Samsung's Galaxy Z Series Redefines Mobile Legal Practice: The Ultimate July 2025 Review 📱⚖️

are the new samsung galaxy z mobile phones the next innovation in smart phones for lawyers?

Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold7 and Z Flip7 represent the most transformative mobile devices for legal professionals in 2025, delivering unprecedented productivity enhancements while finally achieving the durability and refinement necessary for serious law practice deployment.

Revolutionary Design: Function Meets Form

Galaxy Z Fold7: The Legal Powerhouse

The Galaxy Z Fold7 achieves what previous foldable generations promised but couldn't deliver—genuine laptop-like productivity in a pocket-sized device. At just 8.9mm folded and an impossibly thin 4.2mm unfolded, it's lighter than most traditional flagships at 215 grams while providing dual-screen functionality. Legal professionals finally have access to a device that feels like a conventional smartphone when closed but transforms into a 7.6-inch tablet workstation when opened.  (Editor’s note: I have to admit that when I held and played with a Fold that I was so impressed it became my new blog/podcast phone!)

The 6.5-inch cover screen with improved 21:9 aspect ratio eliminates the narrow, cramped experience of previous generations, making email management, calendar review, and client communications genuinely usable without unfolding. This addresses a critical pain point for attorneys who need quick access to information between court sessions or client meetings.

Galaxy Z Flip7: Compact Professional Excellence

The Galaxy Z Flip7 transforms the traditional smartphone experience with its 4.1-inch edge-to-edge FlexWindow—now a legitimate secondary interface rather than a glorified notification panel. At 188 grams, it's lighter than most flagship phones while offering a 6.9-inch main display that rivals the Galaxy S25 Ultra when unfolded.

For legal professionals who prioritize portability, the Z Flip7's ability to fold to just 13.7mm thick while maintaining flagship performance represents a paradigm shift in mobile form factors.

Productivity Revolution for Legal Practice

Multitasking Mastery

The Galaxy Z Fold7's Multi-Active Windows capability allows attorneys to run three apps simultaneously—a game-changer for legal workflows. Imagine reviewing case documents in one window, conducting legal research in another, and managing client communications in a third, all on a single device. This level of multitasking was previously impossible on mobile devices and rivals desktop productivity.

Real-world legal applications include:

• Simultaneous document review and note-taking during depositions

• Side-by-side contract comparison and analysis

• Multi-app case management during court proceedings

• Instant legal research while drafting briefs or motions

Scrool to the bottom for a comprehensive comparison table for the Samsung Zs, the iPhone, and the Pixel!

📱

Scrool to the bottom for a comprehensive comparison table for the Samsung Zs, the iPhone, and the Pixel! 📱

Document Management Excellence

Both devices excel at PDF annotation, form completion, and document scanning—core legal tasks that previously required desktop computers or specialized equipment. The 200MP camera system on the Z Fold7 ensures crystal-clear document capture even in challenging lighting conditions, while the large screen makes detailed document review practical on mobile devices.

Legal professionals report dramatically reduced processing times for routine document tasks—what once required printing, manual completion, scanning, and emailing can now be accomplished entirely on the device in under five minutes.

Enterprise Security Meets Legal Compliance

Samsung Knox: Defense-Grade Protection

Samsung Knox provides chip-to-cloud security architecture specifically designed for sensitive professional environments. For legal practices handling confidential client information, Knox's container technology creates separate, encrypted workspaces that isolate professional data from personal applications.

Key security features for legal professionals:

There are noticeable improvements to these devices that may rival apple’s iphone line.

• Hardware-level encryption protecting client confidentiality

• Secure folders for case-sensitive documents and communications

• Enterprise management compatibility with law firm IT policies

• Regular security updates for seven years—crucial for compliance requirements

• AI-Powered Productivity with Privacy Controls

Galaxy AI integration enhances legal workflows without compromising data privacy. Note Assist automatically organizes meeting notes into actionable items, while Interpreter in FlexMode facilitates hands-free client communications. Importantly, many AI features process data on-device, addressing legal industry privacy concerns. (Editor’s note - always check the terms of service and other reliable sources to confirm your client’s PII is protected before using any AI service.)

Competitive Analysis: Leading the Professional Mobile Market

Performance Leadership

The Snapdragon 8 Elite processor in the Z Fold7 delivers flagship-level performance with up to 16GB RAM and 1TB storage—specifications that rival desktop computers from just a few years ago. This computational power enables smooth operation of multiple legal applications simultaneously, from case management software to video conferencing platforms.

Camera Systems: Evidence Documentation Excellence

The Z Fold7's 200MP main camera represents a significant upgrade for legal documentation needs. Whether capturing whiteboard notes during strategy sessions, photographing evidence at accident scenes, or documenting contract details, the camera system delivers professional-grade results.

The 10MP telephoto with 3x optical zoom proves particularly valuable for detailed text capture—essential when photographing contracts, court documents, or exhibit materials.

Battery Life: All-Day Professional Use

Both devices feature 4,300-4,400mAh batteries designed to support intensive legal workflows throughout extended court sessions or client meetings. 25W fast charging minimizes downtime between professional engagements.

Market Impact: Reshaping Legal Technology Adoption

Is there a galaxy z in your firm’s future?

Industry Momentum Building

Samsung's foldable preorders increased 25% year-over-year in July 2025, with 38% surge in US shipments indicating growing professional adoption. Legal professionals represent a significant portion of this growth, driven by the productivity benefits and enterprise security features.

Competitive Response

With Apple yet to enter the foldable market and Google's Pixel Fold lacking the productivity optimizations of Samsung's devices, the Galaxy Z series maintains a unique position in professional mobile computing. This market leadership provides legal practices with proven, mature foldable technology rather than experimental alternatives.

Limitations and Considerations

Investment Analysis - Are they worth the price?

Pricing remains a significant consideration—the Z Fold7 starts at $1,999, while the Z Flip7 begins at $1,099. However, for attorneys who can leverage the productivity benefits, the devices may justify their premium pricing through improved billable hour efficiency and reduced need for multiple devices.

Learning Curve Management

Staff training requirements should be considered for firm-wide deployments. The unique interface and multitasking capabilities require adjustment from traditional smartphone usage patterns.

Durability in Professional Environments

While both devices are tested for 200,000 folds (approximately 10 years of use) and feature IP48 water resistance, legal professionals working in challenging environments may need additional protection. The removal of S Pen support from the Z Fold7 eliminates handwritten note-taking capabilities that some attorneys preferred.

Final Thoughts: Verdict for the Galaxy Z phone series - Transformative Technology for Modern Legal Practice

The Galaxy Z Fold7 and Z Flip7 represent the first foldable devices mature enough for serious legal practice adoption. The combination of flagship performance, enterprise security, productivity optimization, and refined design creates compelling value propositions for different attorney needs.

For litigation attorneys and corporate lawyers who require maximum screen real estate and multitasking capability, the Z Fold7 delivers unprecedented mobile productivity that approaches desktop-level functionality. For attorneys prioritizing portability and quick access to communications, the Z Flip7 offers flagship performance in an exceptionally compact form factor.

I don’t know if my excitement to use the Fold justifies a switch in my legal work device (and move from my iPhone to the Fold), but the significant hardware improvements, including thinner profiles, better displays, enhanced cameras, and robust security features, position the Flip and the Fold as legitimate professional tools rather than technological novelties. With seven years of security updates and Samsung's enterprise support infrastructure, these devices meet the long-term stability requirements of legal practice.

Samsung has successfully transformed foldable phones from experimental curiosities into practical productivity tools that can genuinely enhance legal workflows and professional efficiency. For law practices ready to embrace next-generation mobile technology, the Galaxy Z series delivers the durability, functionality, and enterprise features necessary for professional legal work.

Compare the specs for the Zs, the iphone and the iphone.

📖 Word of the Week: Travel Converter vs. Travel Adapter

lawyers need to know the difference between travel adapters v. travel converters when they go overseas!

If your legal practice takes you beyond borders, understanding the difference between a travel converter and a travel adapter can protect both your tech investments and casework productivity. In many law offices, especially those with moderate technology exposure, these small devices often seem interchangeable; yet, their functions are quite different and critical for global legal engagements.

A travel adapter lets you plug your device into a foreign socket by reshaping your plug to fit the local outlet type. Adapters, however, do not change the local voltage. That means your laptop or phone charger will connect, but the electricity passing through remains at the voltage standard of the country you are in. Since most modern electronics, such as laptops, smartphones, and tablets, are dual-voltage (able to handle 100–240V), attorneys typically need only an appropriate adapter for these everyday tech tools.

A travel converter steps in when you need to change the actual voltage from the wall. American devices, such as hair dryers or some older law office equipment, may only be rated for 110V. If you plug these into a 220V outlet abroad with only an adapter, you risk damaging both the device and possibly your law firm’s reputation for being detail-oriented. A converter safely transforms the foreign voltage to match your device’s needs, ensuring you avoid costly mishaps.

lawyers be your firm’s travel warrior - know the type of electrical plug you need when traveling abroad!

How do you know which you need? Check the voltage label on each device. If it lists a range (like 100–240V), an adapter will suffice. If it’s fixed (like “120V only”), you must use a converter in countries with higher voltages, which is common across Europe and Asia. For attorneys on the move, a universal adapter set and a small, reliable converter can prevent technical disruptions during critical casework, presentations, or evidentiary document reviews.

Law office takeaway: Adapters make devices fit; converters make power safe. Read your device labels before you leave and never assume one solution works everywhere. Bring both if uncertain—being overprepared is a legal virtue. Safe travels and seamless connectivity! ✈️⚖️

Happy Lawyering!

MTC: Trump's 28-Page AI Action Plan - Reshaping Legal Practice, Client Protection, and Risk Management in 2025 ⚖️🤖

The July 23, 2025, release of President Trump's comprehensive "Winning the Race: America's AI Action Plan" represents a watershed moment for the legal profession, fundamentally reshaping how attorneys will practice law, protect client interests, and navigate the complex landscape of AI-enabled legal services. This 28-page blueprint, containing over 90 federal policy actions across three strategic pillars, promises to accelerate AI adoption while creating new challenges for legal professionals who must balance innovation with ethical responsibility.

What does Trump’s ai action plan mean for the practice of law?

Accelerated AI Integration and Deregulatory Impact

The Action Plan's aggressive deregulatory stance will dramatically accelerate AI adoption across law firms by removing federal barriers that previously constrained AI development and deployment. The Administration's directive to "identify, revise, or repeal regulations, rules, memoranda, administrative orders, guidance documents, policy statements, and interagency agreements that unnecessarily hinder AI development" will create a more permissive environment for legal technology innovation. This deregulatory approach extends to federal funding decisions, with the plan calling for limiting AI-related federal deemed "burdensome" to AI development.

For legal practitioners, this means faster access to sophisticated AI tools for document review, legal research, contract analysis, and predictive litigation analytics. The plan's endorsement of open-source and open-weight AI models will particularly benefit smaller firms that previously lacked access to expensive proprietary systems. However, this rapid deployment environment places greater responsibility on individual attorneys to implement proper oversight and verification protocols.

Enhanced Client Protection Obligations

The Action Plan's emphasis on "truth-seeking" AI models that are "free from top-down ideological bias" creates new client protection imperatives for attorneys. Under the plan's framework, (at least federal) lawyers must now ensure that AI tools used in client representation meet federal standards for objectivity and accuracy. This requirement aligns with existing ABA Formal Opinion 512, which mandates that attorneys maintain competence in understanding AI capabilities and limitations.

Legal professionals face (continued yet) heightened obligations to protect client confidentiality when using AI systems, particularly as the plan encourages broader AI adoption without corresponding privacy safeguards. Attorneys must implement robust data security protocols and carefully evaluate third-party AI providers' confidentiality protections before integrating these tools into client representations.

Critical Error Prevention and Professional Liability

What are the pros and cons to trump’s new ai plan?

The Action Plan's deregulatory approach paradoxically increases attorneys' responsibility for preventing AI-driven errors and hallucinations. Recent Stanford research reveals that even specialized legal AI tools produce incorrect information 17-34% of the time, with some systems generating fabricated case citations that appear authoritative but are entirely fictitious. The plan's call to adapt the Federal Rules of Evidence for AI-generated material means courts will increasingly encounter authenticity and reliability challenges.

Legal professionals must establish comprehensive verification protocols to prevent the submission of AI-generated false citations or legal authorities, which have already resulted in sanctions and malpractice claims across multiple jurisdictions. The Action Plan's emphasis on rapid AI deployment without corresponding safety frameworks makes attorney oversight more critical than ever for preventing professional misconduct and protecting client interests.

Federal Preemption and Compliance Complexity

Perhaps most significantly, the Action Plan's aggressive stance against state AI regulation creates unprecedented compliance challenges for legal practitioners operating across multiple jurisdictions. President Trump's declaration that "we need one common-sense federal standard that supersedes all states" signals potential federal legislation to preempt state authority over AI governance. This federal-state tension could lead to prolonged legal battles that create uncertainty for attorneys serving clients nationwide.

The plan's directive for agencies to factor state-level AI regulatory climates into federal funding decisions adds another layer of complexity, potentially creating a fractured regulatory landscape until federal preemption is resolved. Attorneys must navigate between conflicting federal deregulatory objectives and existing state AI protection laws, particularly in areas affecting employment, healthcare, and criminal justice, where AI bias concerns remain paramount. (All the while following their start bar ethics rules).

Strategic Implications for Legal Practice

Lawyers must remain vigilAnt when using AI in their work!

The Action Plan fundamentally transforms the legal profession's relationship with AI technology, moving from cautious adoption to aggressive implementation. While this creates opportunities for enhanced efficiency and client service, it also demands that attorneys develop new competencies in AI oversight, bias detection, and error prevention. Legal professionals who successfully adapt to this new environment will gain competitive advantages, while those who fail to implement proper safeguards face increased malpractice exposure and professional liability risks.

The plan's vision of AI-powered legal services requires attorneys to become sophisticated technology managers while maintaining their fundamental duty to provide competent, ethical representation. Success in this new landscape will depend on lawyers' ability to harness AI's capabilities while implementing robust human oversight and quality control measures to protect both client interests and professional integrity.

MTC

🎙️ Ep. #116: Free Versus Paid Legal AI: Conversation with DC Court of Appeals Head Law Librarian Laura Moorer

Laura Moorer, the Law Librarian for the DC Court of Appeals, brings over two decades of experience in legal research, including nearly 14 years with the Public Defender Service for DC. In this conversation, Laura shares her top three tips for crafting precise prompts when using generative AI, emphasizing clarity, specificity, and structure. She also offers insights on how traditional legal research methods—like those used with LexisNexis and Westlaw—can enhance AI-driven inquiries. Finally, Laura offers practical strategies for utilizing generative AI to help lawyers identify and locate physical legal resources, thereby bridging the gap between digital tools and tangible materials.

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

• What are your top three tips when it comes to precise prompt engineering, your generative AI inquiries?

• What are your top three tips or tricks when it comes to using old-school prompts like those from the days of LexisNexis and Westlaw in your generative AI inquiries?

• What are your top three tips or tricks using generative AI to help lawyers pinpoint actual physical resources?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[00:40] Laura's Current Tech Setup

[03:27] Top 3 Tips for Crafting Precise Prompts in Generative AI

[13:44] Bringing Old-School Legal Research Tactics to Generative AI Prompting

[20:42] Using Generative AI to Help Lawyers Locate Physical Legal Resources

[24:38] Contact Information

Resources:

Connect with Laura:

• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/laura-moorer

• Email: lmoorer@dcappeals.gov

• Instagram: instagram.com/dccalibby/

Mentioned in the episode:

• Libby Visits the DC Courts

• 🔗 https://perma.cc/HXA9-NR8B is an archive of http://intranet.gov/attachment/782039870000/1800539/Libby%20visits%20the%20DC%20Courts%20Story%20BookRS.pdf?type=1 from Wednesday 02, July 2025

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

• AT&T Internet: att.com/internet/

• Bloomberg Law: pro.bloomberglaw.com/

• Fastcase: fastcase.com/

• Internet Archive: archive.org/

• LexisNexis: lexisnexis.com/en-us

• Spectrum Internet: spectrum.com/internet

• vLex: vlex.com/

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

• WorldCat: worldcat.org/

MTC: Is Puerto Rico’s Professional Responsibility Rule 1.19 Really Necessary? A Technology Competence Perspective.

Is PR’s Rule 1.19 necessary?

The legal profession stands at a crossroads regarding technological competence requirements. With forty states already adopting Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1, which mandates lawyers "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology," the question emerges: do we need additional rules like PR Rule 1.19?

Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 establishes clear parameters for technological competence. This amendment, adopted by the ABA in 2012, expanded the traditional duty of competence beyond legal knowledge to encompass technological proficiency. The Rule requires lawyers to understand the "benefits and risks associated with relevant technology" in their practice areas.

The existing framework appears comprehensive. Comment 8 already addresses core technological competencies, including e-discovery, cybersecurity, and client communication systems. Under Rule 1.1 (Comment 5), legal professionals must evaluate whether their technological skills meet "the standards of competent practitioners" without requiring additional regulatory layers.

However, implementation challenges persist. Many attorneys struggle with the vague standard of "relevant technology". The rule's elasticity means that competence requirements continuously evolve in response to technological advancements. Some jurisdictions, like Puerto Rico (see PR’s Supreme Court’s Order ER-2025-02 approving adoption of its full set of Rules of Professional Conduct, have created dedicated technology competence rules (Rule 1.19) to provide clearer guidance.

The verdict: redundancy without added value. Rather than creating overlapping rules, the legal profession should focus on robust implementation of existing Comment 8 requirements. Enhanced continuing legal education mandates, clearer interpretive guidance, and practical competency frameworks would better serve practitioners than additional regulatory complexity.

Technology competence is essential, but regulatory efficiency should guide our approach. 🚀

TSS: Meet Our Next Tech-Savvy Saturday (July 19, 2025) Guest: Mathew Kerbis, The Subscription Attorney

Join us this Saturday, July 19, 2025, at 12 PM EST for Tech-Savvy Saturday!

Legal innovation meets technology with Matt Kerbis, founder of Subscription Attorney LLC. Matt leads the charge to end the billable hour by offering predictable, affordable legal services starting at $19.99/month. With expertise in AI tools like Paxton, NotebookLM Pro, Perplexity, and Descript, Matt empowers attorneys to embrace efficient, client-centered models. Matt hosts the Law Subscribed podcast and is celebrated by the ABA for innovation. Don’t miss this industry-changing session—unlock how to become your own “subscription attorney”!

“Don’t miss this industry-changing session—unlock how to become your own “subscription attorney”!”

👉 Sign up here for the free webinar!

👉 Sign up here to stay abreast of Tech-Savvy Saturdays News!

SEE YOU THIS SATURDAY!!!

🎙️

SEE YOU THIS SATURDAY!!! 🎙️

MTC: Why Courts Hesitate to Adopt AI - A Crisis of Trust in Legal Technology

Despite facing severe staffing shortages and mounting operational pressures, America's courts remain cautious about embracing artificial intelligence technologies that could provide significant relief. While 68% of state courts report staff shortages and 48% of court professionals lack sufficient time to complete their work, only 17% currently use generative AI tools. This cautious approach reflects deeper concerns about AI reliability, particularly in light of recent (and albeit unnecessarily continuing) high-profile errors by attorneys using AI-generated content in court documents.

The Growing Evidence of AI Failures in Legal Practice

Recent cases demonstrate why courts' hesitation may be justified. In Colorado, two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell were fined $3,000 each after submitting a court filing containing nearly 30 AI-generated errors, including citations to nonexistent cases and misquoted legal authorities. The attorneys admitted to using artificial intelligence without properly verifying the output, violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Similarly, a federal judge in California sanctioned attorneys from Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP $31,000 after they submitted briefs containing fabricated citations generated by AI tools including CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Google Gemini. The attorneys had used AI to create an outline that was shared with colleagues who incorporated the fabricated authorities into their final brief without verification.

These incidents are part of a broader pattern of AI hallucinations in legal documents. The June 16, 2025, Order to Show Cause from the Oregon federal court case Sullivan v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL, D. Or. (June 16, 2025) demonstrates another instance where plaintiffs cited "fifteen non-existent cases and misrepresented quotations from seven real cases" after relying on what they claimed was "an automated legal citation tool". The court found this explanation insufficient to avoid sanctions.

The Operational Dilemma Facing Courts

LAWYERS NEED TO BalancE Legal Tradition with Ethical AI Innovation

The irony is stark: courts desperately need technological solutions to address their operational challenges, yet recent AI failures have reinforced their cautious approach. Court professionals predict that generative AI could save them an average of three hours per week initially, growing to nearly nine hours within five years. These time savings could be transformative for courts struggling with increased caseloads and staff shortages.

However, the profession's experience with AI-generated hallucinations has created significant trust issues. Currently, 70% of courts prohibit employees from using AI-based tools for court business, and 75% have not provided any AI training to their staff. This reluctance stems from legitimate concerns about accuracy, bias, and the potential for AI to undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The Technology Adoption Paradox

Courts have successfully adopted other technologies, with 86% implementing case management systems, 85% using e-filing, and 88% conducting virtual hearings. This suggests that courts are not inherently resistant to technology. But they are specifically cautious about AI due to its propensity for generating false information.

The legal profession's relationship with AI reflects broader challenges in implementing emerging technologies. While 55% of court professionals recognize AI as having transformational potential over the next five years, the gap between recognition and adoption remains significant. This disconnect highlights the need for more reliable AI systems and better training for legal professionals.

The Path Forward: Measured Implementation

The solution is not to abandon AI but to implement it more carefully. Legal professionals must develop better verification protocols. As one expert noted, "AI verification isn't optional—it's a professional obligation." This means implementing systematic citation checking, mandatory human review, and clear documentation of AI use in legal documents. Lawyers must stay up to date on the technology available to them, as required by the American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1[8], including the expectation that they use the best available technology currently accessible. Thus, courts too need comprehensive governance frameworks that address data handling, disclosure requirements, and decision-making oversight before evaluating AI tools. The American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools provides essential guidance, emphasizing that lawyers must fully consider their ethical obligations when using AI.

Final Thoughts

THE Future of Law: AI and Justice in Harmony!

Despite the risks, courts and legal professionals cannot afford to ignore AI indefinitely. The technology's potential to address staffing shortages, reduce administrative burdens, and improve access to justice makes it essential for the future of the legal system. However, successful implementation requires acknowledging AI's limitations while developing robust safeguards to prevent the types of errors that have already damaged trust in the technology.

The current hesitation reflects a profession learning to balance innovation with reliability. As AI systems improve and legal professionals develop better practices for using them, courts will likely become more willing to embrace these tools. Until then, the cautious approach may be prudent, even if it means forgoing potential efficiency gains.

The legal profession's experience with AI serves as a reminder that technological adoption in critical systems requires more than just recognizing potential benefits—it demands building the infrastructure, training, and governance necessary to use these powerful tools responsibly.

MTC

🎙️ Ep. #115: Legal Technology Mastery with Law Librarian Jennifer Wondracek – Essential AI Tools and Skills for Modern Lawyers.

Our next guest is Jennifer Wondracek, Director of the Law Library and Professor of Legal Research and Writing at Capital University Law School. Jennifer shares her expertise as a legal technologist and ABA Women of Legal Tech Honoree. She addresses three vital questions: the top technological tools law students and lawyers should leverage, strategies to help new attorneys adapt to firm technologies, and ways law firms can automate routine tasks to prioritize high-value legal work. Drawing on her extensive experience in legal education and technology, Jennifer emphasizes practical solutions, the importance of transferable skills, and the increasing role of generative AI in modern legal practice.

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

1. As Head Librarian at Capital University Law School, what are the top three technological tools or resources that you believe law students and practicing lawyers should be leveraging right now to enhance legal research and client service?

2. What are the top three strategies that lawyers can use to help law students clerking for a firm, or new attorneys, quickly adapt to become proficient with the technology platforms and tools used in their practice, particularly when these tools differ from what they learned in law school?

3. Beyond legal research, what are the top three ways law firms and solo practitioners can use technology to automate routine tasks and create more time for high-value legal work?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[01:03] Jennifer’s Current Tech Setup

[06:27] Top Technological Tools for Law Students and Practicing Lawyers

[11:23] Case Management Systems and Generative AI

[23:15] Strategies for Law Students and New Attorneys to Adapt to Technology

[31:03] Permissions and Backup Practices

[34:20] Automating Routine Tasks with Technology

[39:41] Favorite Non-Legal AI Tools

Resources:

Connect with Jennifer:

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

Mentioned in the episode:

• Bloomberg (free ethics guidance & opinions list)

• Charlotin’s AI Hallucinations Tracker (free)

• Database of AI Litigation Tracker (free)

• RAILS chart (free-standing order/local rules tracker)

• Ropes & Gray Map (free-standing order/local rules tracker)

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

• TCL NXTPAPER 11 Plus Tablet: tcl.com/global/en/tablets/tcl-nxtpaper-11-plus

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

• Clio: clio.com/

• CoCounsel: thomsonreuters.com/en/cocounsel

• Daylite: daylite.app/

• Fastcase / vLex: vlex.com/products/fastcase

• Goblin Tools: goblin.tools/

• IFTTT: ifttt.com/

• LawDroid: lawdroid.com/

• Legal Tech Hub: legaltechnologyhub.com/

• LexisNexis: lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page

• NSLT: legaltechsociety.wildapricot.org/

• PACER: pacer.uscourts.gov/

• Procertas: procertas.com/

• TheFormTool: theformtool.com/

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

• Zapier: zapier.com/

MTC: AI Hallucinated Cases Are Now Shaping Court Decisions - What Every Lawyer, Legal Professional and Judge Must Know in 2025!

AL Hallucinated cases are now shaping court decisions - what every lawyer and judge needs to know in 2025.

Artificial intelligence has transformed legal research, but a threat is emerging from chambers: hallucinated case law. On June 30, 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals delivered a landmark ruling in Shahid v. Esaam that should serve as a wake-up call to every member of the legal profession: AI hallucinations are no longer just embarrassing mistakes—they are actively influencing court decisions and undermining the integrity of our judicial system.

The Georgia Court of Appeals Ruling: A Watershed Moment

The Shahid v. Esaam decision represents the first documented case where a trial court's order was based entirely on non-existent case law, likely generated by AI tools. The Georgia Court of Appeals found that the trial court's order denying a motion to reopen a divorce case relied upon two fictitious cases, and the appellee's brief contained an astounding 11 bogus citations out of 15 total citations. The court imposed a $2,500 penalty on attorney Diana Lynch—the maximum allowed under GA Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2)—and vacated the trial court's order entirely.

What makes this case particularly alarming is not just the volume of fabricated citations, but the fact that these AI-generated hallucinations were adopted wholesale without verification by the trial court. The court specifically referenced Chief Justice John Roberts' 2023 warning that "any use of AI requires caution and humility".

The Explosive Growth of AI Hallucination Cases

The Shahid case is far from isolated. Legal researcher Damien Charlotin has compiled a comprehensive database tracking over 120 cases worldwide where courts have identified AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings. The data reveals an alarming acceleration: while there were only 10 cases documented in 2023, that number jumped to 37 in 2024, and an astounding 73 cases have already been reported in just the first five months of 2025.

Perhaps most concerning is the shift in responsibility. In 2023, seven out of ten cases involving hallucinations were made by pro se litigants, with only three attributed to lawyers. However, by May 2025, legal professionals were found to be at fault in at least 13 of 23 cases where AI errors were discovered. This trend indicates that trained attorneys—who should know better—are increasingly falling victim to AI's deceptive capabilities.

High-Profile Cases and Escalating Sanctions

Always check your research - you don’t want to get in trouble with your client, the judge or the bar!

The crisis has intensified with high-profile sanctions. In May 2025, a special master in California imposed a staggering $31,100 sanction against law firms K&L Gates and Ellis George for what was termed a "collective debacle" involving AI-generated research4. The case involved attorneys who used multiple AI tools including CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Google Gemini to generate a brief, with approximately nine of the 27 legal citations proving to be incorrect.

Even more concerning was the February 2025 case involving Morgan & Morgan—the largest personal injury firm in the United States—where attorneys were sanctioned for a motion citing eight nonexistent cases. The firm subsequently issued an urgent warning to its more than 1,000 lawyers that using fabricated AI information could result in termination.

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page: Years of Warnings

The risks of AI hallucinations in legal practice have been extensively documented by experts in legal technology. I’ve been sounding the alarm at The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Blog and Podcast about these issues for years. In a blog post titled "Why Are Lawyers Still Failing at AI Legal Research? The Alarming Rise of AI Hallucinations in Courtrooms," the editorial detailed how even advanced legal AI platforms can generate plausible but fake authorities.

My comprehensive coverage has included reviews of specific platforms, such as the November 2024 analysis "Lexis+ AI™️ Falls Short for Legal Research," which documented how even purpose-built legal AI tools can cite non-existent legislation. The platform's consistent message has been clear: AI is a collaborator, not an infallible expert.

International Recognition of the Crisis

The problem has gained international attention, with the London High Court issuing a stark warning in June 2025 that attorneys who use AI to cite non-existent cases could face contempt of court charges or even criminal prosecution. Justice Victoria Sharp warned that "in the most severe instances, intentionally submitting false information to the court with the aim of obstructing the course of justice constitutes the common law criminal offense of perverting the course of justice".

The Path Forward: Critical Safeguards

Based on extensive research and mounting evidence, several key recommendations emerge for legal professionals:

For Individual Lawyers:

Lawyers need to be diligent and make sure their case citations are not only accurate but real!

• Never use general-purpose AI tools like ChatGPT for legal research without extensive verification

• Implement mandatory verification protocols for all AI-generated content

• Obtain specialized training on AI limitations and best practices

• Consider using only specialized legal AI platforms with built-in verification mechanisms

For Courts:

• Implement consistent disclosure requirements for AI use in court filings

• Develop verification procedures for detecting potential AI hallucinations

• Provide training for judges and court staff on AI technology recognition

FINAL THOUGHTS

The legal profession is at a crossroads. AI can enhance efficiency, but unchecked use can undermine the integrity of the justice system. The solution is not to abandon AI, but to use it wisely with appropriate oversight and verification. The warnings from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page and other experts have proven prescient—the question now is whether the profession will heed these warnings before the crisis deepens further.

MTC

Happy Lawyering!