Digital Agency: Tech, Cloud, and the Future of Legal Marketing!

Seth Price, founding partner of Price Benowitz LLP and CEO of BluShark Digital, shares deep insights on leveraging technology to scale law firms. He highlights Salesforce, Clio, and Smart Advocate as essential tools, discussing their specific roles in case management and marketing automation. Seth outlines the evolution of digital marketing for lawyers, stressing the importance of content, links, and local reviews in SEO strategy. He offers tips for interpreting Google Analytics and staying ahead of algorithm changes. Concluding with advice on future-proofing practices, Seth urges law firm leaders to invest in adaptive tech stacks and remain inquisitive amid rapid innovation.

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

1. What are the top three pieces of tech, software, or hardware you use to scale price benefits from a two-person firm to over 50 attorneys?

2. What are the top three ways you've seen digital marketing change for lawyers, and can you give us a tip for each one?

3. What are your top three tips for law firm leaders looking to future-proof their practices amid rapid technological change?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[01:23] Seth's Tech Setup

[09:50] Top Three Tech Tools for Scaling Price Benefits

[11:27] Detailed Explanation of Clio and SmartAdvocate

[12:40] Digital Marketing Changes for Lawyers

[16:09] Importance of Local Search and Reviews

[19:00] Tips for Understanding Google Analytics

[25:13] Final Tips for Future-Proofing Law Firms

Resources:

Connect with Seth:

• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/sethprice

• Website: pricebenowitz.com/

• Website: blusharkdigital.com/seth-price-law-firm-blueprint/

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

• Comcast Xfinity: www.xfinity.com/learn/internet-service

• Dell Computers: Dell.com

• Pixel: store.google.com/intl/en/ideas/google-pixel-phones/

• Verizon FiOS: verizon.com/home/internet/fios-fastest-internet/

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

• Avvo.com: avvo.com/

• Clio Cloud: clio.com/

• Eva.ai: eva.ai/hr-4-0-eva-ecosystems-api-and-partners/

• HubSpot: hubspot.com/

• QuickBooks Online: quickbooks.intuit.com/global/

• Salesforce: salesforce.com/

• SmartAdvocate: smartadvocate.com/

• Supio: supio.com/

• TextExpander: textexpander.com/

• Yelp: yelp.com/

🚨 MTC: “Breaking News” Supreme Court DOGE Ruling - Critical Privacy Warnings for Legal Professionals After Social Security Data Access Approval!

Recent supreme court ruling may have placed every american’s pii at risk!

Supreme Court DOGE Ruling: Critical Privacy Warnings for Legal Professionals After Social Security Data Access Approval

Last Friday's Supreme Court ruling represents a watershed moment for data privacy in America. The Court's decision to allow the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unprecedented access to Social Security Administration (SSA) databases containing millions of Americans' personal information creates immediate and serious risks for legal professionals and their clients.

The Ruling's Immediate Impact 📊

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision lifted lower court injunctions that had previously restricted DOGE's access to sensitive SSA systems. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent warned that this ruling "creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans". The majority allowed DOGE to proceed with accessing agency records containing Social Security numbers, medical histories, banking information, and employment data.

This decision affects far more than government efficiency initiatives. Legal professionals must understand that their personal information, along with that of their clients and the general public, now sits in systems accessible to a newly-created department with limited oversight.

Understanding the Privacy Act Framework ⚖️

The Privacy Act of 1974 was designed to prevent exactly this type of unauthorized data sharing. The law requires federal agencies to maintain strict controls over personally identifiable information (PII) and prohibits disclosure without written consent. However, DOGE appears to operate in a regulatory gray area that sidesteps these protections.

Legal professionals should recognize that this ruling effectively undermines decades of privacy protections. The same safeguards that protect attorney-client privilege and confidential case information may no longer provide adequate security.

Specific Risks for Legal Professionals 🎯

your clients are not Alone Against the Algorithm!

Attorney Personal Information Exposure

Your personal data held by the SSA includes tax information, employment history, and financial records. This information can be used for identity theft, targeted phishing attacks, or professional blackmail. Cybercriminals regularly sell such data on dark web marketplaces for $10 to $1,000 per record.

Client Information Vulnerabilities

Clients' SSA data exposure creates attorney liability issues. If client information becomes publicly available through data breaches or dark web sales, attorneys may face malpractice claims for failing to anticipate these risks. The American Bar Association's Rule 1.6 requires lawyers to make "reasonable efforts" to protect client information.

Professional Practice Threats

Law firms already face significant cybersecurity challenges, with 29% reporting security breaches. The DOGE ruling amplifies these risks by creating new attack vectors. Hackers specifically target legal professionals because they handle sensitive information with often inadequate security measures.

Technical Safeguards Legal Professionals Must Implement 🔐

Immediate Action Items

Encrypt all client communications and files using end-to-end encryption. Deploy multi-factor authentication across all systems. Implement comprehensive backup strategies with offline storage capabilities.

Advanced Protection Measures

Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing. Establish data minimization policies to reduce PII exposure. Create incident response plans for potential breaches.

Communication Security

Use secure messaging platforms like Signal or WhatsApp for sensitive discussions. Implement email encryption services for all client correspondence. Establish secure file-sharing protocols for case documents.

Dark Web Monitoring and Response 🕵️

Cyber Defense Starts with the help of lawyers!

Legal professionals must understand how stolen data moves through criminal networks. Cybercriminals sell comprehensive identity packages on dark web marketplaces, often including professional information that can damage reputations. Personal data from government databases frequently appears on these platforms within months of breaches.

Firms should implement dark web monitoring services to detect when attorney or client information appears for sale. Early detection allows for rapid response measures, including credit monitoring and identity theft protection.

Compliance Considerations 📋

State Notification Requirements

Many states require attorneys to notify clients and attorneys general when data breaches occur. Maryland requires notification within 45 days. Virginia mandates immediate reporting for taxpayer identification number breaches. These requirements apply regardless of whether the breach originated from government database access.

Professional Responsibility

The ABA's Model Rules require attorneys to stay current with technology risks. See Model Rule 1.1:Comment 8.  These rules creates new obligations to assess and address government data access risks. Attorneys must evaluate whether current security measures remain adequate given expanded government database access.

Recommendations for Legal Technology Implementation 💻

Essential Security Tools

Deploy endpoint detection and response software on all devices. Use virtual private networks (VPNs) for all internet communications. Implement zero-trust network architectures where feasible.

Client Communication Protocols

Establish clear policies for discussing sensitive matters electronically. Create secure client portals for document exchange. Develop protocols for emergency communication during security incidents.

Staff Training Programs

Conduct regular cybersecurity training for all personnel. Focus on recognizing phishing attempts and social engineering. Establish clear protocols for reporting suspicious activities.

Looking Forward: Preparing for Continued Risks 🔮

Cyber Defense Starts BEFORE YOU GO TO Court.

The DOGE ruling likely represents the beginning of expanded government data access rather than an isolated incident. Legal professionals must prepare for an environment where traditional privacy protections may no longer apply.

Consider obtaining cybersecurity insurance specifically covering government data breach scenarios. Evaluate whether current malpractice insurance covers privacy-related claims. Develop relationships with cybersecurity professionals who understand legal industry requirements.

Final Thoughts: Acting Now to Protect Your Practice 🛡️

The Supreme Court's DOGE ruling fundamentally changes the privacy landscape for legal professionals. Attorneys can no longer assume that government-held data remains secure or private. The legal profession must adapt quickly to protect both professional practices and client interests.

This ruling demands immediate action from every legal professional. The cost of inaction far exceeds the investment in proper cybersecurity measures. Your clients trust you with their most sensitive information. That trust now requires unprecedented vigilance in our digital age.

MTC

📖 Word(s) of the Week (Woow): "Service as a Service" (SaaS) & "Hardware as a Service" (HaaS)!

SaaS vs. HaaS: What Law Firms Need to Know About Service as a Service and Hardware as a Service in 2025 ⚖️💻

Exploring SaaS vs. HaaS in Legal Tech!

Legal practices are rapidly embracing cloud-based solutions, and two models stand out: Software as a Service (SaaS) and Hardware as a Service (HaaS). Understanding these models is essential for law firms seeking efficiency, security, and cost-effectiveness in 2025.

What is SaaS?
SaaS is a cloud-based software delivery model. Instead of buying software outright and installing it on each device, law firms subscribe to web-hosted applications. This means no more managing physical servers or complex installations. Leading SaaS providers handle updates, security, and maintenance, freeing attorneys to focus on clients and cases.

Benefits of SaaS for Law Firms:

• Centralized, secure document management—enabling paperless workflows and real-time collaboration.

• Cost savings by eliminating expensive hardware and IT support. Firms pay only for what they use and can scale up or down as needed.

• Remote access to case files, calendars, and billing from anywhere, supporting hybrid and remote work environments.

• Automatic updates and improved security, with providers responsible for compliance and data protection.

• Specialized legal features, such as document automation, calendaring, and legal billing, tailored for law practices.

Legal Considerations for SaaS:
SaaS agreements replace traditional software licenses. They must clearly define service levels, data privacy, and compliance with regulations. SaaS lawyers play a crucial role in drafting contracts, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring regulatory compliance across jurisdictions.

What is HaaS?
HaaS provides physical hardware—like computers, servers, or networking equipment—on a subscription basis. Law firms avoid large upfront purchases and instead pay a monthly fee for access, support, and maintenance. HaaS often includes installation, configuration, troubleshooting, and ongoing monitoring.

Benefits of HaaS for Law Firms:

Knowing your SAAS and Haas agreement terms is essential to maintaining client confidentiality and security

• Predictable budgeting with no surprise hardware expenses.

• Up-to-date equipment and proactive maintenance, reducing downtime.

• Comprehensive support agreements, including warranties and rapid response times.

• Enhanced security and compliance, as providers manage device updates and data protection.

Legal Considerations for HaaS:
HaaS contracts should specify the scope of services, pricing, service-level agreements (SLAs), liability, data privacy, and dispute resolution. Clear terms protect both the law firm and the provider, ensuring accountability and compliance with industry standards.

Challenges Law Firms Face in Using SaaS and HaaS

Law firms adopting SaaS and HaaS face several notable challenges:

• Security Vulnerabilities: SaaS platforms can be susceptible to misconfigured access controls, inadequate monitoring, and insufficient threat detection. These weaknesses make law firms prime targets for cyberattacks, such as unauthorized access and data breaches, as seen in high-profile incidents involving major firms.

• Data Breaches and Compliance Risks: Sensitive client data stored in SaaS environments is at risk if proper security measures are not in place. Breaches can expose confidential information, leading to regulatory penalties, reputational damage, and class action lawsuits if firms fail to notify affected parties promptly.

• Integration Challenges: As law firms rely on multiple SaaS vendors, integrating various software platforms can become complex. Poor integration may disrupt workflows and reduce efficiency, especially if systems do not communicate seamlessly.

• Shared Responsibility Confusion: SaaS providers typically secure the platform, but law firms are responsible for data security and access controls. Many firms mistakenly believe vendor security alone is sufficient, which can leave critical data exposed.

• Reliable and consistent internet access: Reliable and consistent internet access is essential for law firms using SaaS and HaaS, as these cloud-based solutions require an active connection to access software, documents, and case management tools; any internet outage or slow connectivity can disrupt workflows, limit access to critical information, and impact client service. (What if you are on travel and the airplane, hotel, or location does have (reliable) internet connection - how do you get your work done?)

• Business Email Compromise (BEC): SaaS ecosystems increase the risk of BEC attacks. Compromised email accounts can be exploited for fraud, impersonation, and data theft, often going undetected for extended periods.

• Data Classification and Visibility Issues: Rapid adoption of SaaS can lead to scattered data across multiple platforms. Without a formal data classification strategy, firms may lose track of where sensitive information resides, complicating compliance and incident response.

• Legal and Contractual Complexities: SaaS contracts involve nuanced licensing agreements, third-party vendor relationships, and service level commitments. Discrepancies between vendor terms and client expectations can result in disputes and legal challenges.

• Dependency on Providers: Both SaaS and HaaS models make firms dependent on external vendors for uptime, support, and updates. Service disruptions or vendor instability can directly impact firm operations.

• Hardware Lifecycle Management: With HaaS, firms avoid upfront hardware costs but must rely on the provider for timely upgrades, maintenance, and support. Poor vendor performance can lead to outdated equipment, downtime, or security gaps.

• Cost Over Time: While SaaS and HaaS reduce initial capital expenditures, ongoing subscription fees may add up, potentially exceeding the cost of traditional ownership in the long term if not carefully managed.

Lawyers need to know the pros and cons in using saas and haas products!

While SaaS and HaaS offer significant advantages, law firms must address these risks through robust security practices, careful contract negotiation, and ongoing vendor management to protect sensitive data and maintain operational integrity. This may be easier for large law firms but difficult if not nearly impossible for mid- to small- to solo-size law practices.

Why Law Firms Should Care
Both SaaS and HaaS offer flexibility, scalability, and security that traditional IT models cannot match. By leveraging these services, law firms can modernize operations, improve client service, and reduce risk. The right contracts and due diligence are critical to ensure business continuity and compliance in a rapidly evolving legal tech landscape.

MTC: Law Firm Technology Procurement Strategy During Trade Court Tariff Chaos: Buy Now or Wait?

Tariff chaos continues with recent ruling by US Court of International trade creating confusion for lawyers on how to address their office tech needs!

The recent ruling by the US Court of International Trade has thrown technology procurement strategies for law firms into unprecedented uncertainty. Legal practitioners nationwide face a critical decision that could significantly impact their operational costs and technological capabilities for years to come.

On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade delivered a landmark decision that struck down President Trump's sweeping tariff regime, ruling that the administration exceeded its constitutional authority by implementing global import duties under emergency powers legislation. The court determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs unilaterally, particularly the 30% tariffs on Chinese goods, 25% tariffs on certain imports from Mexico and Canada, and 10% universal tariffs on most other goods.

However, the victory for importers and businesses proved short-lived. The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision, and the Federal Circuit Court granted an emergency stay, allowing tariff collection to continue pending further legal proceedings. This legal ping-pong effect has created exactly the type of market uncertainty that makes technology procurement decisions particularly challenging for law firms.

The Technology Dilemma Facing Legal Practitioners

The smartphone and computer hardware that law firms depend on daily face significant price pressures under the current tariff regime. Industry analysts predict smartphone prices could increase by 4% in the US market due to tariff uncertainty. More dramatically, experts suggest that forcing iPhone production to move entirely to the United States could result in device prices reaching $3,500, several times the current prices. While such extreme scenarios may not materialize, the underlying message is clear: technology costs are likely to increase substantially if current trade policies persist.

For law firms, this creates a fundamental procurement dilemma. Should practices accelerate their hardware refresh cycles to avoid potential price increases? Or should they maintain their normal procurement schedules and hope that legal challenges will ultimately overturn the tariffs?

Understanding the Current Legal Landscape

lawyers struggle to balance timing of future tech purchases with the uncertainty the tariffs have created1

The Court of International Trade's ruling provides important guidance for understanding the likely trajectory of these trade policies. The judges specifically noted that tariffs designed to address drug trafficking and immigration issues fail to establish a clear connection between the emergency declared and the remedy implemented. The court emphasized that “…the collection of tariffs on lawful imports does not clearly relate to foreign efforts to arrest, seize, detain, or otherwise intercept wrongdoers within their jurisdictions".

This reasoning suggests that even if the Federal Circuit Court ultimately upholds some aspects of the administration's trade policy, the current broad-based tariff regime may face continued legal challenges. However, the court left intact Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, indicating that more narrowly tailored trade measures may survive judicial scrutiny.

Practical Procurement Strategies for Law Firms

Given this uncertain environment, law firms should consider a hybrid approach to technology procurement that balances risk management with cost efficiency. Rather than making dramatic changes to established procurement cycles, firms should focus on strategic timing and vendor diversification.

• Immediate Actions: Law firms with aging hardware that was already scheduled for replacement should consider accelerating those purchases slightly. Equipment approaching end-of-life status represents the highest risk category, as firms cannot afford to delay these replacements indefinitely. However, avoid panic purchasing of equipment that still has useful life remaining.

• Vendor Diversification: The current trade tensions highlight the risks of over-reliance on any single country's manufacturing base. Samsung smartphones, for example, may face fewer tariff pressures than Apple devices because Samsung shifted most production away from China to Vietnam, India, and South Korea. Law firms should evaluate whether their technology vendors have diversified supply chains that reduce exposure to specific country-based tariffs.

• Future-Proofing Without Overcommitment: Interestingly, recent surveys reveal that 73% of iPhone users and 87% of Samsung Galaxy users find little to no value in artificial intelligence features. This suggests that law firms should focus procurement decisions on proven functionality rather than cutting-edge features that may not provide practical value. Battery life, storage capacity, and build quality remain more important factors than AI capabilities for most legal professionals.

The Economics of Hardware as a Service

be the hero in your law office by having a solid understanding of where your tech comes from and how tariffs may impact your purchasing power!

The US Court of International Trade’s ruling and the ensuing tariff uncertainty underscore the need for law firms to reassess traditional hardware procurement models. Hardware as a Service (HaaS) offers a strategic alternative, shifting the financial and operational risks of ownership to specialized providers. Under HaaS, firms pay fixed monthly fees for enterprise-grade computers and devices, with vendors handling maintenance, upgrades, and supply chain disruptions—critical advantages amid fluctuating trade policies.

For small-to-midsize firms, HaaS mitigates two key risks: sudden tariff-driven price hikes and premature hardware obsolescence. By converting capital expenditures into predictable operational costs, firms avoid large upfront investments in equipment that may depreciate rapidly if tariffs escalate. Providers also absorb the burden of navigating geopolitical trade complexities, ensuring timely hardware replacements even if import restrictions tighten.

While many legal workflows rely on Software as a Service (SaaS), these cloud-based tools still require reliable hardware. Outdated computers struggle with modern SaaS platforms, leading to lagging performance, security vulnerabilities, and lost productivity. HaaS ensures firms maintain hardware capable of running current software efficiently, without the financial strain of cyclical refresh cycles.

Long-Term Strategic Considerations

Law firms must avoid knee-jerk reactions to tariff headlines. The legal challenges to presidential trade authority suggest broader import duties may face judicial limits, but appeals will prolong uncertainty. Instead, firms should build hardware procurement resilience through:

1. Vendor Diversification: Partner with HaaS providers and suppliers across multiple regions to reduce dependency on tariff-affected geographies.

2. Modular Budgeting: Allocate flexible funds for hardware upgrades, allowing adjustments as trade policies evolve.

3. Performance Benchmarks: Prioritize devices with proven durability and processing power over speculative AI features, as 73% of legal professionals report minimal use of smartphone AI tools.

Final Thoughts

THERE ARE MORE FACTORS THAT JUST THE TARIFF’S THEMSELVES FOR LAWYER TO CONSIDER WHEN PURCHASING THEIR NEXT OFFICE TECH DEVICE!

The tariff chaos demands measured action, not paralysis. Firms should:

• Replace aging hardware incapable of running current software and SaaS tools efficiently, as outdated devices increase security risks and hinder client service.

• Adopt hybrid procurement models, blending HaaS for high-risk devices (e.g., laptops, servers) with outright purchases for stable, long-use equipment (e.g., monitors, keyboards, etc.).

• Ignore speculative tech trends; focus on hardware that enhances core workflows, not flashy AI features with negligible practical value.

By anchoring decisions in operational needs rather than tariff panic, firms will balance cost efficiency with preparedness for any trade policy outcome.

MTC

BOLO: LexisNexis Data Breach: What Legal Professionals Need to Know Now—and Why All Lexis Products Deserve Scrutiny!

LAWYERS NEED TO BE BOTH TECH-SAVVY AND Cyber-SavvY!

On December 25, 2024, LexisNexis Risk Solutions (LNRS)—a major data broker and subsidiary of LexisNexis—suffered a significant data breach that exposed the personal information of over 364,000 individuals. This incident, which went undetected until April 2025, highlights urgent concerns for legal professionals who rely on LexisNexis and its related products for research, analytics, and client management.

What Happened in the LexisNexis Breach?

Attackers accessed sensitive data through a third-party software development platform (GitHub), not LexisNexis’s internal systems. The compromised information includes names, contact details, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and dates of birth. Although LexisNexis asserts that no financial or credit card data was involved and that its main systems remain secure, the breach raises red flags about the security of data handled across all Lexis-branded platforms.

Why Should You Worry About Other Lexis Products?

LexisNexis Risk Solutions is just one division under the LexisNexis and RELX umbrella, which offers a suite of legal, analytics, and data products widely used by law firms, courts, and corporate legal departments. The breach demonstrates that vulnerabilities may not be limited to one product or platform; third-party integrations, development tools, and shared infrastructure can all present risks. If you use LexisNexis for legal research, client intake, or case management, your clients’ confidential data could be at risk—even if the breach did not directly affect your specific product.

Ethical Implications: ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

ALL LawyerS NEED TO BE PREPARED TO FighT Data LeakS!

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to safeguard client information and maintain competence in technology. Rule 1.6(c) mandates that attorneys “make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” Rule 1.1 further obligates lawyers to keep abreast of changes in law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.

In light of the LexisNexis breach, lawyers must:

• Assess the security of all third-party vendors, including legal research and data analytics providers.

• Promptly notify clients if their data may have been compromised, as required by ethical and sometimes statutory obligations.

• Implement additional safeguards, such as multi-factor authentication and regular vendor risk assessments.

• Stay informed about ongoing investigations and legal actions stemming from the breach.

What Should Legal Professionals Do Next?

• Review your firm’s use of LexisNexis and related products.

• Ask vendors for updated security protocols and breach response plans.

• Consider offering affected clients identity protection services.

• Update internal policies to reflect heightened risks associated with third-party platforms.

The Bottom Line

The LexisNexis breach is a wake-up call for the legal profession. Even if your primary Lexis product was not directly affected, the interconnected nature of modern legal technology means your clients’ data could still be at risk. Proactive risk management and ethical vigilance are now more critical than ever.

🎙️ Ep. 112: How Judges and Lawyers Can Use AI Wisely: Judge Scott Schlegel on Best Practices, Pitfalls, and The Future of Legal Tech.

My next guest is the Honorable Judge Scott Schlegel, a nationally recognized judicial innovation and technology leader.

With extensive courtroom and technological experience, Judge Schlegel offers valuable insights into how attorneys can effectively leverage artificial intelligence and legal technology to enhance their workflows. He emphasizes the importance of avoiding common pitfalls while maintaining the highest standards of professional responsibility. Judge Schlegel also underscores the critical need to keep the human in the loop, advocating for a balanced approach that upholds efficiency and legal expertise.

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

1. What are the top three ways lawyers should use AI for their work, and what are the top three ways lawyers do not use AI correctly today?

2. What are the top three things lawyers still get wrong with using technology in the courtroom?

3. AI is the current advancement in technology in the workplace. What are the top three technological advances lawyers should be keeping an eye on soon?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[00:59] Top Three Ways Lawyers Should Use AI

[04:01] Security and Privacy Concerns with AI

[06:49] Common Mistakes Lawyers Make with AI

[11:52] What Lawyers Are Still Getting Wrong in Court

[18:30] Future Technological Advances for Lawyers

[22:18] Keeping the Human Element in AI Use

Resources:

Connect with Judge Schlegel:

• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/judgeschlegel/

• Substack: judgeschlegel.substack.com

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

• LexisNexis: lexisnexis.com/en-us

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

SoundCloud’s AI TOS Controversy: A Wake-Up Call for Lawyers on Generative AI, ABA Model Rules, and Client Data Security 🛡️🤖

The recent uproar over SoundCloud’s Terms of Service (TOS) update—initially allowing user content to train artificial intelligence—should be a clarion call 📣 for legal professionals. While the music industry’s outrage was swift, the lessons for attorneys run deeper, especially as generative AI tools become woven into the fabric of law practice. This episode underscores the urgent need for lawyers to understand the terms of every digital tool they use, not just for convenience but to uphold their ethical duties under the ABA Model Rules and to protect their clients’ confidential and personally identifiable information (PII).

SoundCloud’s TOS update, which quietly granted the company broad rights to use user-uploaded music for AI training, raised fundamental questions about ownership and control. Musicians and creators were alarmed that their original works could be harvested to develop AI models—potentially even those that mimic or replace their creative output—without explicit consent or compensation. The controversy highlighted not only the risk of artists’ music being used to train generative AI but also the ambiguous ownership of derivative works that might result from such training. This concern over intellectual property rights and loss of control is a stark parallel to the legal profession’s own obligations to protect sensitive information in the digital age.

ABA Model Rules: The Foundation for Ethical Tech Use

Competence (Model Rule 1.1):
Lawyers must provide competent representation, which now includes technological competence. Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 specifically requires attorneys to “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology”. The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 reinforces that lawyers must understand the capabilities and limitations of generative AI tools before using them in their practice.

Confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6):
The duty of confidentiality is paramount. Rule 1.6 and its comments require lawyers to safeguard client information against unauthorized access or disclosure, including when using third-party technology like generative AI. The ABA’s recent guidance warns that self-learning AI tools, which may retain and reuse input data, pose a heightened risk of inadvertent disclosure—even within a closed system. Public generative AI platforms, in particular, can expose client data to prying eyes, including the opposition or other users.

Communication (Model Rule 1.4):
Lawyers must communicate effectively with clients about the use of AI tools, including any risks to confidentiality or data security. Informed consent is critical, especially when client data could be processed or stored in jurisdictions with different privacy laws.

Reasonable Fees (Model Rule 1.5):
While AI can enhance efficiency, lawyers must ensure that fees for AI-assisted work are reasonable and transparent. The ABA clarifies that time spent learning to use AI tools generally should not be billed to clients.

Lessons from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page has been at the forefront of discussing these risks. In the blog post “Can Lawyers Ethically Use Generative AI with Public Documents? Navigating Competence, Confidentiality, and Caution,” the duty of confidentiality is highlighted as a significant challenge when using public generative AI tools. Even anonymized client data may risk exposure if the context allows for re-identification. My editorials and podcast episodes consistently urge lawyers to:

• Vet AI platforms for robust data protection and clear, restrictive TOS.

• Avoid inputting client PII into public AI tools without explicit, informed consent.

• Stay educated on evolving bar association guidance and best practices for AI in law.

Podcast interviews, such as with Jayne Reardon, reinforce that even “whitewashed” data can be problematic, as the context may still reveal confidential client details. The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast regularly features experts discussing how to balance AI’s benefits with the profession’s ethical imperatives, echoing the same concerns that musicians voiced about the use and ownership of their creative works on SoundCloud.

The SoundCloud Example: Ownership, Control, and Risk

SoundCloud’s TOS update, which initially allowed the platform to use artists’ music to “inform, train, develop, or serve as input to artificial intelligence or machine intelligence technologies,” brought to light the risk that creators might lose control over how their work is used and who ultimately benefits from it. For musicians, the fear was that their own songs could be used to train AI models that would then generate similar music, possibly undermining their careers and eroding their ownership rights. The lack of transparency and the default opt-in nature of the policy further eroded trust.

This is directly analogous to the legal field, where attorneys must ensure that client documents and confidential information are not used to train AI models in ways that could compromise client interests or ownership of legal work product. Just as SoundCloud’s artists demanded clarity and control over their music, lawyers must demand the same over their data and intellectual property.

Why This Matters for Lawyers

The legal profession is rapidly adopting generative AI tools for research, drafting, and client communications. Many of these tools, whether standalone or embedded in cloud-based platforms, operate under terms of service that grant providers broad rights to access, analyze, and even use uploaded data to train their AI models. If attorneys do not scrutinize these terms, they risk inadvertently exposing privileged information, work product, or client PII to unauthorized access or use by the AI provider—or worse, by third parties.

Unlike musicians, whose primary concern is copyright and creative control, lawyers have an ethical and legal duty to protect client confidentiality. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys to make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information. Using a generative AI tool with permissive or ambiguous TOS could violate these duties, especially if sensitive documents are uploaded without clear assurances that the data will not be used for AI training or shared beyond the intended scope.

Past precedents highlight the urgency of this issue. In 2024, Utah’s court system implemented MyCase, a case management platform that claimed ownership of all user-generated data, including attorney work product and client communications, while disclaiming liability for breaches. Similarly, Google’s 2025 Local Services Ads policy update asserted ownership over law firms’ client intake data, including call recordings and messages, which could be analyzed by AI without explicit consent - see my editorial MTC: Google’s Claim Over LSA Client Intake Recordings: Why Lawyers Must Rethink Cloud Service Risks in 2025 ⚖️☁️. These cases mirror broader industry trends, such as Vultr’s short-lived attempt to claim perpetual commercial rights to cloud-hosted content and Slack’s controversial data export fees. For lawyers, these examples demonstrate how easily confidential information can fall under third-party control—often through clauses buried in updates to terms of service. The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 and analysis from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page emphasize that such risks are not theoretical, urging practitioners to treat TOS reviews as a core component of client protection1.

Security and the Adversarial Risk
One of the gravest risks is that information uploaded to a generative AI platform could be accessed or inferred by the opposition or other unauthorized parties. If an AI provider uses your data to train its models, there is a risk—however small—that elements of your confidential work could surface in responses to other users. This is not a hypothetical concern; it has already happened in other industries, and the consequences for legal practice could be catastrophic.

Practical Steps: Protecting Clients and Your Practice

SoundCloud’s TOS incident is a stark reminder: always read and understand the terms of service for any platform or AI tool before uploading client data. The New Solo podcast episode “AI And The Terms Of Service. Know What You Are Sharing!” echoes this advice, emphasizing that lawyers—even those who draft TOS for others—often neglect to scrutinize these agreements for their own practice. Key questions include:

• Who owns the data entered into the platform?

• What rights does the provider claim over your data?

• Is your data used solely to deliver the service, or is it also used to train AI models?

• What safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure?

As with the SoundCloud controversy, where artists discovered their music could be used for AI training without their knowledge, lawyers must be vigilant to prevent their confidential work from being similarly exploited.

The Adversarial Risk: More Than Just Theory

The risk is not hypothetical. As detailed in ABA Formal Opinion 512 and multiple bar association opinions, generative AI can inadvertently disclose confidential information through its self-learning capabilities—even within a law firm’s own closed system. If a provider’s TOS allows broad use of your data, there’s a real danger that sensitive client information could be exposed to third parties, including opposing counsel. Along this same vein, remember when an online law practice management provider tried to claim ownership of the data user put into their system? Know your terms of service!

Final Thoughts: Vigilance Is Essential

The SoundCloud TOS controversy is a pivotal lesson for the legal profession. Lawyers must not only embrace technology but do so with a clear-eyed understanding of their ethical obligations. The ABA Model Rules, recent formal opinions, and thought leadership from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page all point to the same conclusion: due diligence, transparency, and ongoing education are non-negotiable in the age of AI. Just as artists must protect the ownership and use of their creative works, attorneys must safeguard client data and their own legal work product from becoming fodder for AI models without consent.

🚨 BOLO: Android Ad Fraud Malware and Your ABA Ethical Duties – What Every Lawyer Must Know in 2025 🚨

Defend Client Data from Malware!

The discovery of the “Kaleidoscope” ad fraud malware targeting Android devices is a wake-up call for legal professionals. This threat, which bombards users with unskippable ads and exploits app permissions, is not just an annoyance - it is a direct risk to client confidentiality, law firm operations, and compliance with the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers must recognize that cybersecurity is not optional; it is an ethical mandate under the ABA Model Rules, including Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.3.

Why the ABA Model Rules Matter

• Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): Lawyers must make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information. A compromised device can leak confidential data, violating this core duty.

• Rule 1.1 (Competence): Competence now includes understanding and managing technological risks. Lawyers must stay abreast of threats like Kaleidoscope and take appropriate precautions.

• Rule 1.3 (Diligence): Prompt action is required to investigate and remediate breaches, protecting client interests.

• Rule 1.4 (Communication): Lawyers must communicate risks and safeguards to clients, including the potential for data breaches and the steps being taken to secure information.

• Rules 5.1 & 5.3 (Supervision): Law firm leaders must ensure all personnel, including non-lawyers, adhere to cybersecurity protocols.

Practical Steps for Lawyers – Backed by Ethics and The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page

Lawyers: Secure Your Practice Now!

• Download Only from Trusted Sources: Only install apps from the Google Play Store, leveraging its built-in protections. Avoid third-party stores, the main source of Kaleidoscope infections.

• Review App Permissions: Be vigilant about apps requesting broad permissions, such as “Display over other apps.” These can enable malware to hijack your device.

• Secure Devices: Use strong, unique passwords, enable multi-factor authentication, and encrypt devices-simple but essential steps emphasized by our blog posts on VPNs and ABA guidance.

• Update Regularly: Keep your operating system and apps up to date to patch vulnerabilities.

• Educate and Audit: Train your team about mobile threats and run regular security audits, as highlighted in Cybersecurity Awareness Month posts on The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page.

• Incident Response: Have a plan for responding to breaches, as required by ABA Formal Opinion 483 and best practices.

• Communicate with Clients: Discuss with clients how their information is protected and notify them promptly in the event of a breach, as required by Rule 1.4 and ABA opinions.

• Label Confidential Communications: Mark sensitive communications as “privileged” or “confidential,” per ABA guidance.

Advanced Strategies

Lawyers need to have security measures in place to protect client data!

• Leverage AI-Powered Security: Use advanced tools for real-time threat detection, as recommended by The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page.

• VPN and Secure Networks: Avoid public Wi-Fi. But if/when you do be sure to use VPNs (see The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page articles on VPNs) to protect data in transit.

• Regular Backups: Back up data to mitigate ransomware and other attacks.

By following these steps, lawyers fulfill their ethical duties, protect client data, and safeguard their practice against evolving threats like Kaleidoscope.

Why Are Lawyers Still Failing at AI Legal Research? The Alarming Rise of AI Hallucinations in Courtrooms 🚨⚖️

lawyers avoid sanctions - check your work!

The legal profession stands at a crossroads: Artificial intelligence (AI) offers unprecedented speed and efficiency in legal research, yet lawyers across the country (and even around the world, like our neighbor to the north) continue to make costly mistakes by over-relying on these tools. Despite years of warnings and mounting evidence, courts are now sanctioning attorneys for submitting briefs filled with fake citations and non-existent case law. Let’s examine where we are today:

The Latest AI Legal Research Failures: A Pattern, Not a Fluke

Within the last month, the legal world has witnessed a series of embarrassing AI-driven blunders:

• $31,000 Sanction in California: Two major law firms, Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP, were hit with a $31,000 penalty after submitting a brief with at least nine incorrect citations, including two to cases that do not exist. The attorneys used Google Gemini and Westlaw’s AI features but failed to verify the output-a mistake that Judge Michael Wilner called “inexcusable” for any competent attorney.

• Morgan & Morgan’s AI Crackdown: After a Wyoming federal judge threatened sanctions over AI-generated, fictitious case law, the nation’s largest personal injury firm issued a warning: use AI without verification, and you risk termination.

• Nationwide Trend: From Minnesota to Texas, courts are tossing filings and sanctioning lawyers for AI-induced “hallucinations”-the confident generation of plausible but fake legal authorities.

These are not isolated incidents. As covered in our recent blog post, “Generative AI vs. Traditional Legal Research Platforms: What Modern Lawyers Need to Know in 2025,” the risks of AI hallucinations are well-documented, and the consequences for ignoring them are severe.

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page: Prior Warnings and Deep Dives

lawyers need to confirm all of their citations generative ai or not!

I’ve been sounding the alarm on these issues for some time. In our November 2024 review, “Lexis+ AI™️ Falls Short for Legal Research,” I detailed how even the most advanced legal AI platforms can cite non-existent legislation, misinterpret legal concepts, and confidently provide incorrect information. The post emphasized the need for human oversight and verification-a theme echoed in every major AI research failure since.

Our “Word of the Week” feature explained the phenomenon of AI “Hallucinations” in plain language: “The AI is making stuff up.” We warned attorneys that AI tools are not ready to write briefs without review and that those who fail to learn how to use AI properly will be replaced by those who do.

For a more in-depth discussion, listen to our podcast episode "From Chatbots to Generative AI – Tom Martin explores LawDroid's legal tech advancements with AI", where we explore how leading legal tech companies are addressing the reliability and security concerns of AI-driven research. Tom’s advice? Treat AI as a collaborator, not an infallible expert, and always manage your expectations about its capabilities.

Why Do These Mistakes Keep Happening? 🤔

1. Overtrust in AI Tools
   Despite repeated warnings, lawyers continue to treat AI outputs as authoritative. As detailed in our November 2024 editorial, MTC/🚨BOLO🚨: Lexis+ AI™️ Falls Short for Legal Research!, and January 2025 roundup of AI legal research platforms, Shout Out to Robert Ambrogi: AI Legal Research Platforms - A Double-Edged Sword for Tech-Savvy Lawyers 🔍⚖️, even the best tools, e.g., Lexis+AI, Westlaw Precision AI, vLex's Vincent AI, produce inconsistent results and are prone to hallucinations. The myth of AI infallibility persists, leading to dangerous shortcuts.

2. Lack of AI Literacy and Verification
   Many attorneys lack the technical skills to critically assess AI-generated research (yet have the legal research tools to check their work, i.e., legal citations). Our blog’s ongoing coverage stresses that AI tools are supplements, not replacements, for professional judgment. As we discussed in “Generative AI vs. Traditional Legal Research Platforms,” traditional platforms still offer higher reliability, especially for complex or high-stakes matters.

3. Inadequate Disclosure and Collaboration
   Lawyers often share AI-generated drafts without disclosing their origin, allowing errors to propagate. This lack of transparency was a key factor in several recent sanctions and is a recurring theme in our blog postings and podcast interviews with legal tech innovators.

4. AI’s Inability to Grasp Legal Nuance
   AI can mimic legal language but cannot truly understand doctrine or context. Our review of Lexis+ AI, see “MTC/🚨BOLO🚨: Lexis+ AI™️ Falls Short for Legal Research!," highlighted how the platform confused criminal and tort law concepts and cited non-existent statutes-clear evidence that human expertise remains essential.

The Real-World Consequences

lawyers don’t find yourself sanctioned or worse because you used unverified generative ai research!

• Judicial Sanctions and Fines: Increasingly severe penalties, including the $31,000 sanction in California, are becoming the norm.

• Professional Embarrassment: Lawyers risk public censure and reputational harm-outcomes we’ve chronicled repeatedly on The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page.

• Client Harm: Submitting briefs with fake law can jeopardize client interests and lead to malpractice claims.

• Loss of Trust: Repeated failures erode public confidence in the legal system.

What Needs to Change-Now

1. Mandatory AI Verification Protocols
   Every AI-generated citation must be independently checked using trusted, primary sources. Our blog and podcast guests have consistently advocated for checklists and certifications to ensure research integrity.

2. AI Literacy Training
   Ongoing education is essential. As we’ve reported, understanding AI’s strengths and weaknesses is now a core competency for all legal professionals.

3. Transparent Disclosure
   Attorneys should disclose when AI tools are used in research or drafting. This simple step can prevent many of the cascading errors seen in recent cases.

4. Responsible Adoption
   Firms must demand transparency from AI vendors and insist on evidence of reliability before integrating new tools. Our coverage of the “AI smackdown” comparison made clear that no platform is perfect-critical thinking is irreplaceable.

Final Thoughts 🧐: AI Is a Tool, Not a Substitute for Judgment

lawyers balance your legal research using generative ai with known, reliable legal resouirces!

Artificial intelligence can enhance legal research, but it cannot replace diligence, competence, or ethical responsibility. The recent wave of AI-induced legal blunders is a wake-up call: Technology is only as good as the professional who wields it. As we’ve said before on The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page, lawyers must lead with skepticism, verify every fact, and never outsource their judgment to a machine. The future of the profession-and the trust of the public-depends on it.

Don’t Miss Tech-Savvy Saturdays: Mastering MS Word for Legal Brief Writing!

Join us the third saturday of every month for a free webinar on tech topics for lawyers!

Don’t Miss Tech-Savvy Saturdays: Mastering MS Word for Legal Brief Writing!

Are you still using Microsoft Word like a glorified typewriter? It’s time to level up your legal document game! Join me this Saturday for our next Tech-Savvy Saturdays live seminar, where we’ll dive deep into the powerful, often-overlooked features of MS Word that every lawyer should know.

Why Attend?

If you’ve ever struggled with inconsistent formatting, wasted time updating cross-references, or dreaded building a Table of Authorities, this session is for you. We’ll cover everything from the basics-like using Styles for effortless, court-compliant formatting-to advanced tools and integrations that can transform your workflow.

Here’s a sneak peek of what we’ll cover:

• Setting up and applying Styles for consistent, professional briefs

• Automating cross-references and section links

• Creating and updating Tables of Contents and Tables of Authorities

• Integrating tools like Grammarly and LexisNexis for error-free, research-rich writing

• And much more!

Whether you’re a Word novice or looking to sharpen your skills, you’ll walk away with practical tips you can use immediately to save time, reduce errors, and impress judges and clients alike.

lawyers learn some of the hidden MS word tricks to save time when you are brief writing.

Who Should Attend?

• Attorneys who draft briefs, motions, or contracts

• Paralegals and legal assistants

• Anyone ready to make MS Word work for them-not against them!

How to Register

Click the registration link below to secure your place for this month’s Tech-Savvy Saturdays.

P.S. Have a colleague who could use a Word tune-up? Share this invitation and help raise the bar for legal document excellence!