MTC: The AI-Self-Taught Client Dilemma: Navigating Legal Ethics When Clients Think They Know Better 🤖⚖️

The billing battlefield: Clients question fees for AI-assisted work while attorneys defend the irreplaceable value of professional judgment.

The rise of generative artificial intelligence has created an unprecedented challenge for legal practitioners: clients who believe they understand legal complexities through AI interactions, yet lack the contextual knowledge and professional judgment that distinguishes competent legal counsel from algorithmic output. This phenomenon, which we might call the "AI-self-taught-lawyer" syndrome, has evolved beyond mere client education into a minefield of ethical obligations, fee disputes, and even bar complaints when attorneys fail to properly manage these relationships.

The Pushback Reality: When Clients Think They Know Better

Reuters has documented “AI hallucinations” in court filings that create additional work for attorneys—work, i.e., checking citations, that should have been performed before the filing - and that some clients then may challenge on their bills, claiming they shouldn’t pay for hours spent correcting AI errors. This underscores the importance of clear communication about the distinct professional value attorneys add when verifying or refining AI-generated content.

Without clear communications, attorneys run the risk of being accused of "padding hours" when lawyers spend time verifying or correcting client-generated AI work. The “uninformed" client may view attorney review as unnecessary overhead rather than essential professional service. One particularly challenging scenario involves clients who present AI-generated contracts or legal briefs and expect attorneys to simply file them without substantial review, then dispute billing when attorneys perform due diligence.

The Billing Battlefield: AI Efficiency vs. Professional Value

ABA Model Rule 1.5 requires reasonable fees, but AI creates complex billing dynamics. When clients arrive with AI-generated legal research, attorneys face a paradox: they cannot charge full rates for work essentially completed by the client, yet they must invest significant time in verifying, correcting, and providing professional oversight.

Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 explicitly addresses this challenge: “lawyer[s] may not ethically engage in any billing practices that duplicate charges or that falsely inflate the lawyer's billable hours". However, the opinion also recognizes that AI verification requires substantial professional time that must be fairly compensated.

The D.C. Bar's Ethics Opinion 388 draws parallels to reused work product: when AI reduces the time needed for a task, attorneys can only bill for actual time spent, regardless of the value generated. This creates tension when clients expect discounted rates for "AI-assisted" work, while attorneys must invest more time in verification than traditional practice methods required.

The Bar Complaint Trap: Failure to Warn

The AI-self-taught dilemma: Confident clients push flawed AI legal theories, leaving attorneys to repair the damage before it reaches court

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the AI-self-taught client phenomenon is the potential for bar complaints when attorneys fail to adequately warn clients about AI risks. The pattern is becoming disturbingly common: clients use AI for legal research or document preparation, suffer adverse consequences, then file complaints alleging their attorney should have warned them about AI limitations and ethical concerns.

Recent disciplinary cases illustrate this risk. In People v. Crabill, a Colorado attorney was suspended for “for one year and one day, with ninety days to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon Crabill’s successful completion of a two year period of probation, with conditions”after using AI-generated fake case citations. While this involved attorney AI use, similar principles apply to client AI use that goes unaddressed by counsel. The Colorado Court of Appeals warned in Al-Hamim v. Star Heathstone that they "will not look kindly on similar infractions in the future”, suggesting that attorney oversight duties extend to client AI activities.

The New York State Bar Association's 2024 report emphasizes that attorneys have obligations to ensure paralegals and employees handle AI properly. This supervisory duty logically extends to managing client AI use that affects the representation, particularly when clients share AI-generated work as the basis for legal strategy.

Competence Requirements Under Model Rule 1.1

ABA Model Rule 1.1[8] requires attorneys to maintain knowledge of "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology". This obligation intensifies when clients use AI tools independently. Attorneys cannot competently represent AI-literate clients without understanding the technology's limitations and potential pitfalls.

Recent sanctions demonstrate the stakes involved. In Wadsworth v. Walmart, attorneys were fined and lost their pro hac vice admissions after submitting AI-generated fake citations, despite being apologetic and forthcoming. The court emphasized that "technology may change, but the requirements of FRCP 11 do not". This principle applies equally when clients generate problematic AI content that attorneys fail to properly verify or address.

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer blog notes that competence now requires "sophisticated technology manage[ment] while maintaining fundamental duties to provide competent, ethical representation". When clients arrive with AI-generated legal theories, attorneys must possess sufficient AI literacy to identify potential hallucinations, bias, and accuracy issues.

Confidentiality Risks and Client Education

Model Rule 1.6 prohibits attorneys from revealing client information without informed consent. However, AI-self-taught clients create unique confidentiality challenges. Many clients have already shared sensitive information with public AI platforms before consulting counsel, potentially compromising attorney-client privilege from the outset.

ZwillGen's analysis reveals that using AI tools can "place a third party – the AI provider – in possession of client information" and risk privilege waiver. When clients continue using public AI tools for legal matters during representation, attorneys face ongoing confidentiality risks that require active management.

The New York State Bar Association warns that the use of AI "must not compromise attorney-client privilege" and requires attorneys to disclose when AI tools are employed in client cases. This obligation extends to educating clients about ongoing confidentiality risks from their independent AI use.

Supervision Challenges Under Model Rule 5.3

Model Rule 5.3, governing responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance, has evolved to encompass AI tools. When clients use AI for legal research, attorneys must treat this as unsupervised nonlawyer assistance requiring professional verification and oversight.

The supervision challenge intensifies when clients present AI-generated legal strategies with confidence in their accuracy. As one practitioner notes, "AI isn't a human subordinate, it's a tool. And just like any tool, if a lawyer blindly relies on it without oversight, they're the one on the hook when things go sideways". This principle applies whether the attorney or client operates the AI tool.

Recent malpractice analyses identify three main AI liability risks: "(1) a failure to understand GAI's limitations; (2) a failure to supervise the use of GAI; and (3) data security and confidentiality breaches". These risks amplify when clients use AI independently without attorney guidance or oversight.

Managing Client Overconfidence and Bias

When clients proudly present AI-generated briefs, lawyers face the hidden cost of correcting errors and managing unrealistic expectations.

Research reveals that AI systems can perpetuate historical biases present in legal databases and court decisions. When clients rely on AI-generated advice, they may unknowingly adopt biased perspectives or outdated legal theories that modern practice has evolved beyond.

A recent case example illustrates this danger: an attorney received "an AI generated inquiry from a client claiming there were additional securities filing requirements associated with a transaction," but discovered "the AI model was pulling its information from a proposed change to the law from over ten years ago" that was "never enacted into law". Clients presenting such AI-generated "research" create professional responsibility challenges for attorneys who must diplomatically correct misinformation while maintaining client relationships.

The confidence with which AI presents information compounds this problem. As noted in professional guidance, "AI-generated statements are no substitute for the independent verification and thorough research that an attorney can provide". Clients often struggle to understand this distinction, leading to pushback when attorneys question or contradict their AI-generated conclusions.

Practical Strategies for Ethical Client Management

Successfully navigating AI-self-taught clients requires comprehensive communication strategies that address both ethical obligations and practical relationship management. Attorneys should implement several key practices:

Proactive Client Education: Establish clear policies regarding client AI use and provide written guidance about confidentiality risks. Include specific language in engagement letters addressing client AI activities and their potential impact on representation.

Transparent Billing Practices: Develop clear fee structures that account for AI verification work. Explain to clients that professional review of AI-generated content requires substantial time investment and represents essential professional service, not unnecessary overhead.

Documentation Requirements: Require clients to disclose any AI use related to their legal matter. Create protocols for reviewing and addressing client-generated AI content while maintaining respect for client initiative.

Regular Communication: Implement ongoing check-ins about client AI use to prevent confidentiality breaches and ensure attorney strategy remains properly informed. Address client expectations about AI capabilities and limitations throughout the representation.

The Fee Justification Challenge

When clients present AI-generated research or draft documents, attorneys face complex billing considerations that require careful navigation. They cannot charge full rates for work essentially completed by the client's AI use, yet they must invest significant time in verification and correction.

The key lies in transparent communication about the additional value provided by professional judgment, ethical compliance, and strategic thinking that AI cannot replicate. As DISCO's client communication guide suggests: "Don't position AI as the latest trend. Present it as a way to deliver stronger outcomes" by spending "more time on strategy, insight, and execution and less on repetitive manual tasks".

Successful practitioners reframe the conversation from cost to value: "AI helps us work more efficiently, which means we spend more of our time on strategy, insight, and execution and less on repetitive manual tasks". This positioning helps clients understand that attorney review of AI-generated content enhances rather than duplicates their investment.

The Bar Complaint Prevention Protocol

Verifying AI ‘research’ isn’t padding hours—it’s an ethical obligation that protects clients and preserves professional integrity.

To prevent bar complaints alleging failure to warn about AI risks, attorneys should implement comprehensive documentation practices:

Written AI Policies: Provide clients with written guidance about AI use risks and limitations. Document these communications in client files to demonstrate proactive risk management.

Ongoing Monitoring: Create systems for identifying when clients are using AI tools during representation. Address confidentiality and accuracy concerns promptly when such use is discovered.

Professional Education: Maintain current knowledge of AI capabilities and limitations to provide competent guidance to clients. Document continuing education efforts related to AI and legal technology.

Clear Boundaries: Establish explicit policies about when and how client AI-generated content will be used in the representation. Require independent verification of all AI-generated legal research or documents before incorporation into legal strategy.

Final Thoughts: The Future of Professional Responsibility

The AI-self-taught client phenomenon represents a permanent shift in legal practice dynamics requiring fundamental changes in how attorneys approach client relationships. The legal profession's response will define the next evolution of attorney-client dynamics and professional responsibility standards.

As the D.C. Bar recognized, "clients and counsel must proceed with what we might call a 'collaborative vigilance'". This approach requires "maintaining a shared commitment to transparency, quality, and adaptability" while recognizing both AI's efficiencies and its limitations.

Success demands that attorneys embrace their expanding role as AI educators, technology managers, and ethical guardians. As ABA Formal Opinion 512 emphasizes, lawyers remain fully accountable for all work product, no matter how it is generated. This accountability extends to managing client expectations shaped by AI interactions and ensuring that professional judgment governs all strategic decisions, regardless of their technological origins.

The legal profession must evolve beyond simply tolerating AI-empowered clients to actively managing the ethical, practical, and professional challenges they present. By maintaining ethical vigilance while embracing technological benefits, attorneys can transform this challenge into an opportunity for more informed, efficient, and ultimately more effective legal representation. The key lies in recognizing that AI tools, whether used by attorneys or clients, remain subject to the timeless ethical obligations that protect both professional integrity and client interests.

Those who fail to adapt risk not only client dissatisfaction and fee disputes but also potential disciplinary action for inadequately addressing the AI-related risks that increasingly define modern legal practice.

MTC

📢 ANNOUNCEMENT: Tech-Savvy Saturdays Takes a Brief Hiatus - Continuing to Empower Lawyers with Legal Tech Insights Through Blogs and Podcasts.

Hey everyone!

My goal with Tech-Savvy Saturdays (TSS) is to consistently serve as a cornerstone resource for legal professionals seeking to navigate the evolving landscape of legal technology. Due to other obligations, I need to take a pause on TSS.  But fear not, TSS will return in several months. Meanwhile, you can still stay updated on all things legal tech through the Tech-Savvy Lawyer Blog and Podcast.

Stay safe and Tech-Savvy!

Your Friend,
Michael D.J.

🚨 BOLO 👉 CRITICAL SECURITY ALERT: 224 Malicious Android Apps Bypass Google Play Store Defenses – Essential Protection Guide for Legal Professionals!

224 Malicious Android Apps Detected – Lawyers Must Act Now to Protect Client Data!

Recent cybersecurity intelligence reveals that 224 malicious Android applications successfully circumvented Google Play Store's anti-malware systems through a sophisticated campaign dubbed "SlopAds". This represents a significant escalation in mobile security threats that demands immediate attention from legal professionals who increasingly rely on mobile devices for client communications and case management.

The Threat Mechanism 🎯

The SlopAds campaign employs a cunning two-stage attack strategy. When users download these applications directly from Google Play Store searches, they function as advertised. However, apps downloaded via targeted advertising campaigns secretly install encrypted configuration files that subsequently deploy malware onto devices. This technique successfully evaded Google's standard security reviews by appearing benign during initial screening.

The malicious applications typically masqueraded as simple utilities or attempted to impersonate popular applications like ChatGPT. Once activated, the malware harvests device information and generates fraudulent advertising impressions, potentially compromising sensitive data and device integrity.

Why Legal Professionals Face Elevated Risk ⚖️

Legal practitioners encounter disproportionate cybersecurity risks due to several converging factors. Law firms handle exceptionally sensitive data including privileged attorney-client communications, merger and acquisition details, intellectual property, medical records, and confidential case strategies. This makes legal professionals prime targets for sophisticated threat actors seeking valuable information.

Recent data indicates that over 110 law firms reported data breaches in 2022 alone, exceeding previous years and demonstrating an escalating trend. The consequences of mobile device compromise extend beyond data theft to include potential malpractice liability, ABA ethics violations under Model Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.1(8) (Tech Competence) and 1.6 (Confidentiality), state bar disciplinary action, regulatory compliance fines, and permanent reputational damage.

Mobile devices present particularly acute risks because they often contain both personal and professional data, blur the boundaries between work and personal use, and are easily misplaced or stolen. Interestingly, twenty-five percent of data breaches in financial services since 2006 resulted from lost or stolen devices, highlighting the vulnerability of mobile platforms.

Comprehensive Protection Strategy 🛡️

Immediate Device Security Measures

Law Firm Cybersecurity Framework: Policies, Training, and Incident Response for Mobile Threats.

Enable full-device encryption on all smartphones and tablets used for any professional purposes. This critical step ensures that even if devices are physically compromised, sensitive data remains protected. Modern Android devices (version 6.0+) and iPhones automatically enable encryption when a screen lock is configured, but verification and proper setup remain essential.

Critical Implementation Notes

• Android devices must remain plugged into power during the encryption process, which takes approximately one hour and cannot be interrupted;

• Choose complex passcodes rather than simple PINs or patterns - six-digit minimum for iPhones, with alphanumeric options preferred;

• Most devices since Android 6.0 and iOS 8 enable encryption by default when screen locks are configured, but manual verification is essential;

• For maximum security on iPhones, enable the "Erase Data" feature after 10 failed attempts for devices containing highly sensitive information.

Implement strong, unique passwords or biometric authentication rather than simple PINs or patterns. The encryption key derives directly from your lock screen credentials, making password strength critical for data protection. For legal professionals handling privileged communications, this represents the first line of defense against unauthorized access to confidential client information.

some stepts to Enable full-device encryption on all smartphones and tablets used for any professional purposes.

Application Security Protocols

Download applications exclusively from official app stores and carefully review all requested permissions before installation. Be particularly vigilant about apps requesting "Display over other apps" permissions, as these can enable malware to hijack device functionality. Remove any unused applications regularly and avoid third-party app stores entirely.

Mobile Device Management (MDM) Implementation

Deploy comprehensive MDM solutions that enforce security policies across all firm devices. MDM systems should include capabilities for remote data wiping, automatic security updates, app blacklisting, and real-time threat detection. These systems provide centralized control over device security while maintaining user productivity.

Authentication and Access Controls

Mandate multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all professional applications and accounts. Use authentication apps or hardware tokens rather than SMS-based codes, which can be intercepted. Implement biometric authentication where available for an additional security layer.

Network Security Measures

Utilize Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) when accessing firm resources from public Wi-Fi networks. Ensure all communications involving client data occur through encrypted channels such as secure client portals rather than standard email or messaging applications.

Advanced Protection Considerations 🔍

Regular Security Assessments

BE Your firm’s heao! Know the Essential Mobile Security Protocols Every Lawyer Needs: Encryption, MFA, and VPN Protection!

Perform periodic security audits of all mobile devices and applications used within the firm. These assessments should identify vulnerabilities, ensure compliance with security policies, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing protections.

Secure Communication Channels

Implement client portals and secure messaging platforms specifically designed for legal communications. These systems provide encrypted data transmission and storage while maintaining audit trails for compliance purposes.

Data Backup and Recovery

Maintain regular, encrypted backups of all mobile device data with tested recovery procedures. This ensures business continuity in case of device compromise or loss while protecting sensitive information.

The SlopAds malware campaign demonstrates that traditional security assumptions about official app stores no longer provide adequate protection. Legal professionals must adopt a comprehensive, multi-layered approach to mobile security that addresses both technical vulnerabilities and human factors. By implementing these protective measures proactively, law firms can significantly reduce their exposure to mobile-based cyber threats while maintaining the productivity benefits of mobile technology.

Stay Safe Out There!

🎙️ Ep. 120: AI Game Changers for Law Firms - Stephen Embry on Legal Tech Adoption and Privacy Concerns 🤖⚖️

My next guest is Stephen Embry. Steve is a legal technology expert, blogger at Tech Law Crossroads, and contributor to Above the Law. A former mass tort defense litigator with 20 years of remote practice experience, Steven specializes in AI implementation for law firms and legal technology adoption challenges. With a master's degree in civil engineering and programming expertise since 1980, he brings a unique technical insight to legal practice. Steven provides data-driven analysis on how AI is revolutionizing law firms while addressing critical privacy and security concerns for legal professionals. 💻

Join Stephen Embry and me as we discuss the following three questions and more! 🎯

1. What do you think are the top three game-changer announcements from the 2025 ILTA Conference for AI that're gonna make the most impact for solo, small, and mid-size law firms?

2. What are the top three security and privacy concerns lawyers should address when using AI?

3. What are your top three hacks when it comes to using AI in legal?

In our conversation, we covered the following and more! 📝

• [00:00:00] Episode Introduction & Guest Bio

• [00:01:00] Steve's Current Tech Setup

• [00:02:00] Apple Devices Discussion - MacBook Air M4, AirPods Pro

• [00:06:00] Android Phone & Remote Practice Experience

• [00:09:00] iPad Collection & MacBook Air Purchase Story

• [00:12:00] Travel Tech & Backup Strategies

• [00:15:00] Q1: AI Game Changers from ILTA 2025 Conference

• [00:24:00] Billable Hour vs AI Adoption Challenges

• [00:26:00] Competition & Client Demands for Technology

• [00:35:00] Q2: AI Security & Privacy Concerns for Lawyers

• [00:37:00] Discoverability & Privilege Waiver Issues

• [00:44:00] Q3: Top AI Hacks for Legal Professionals

• [00:46:00] Using AI for Document Construction & Rules Compliance

• [00:50:00] Contact Information & Resources

Resources 📚

Connect with Stephen Embry

• Email: sembry@techlawcrossroads.com
• Blog: Tech Law Crossroads - https://techlawcrossroads.com
• Above the Law Contributions: https://abovethelaw.com
• LinkedIn: [Stephen Embry LinkedIn Profile]

Mentioned in the Episode

• ILTA (International Lawyers Technology Association) Conference 2025 - https://www.iltanet.org
• Max Stock Conference - Chicago area legal technology conference
• Consumer Electronics Show (CES) - https://www.ces.tech
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules/federal-rules-civil-procedure
• Apple Event (October 9th) - Apple's product announcement events
• Gaylord Conference Center - Washington, DC area conference venue

Hardware Mentioned in the Conversation 🖥️

• MacBook Air M4 (13-inch) - https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/
• iPad Pro - https://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/
• iPad Air - https://www.apple.com/ipad-air/
• iPad Mini - https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/
• iPhone 16 - https://www.apple.com/iphone-16/
• Apple Watch Ultra 2 - https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-ultra-2/
• AirPods Pro - https://www.apple.com/airpods-pro/
• Samsung Galaxy (Android phone) - https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/phones/galaxy/
• Samsung Galaxy Fold 7 - https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-z-fold7/

Software & Cloud Services Mentioned in the Conversation ☁️

• Apple Intelligence - https://www.apple.com/apple-intelligence/
• ChatGPT - https://chat.openai.com
• Claude (Anthropic) - https://claude.ai
• Brock AI - AI debate and argumentation tool
• Notebook AI - https://notebooklm.google.com
• Microsoft Word - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/word
• Dropbox - https://www.dropbox.com
• Backblaze - https://www.backblaze.com
• Synology - https://www.synology.com
• Whisper AI - https://openai.com/research/whisper

Don't forget to give The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast a Five-Star ⭐️ review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast feeds! Your support helps us continue bringing you expert insights on legal technology.

Our next episode will be posted in about two weeks. If you have any ideas about a future episode, please contact Michael at michaeldj@techsavvylawyer.page 📧

MTC: The Lawyer's Digital "Go Bag" — Preparing for the Unthinkable Termination

lawyers, are you ready for an untimely departure from your firm?

When a lawyer's career ends abruptly—whether through firm dissolution, partnership disputes, or sudden termination—the ethical obligations don't disappear with the pink slip. In fact, they intensify. The concept of a digital "go bag," popularized in corporate America as preparation for unexpected layoffs, takes on unique complexity in the legal profession, where client confidentiality, file ownership, and professional responsibility rules create a minefield of competing obligations.

Unlike other professionals who might download work samples or contacts before losing access, lawyers face stringent ethical constraints that make preparing for career disruption both essential and precarious.

Understanding the Legal Professional's Dilemma

The traditional digital go bag includes personal documents, performance reviews, professional contacts, and work samples. For lawyers, however, the landscape is far more treacherous. Everything in a lawyer's professional sphere potentially involves client confidentiality, creating ethical tripwires that don't exist in other professions.

When lawyers are terminated or leave firms, they cannot simply walk away with client files or even copies of their own work product if it contains client information. The ABA Model Rules create a web of continuing obligations that persist long after the employment relationship has ended.

The Ethical Framework Governing Lawyer Departures

Rule 1.6 — The Confidentiality Fortress

Rule 1.6 of the ABA Model Rules establishes that lawyers must protect client confidentiality indefinitely—even after termination or departure. This duty extends to:

• All communications with clients;

• Information learned during representation;

• Strategic discussions about client matters;

• Any data that could harm the client if disclosed.

The rule provides extremely limited exceptions, none of which include "I got fired and need this for my portfolio".

Rule 1.15 — Safeguarding Client Property

Under Rule 1.15, lawyers hold client files as property belonging to the client, not the lawyer. When employment ends, lawyers must:

• Return client files to the firm or client immediately;

• Surrender any client property in their possession;

• Refrain from taking copies without explicit authorization.

The Texas State Bar's Ethics Opinion on departing lawyers is particularly stark: attorneys who delete client files from firm systems or take the only copies face potential disciplinary action under Rule 8.4 for dishonesty and deceit.

Rule 1.9 — Former Client Protections

Rule 1.9 extends confidentiality protections to former clients, meaning lawyers cannot use or disclose information learned during representation to harm former clients. This creates ongoing obligations that can span decades after a matter concludes.

What CAN Lawyers Legally Preserve?

Given these constraints, what can lawyers ethically include in their digital go bag? The answer is disappointingly narrow:

Personal Career Documents ✅

• Performance reviews and evaluations;

• Salary statements and benefits records;

• Bar admission certificates and CLE records;

• Non-client-related correspondence with colleagues;

• General firm policies and procedures.

Professional Development Materials ✅

• CLE certificates and continuing education records;

• Bar memberships and professional association documents;

• Personal networking contacts (non-client);

• Industry articles and legal research (publicly available).

Limited Work Samples ⚠️

• Publicly filed pleadings (already in public record);

• Published articles or speeches (with proper attribution);

• General legal forms or templates (non-client specific);

• Redacted work samples (with all client identifying information removed).

Strictly Prohibited ❌

• Client files or any portion thereof;

• Internal case strategy memos;

• Client contact lists or information;

• Billing records or time entries;

• Any document containing client confidential information.

The Dangerous Middle Ground

The most perilous category involves documents that seem personal but contain client information. Consider these scenarios:

Email correspondence: Even emails that appear administrative may reference client matters, making them potentially confidential.

Calendar entries: Meeting notes and appointment records often contain client-privileged information.

Internal reports: Performance reviews that reference specific client matters or outcomes may violate confidentiality rules.

Contact lists: Professional networks built through client relationships cannot be extracted without ethical concerns.

Building an Ethically Compliant Digital Go Bag

Before Trouble Hits

Smart lawyers should prepare their digital go bag while still employed:

1. Separate personal from professional: Use personal email accounts for career-related correspondence that doesn't involve client matters;

2. Document your achievements carefully: Keep records of professional accomplishments without referencing client specifics;

3. Maintain external professional networks: Build relationships through bar associations and professional groups, not just through client work;

4. Create a non-client portfolio: Develop writing samples, CLE presentations, and other materials that showcase your skills without client data.

Emergency Protocols

If termination occurs suddenly:

1. Don't panic-download: Resist the urge to grab files before losing access—this can lead to disciplinary action;

2. Focus on truly personal items: Performance reviews, salary records, and personal correspondence only;

3. Document the departure: Keep records of your termination notice and final communications for potential unemployment or wrongful termination claims;

4. Consult ethics counsel immediately: Many state bars offer ethics hotlines for lawyers facing urgent professional responsibility questions.

Post-Departure Obligations

After leaving a firm, lawyers must:

• Avoid using former client information: Cannot leverage previous client relationships or confidential information in new positions;

• Maintain confidentiality indefinitely: The duty to protect client information never expires;

• Cooperate with file transfers: Help ensure smooth transitions for ongoing client matters.

Special Considerations for Solos, Small, and Mid-Size Firms

Smaller firm lawyers face unique challenges:

Solo Practitioners

• Own their client relationships but still must protect confidentiality when joining new firms;

• May have limited resources for ethics consultation during crisis situations;

• Often lack HR departments to guide appropriate departure procedures.

Small Firm Associates

• May have developed direct client relationships that complicate file ownership issues;

• Often handle multiple matters simultaneously, making clean departures more complex;

• May face partner pressure to bring clients to new firms, creating ethical dilemmas.

Mid-Size Firm Lawyers

• Navigate complex partnership agreements that may restrict post-departure activities;

• Deal with sophisticated conflicts systems that track potential ethical violations;

• Face partnership compensation structures that incentivize aggressive client development.

The Technology Trap

Modern law practice creates new ethical pitfalls. Cloud-based files, encrypted communications, and mobile devices blur the lines between personal and professional data. Lawyers must consider:

• Automatic backups: Personal devices may automatically sync firm data;

• Password management: Work-related passwords stored in personal managers;

• Social media connections: Professional networks developed through client work;

• Digital forensics: Firm IT systems may track all file access and downloads.

Practical Steps for Ethical Compliance

Regular Maintenance

1. Annual digital cleanup: Review and properly categorize all professional documents;

2. Ethics policy review: Stay current on your jurisdiction's professional responsibility rules;

3. Malpractice consultation: Discuss departure scenarios with your professional liability insurer;

4. Emergency contacts: Maintain relationships with ethics attorneys for urgent consultation.

Documentation Protocols

1. Written policies: Develop clear protocols for handling departures and file transfers;

2. Client communication: Establish procedures for notifying clients of attorney departures;

3. Confidentiality agreements: Ensure all firm personnel understand their ongoing obligations;

4. Regular training: Update lawyers and staff on current ethical requirements.

The High Stakes Reality

The consequences of getting this wrong extend far beyond mere employment disputes. Lawyers who improperly handle client information during departures face:

• Disciplinary sanctions: Suspension or disbarment for ethical violations;

• Malpractice liability: Potential lawsuits from harmed clients or former firms;

• Criminal prosecution: Computer fraud charges for unauthorized data access;

• Professional reputation damage: Ethics violations become public record in most jurisdictions.

Final Thoughts: Moving Forward Ethically.

walk away from your last job with dignity and your mandated ethics in tact!

The legal profession's emphasis on client protection means lawyers must accept that their digital go bags will be far more limited than those of other professionals. This isn't a flaw in the system—it's a feature that protects the attorney-client relationship that forms the foundation of effective legal representation.

Rather than viewing these restrictions as burdens, successful lawyers should see them as competitive advantages. Lawyers who build their reputations on ethical compliance, professional competence, and client service create sustainable careers that weather employment disruptions more effectively than those who rely on quick-fix strategies or ethical corner-cutting.

The most important item in any lawyer's digital go bag isn't a document or file—it's an unwavering commitment to professional responsibility that opens doors even when others close unexpectedly.

BOLO: Federal Court PACER System Updates: What Lawyers Need to Know About MFA, Password Delays, and Access Issues ⚖️💻

you'RE not alone if you are having pacer log-in issues!

Lawyers frustrated with PACER login problems are not alone. The PACER Service Center (PSC) recently announced ongoing challenges as it rolls out new security standards, including stronger password requirements and multifactor authentication (MFA). These efforts are designed to better protect account security, but they have also created long call wait times and confusion for attorneys nationwide.

According to a September 2025 notice, the PSC has temporarily delayed enforcing the updated password requirements in order to reduce congestion and ease the transition. Importantly, not all users are required to take immediate action. Only those who are directly prompted to enroll in MFA upon logging in should do so. If you are not prompted, no changes are necessary yet, and courts strongly encourage attorneys to avoid calling the PSC unless required. Instead, lawyers should review the MFA Tips and Resources list before contacting support.

Lawyers need to keep up to date if they are having issues logging into the federal court filing system!

Attorneys are also invited to provide feedback on the MFA process and options through a short online survey. This feedback will help the PSC refine authentication practices while balancing security and accessibility needs. Because PACER access is central to case management, e-filing, and real-time tracking of federal litigation, attorneys should pay close attention to these developments.

As the practice of law continues to adopt digital tools, maintaining secure, reliable access to PACER is critical. Staying informed by following your favorite The Tech-Savvy Lawyer or PACER Resources, and by following official guidance and taking proactive steps, attorneys can ensure they remain efficient and compliant in today’s evolving legal tech environment. ⚖️📲

🚀 Shout Out to Steve Embry: A Legal Tech Visionary Tackling AI's Billing Revolution!

Legal technology expert Steve Embry has once again hit the mark with his provocative and insightful article examining the collision between AI adoption and billable hour pressures in law firms. Writing for TechLaw Crossroads, Steve masterfully dissects the DeepL survey findings that reveal 96% of legal professionals are using AI tools, with 71% doing so without organizational approval. His analysis illuminates a critical truth that many in the profession are reluctant to acknowledge: the billable hour model is facing its most serious existential threat yet.

The AI Efficiency Paradox in Legal Practice ⚖️

Steve’s article brilliantly connects the dots between mounting billable hour pressures and the rise of shadow AI use in legal organizations. The DeepL study reveals that 35% of legal professionals frequently use unauthorized AI tools, primarily driven by pressure to deliver work faster. This finding aligns perfectly with research showing that AI-driven efficiencies are forcing law firms to reconsider traditional billing models. When associates can draft contracts 70% faster with AI assistance, the fundamental economics of legal work shift dramatically.

The legal profession finds itself caught in what experts call the "AI efficiency paradox". As generative AI tools become more sophisticated at automating legal research, document drafting, and analysis, the justification for billing clients based purely on time spent becomes increasingly problematic. This creates a perfect storm when combined with the intense pressure many firms place on associates to meet billable hour quotas - some firms now demanding 2,400 hours annually, with 2,000 being billable and collectible.

Shadow AI Use: A Symptom of Systemic Pressure 🔍

Steve's analysis goes beyond surface-level criticism to examine the root causes of unauthorized AI adoption. The DeepL survey data shows that unclear policies account for only 24% of shadow AI use, while pressure to deliver faster work represents 35% of the motivation. This finding supports Steve's central thesis that "the responsibility for hallucinations and inaccuracies is not just that of the lawyer. It's that of senior partners and clients who expect and demand AI use. They must recognize their accountability in creating demands and pressures to not do the time-consuming work to check cites".

This systemic pressure has created a dangerous environment where junior lawyers face impossible choices. They must choose between taking unbillable time to thoroughly verify AI outputs or risk submitting work with potential hallucinations to meet billing targets. Recent data shows that AI hallucinations have appeared in over 120 legal cases since mid-2023, with 58 occurring in 2025 alone. The financial consequences are real - one firm faced $31,100 in sanctions for relying on bogus AI research.

The Billable Hour's Reckoning 💰

How will lawyers handle the challenge to the billable hour with AI use in their practice of law?

Multiple industry observers now predict that AI adoption will accelerate the demise of traditional hourly billing. Research indicates that 67% of corporate legal departments and 55% of law firms expect AI-driven efficiencies to impact the prevalence of the billable hour significantly. The legal profession is witnessing a fundamental shift where "[t]he less time something takes, the more money a firm can earn" once alternative billing methods are adopted.

Forward-thinking firms are already adapting by implementing hybrid billing models that combine hourly rates for complex judgment calls with flat fees for AI-enhanced routine tasks. This transition requires firms to develop what experts call "AI-informed Alternative Fee Arrangements" that embed clear automation metrics into legal pricing.

The Path Forward: Embracing Responsible AI Integration 🎯

Steve’s article serves as a crucial wake-up call for legal organizations to move beyond sanctions-focused approaches toward comprehensive AI integration strategies. The solution requires acknowledgment from senior partners and clients that AI adoption must include adequate time for verification and quality control processes. This too should serve as a reminder for any attorney, big firm to solo, to check their work before submitting it to a court, regulatory agency, etc. Several state bars and courts have begun requiring certification that AI-generated content has been reviewed for accuracy, recognizing that oversight cannot be an afterthought.

The most successful firms will be those that embrace AI while building robust verification protocols into their workflows. This means training lawyers to use AI competently, establishing clear policies for AI use, and most importantly, ensuring billing practices reflect the true value delivered rather than simply time spent. As one expert noted, "AI isn't the problem, poor process is".

Final Thoughts: Technology Strategy for Modern Legal Practice 📱

Are you ready to take your law practice to the next step with AI?

For legal professionals with limited to moderate technology skills, the key is starting with purpose-built legal AI tools rather than general-purpose solutions. Specialized legal research platforms that include retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technology can significantly reduce hallucination risks while providing the efficiency gains clients expect. These tools ground AI responses in verified legal databases, offering the speed benefits of AI with enhanced accuracy.

The profession must also recognize that competent AI use requires ongoing education. Lawyers need not become AI experts, but they must develop "a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the specific GAI technology" they employ. This includes understanding when human judgment must predominate and how to effectively verify AI-generated content.

Steve's insightful analysis reminds us that the legal profession's AI revolution cannot be solved through individual blame or simplistic rules. Instead, it requires systemic changes that address the underlying pressures driving risky AI use while embracing the transformative potential of these technologies. The firms that succeed will be those that view AI not as a threat to traditional billing but as an opportunity to deliver greater value to clients while building more sustainable and satisfying practices for their legal professionals. 🌟

MTC: Small Firm AI Revolution: When Your Main Street Clients Start Expecting Silicon Valley Service 📱⚖️

The AI revolution isn't just transforming corporate legal departments - it's creating unprecedented expectations among everyday clients who are increasingly demanding the same efficiency and innovation from their neighborhood attorneys. Just as Apple's recent automation ultimatum to suppliers demonstrates how tech industry pressures cascade through entire business ecosystems, the AI transformation is now reaching solo practitioners, small firms, and their individual clients in surprising ways.

The Expectation Shift Reaches Main Street

While corporate clients have been early adopters in demanding AI-powered legal services, individual consumers and small business owners are rapidly catching up. Personal injury clients who experience AI-powered customer service from their insurance companies now question why their attorney's document review takes weeks instead of days. Small business owners who use AI for bookkeeping and marketing naturally wonder why their legal counsel hasn't adopted similar efficiency tools.

The statistics reveal a telling gap: 72% of solo practitioners and 67% of small firm lawyers are using AI in some capacity, yet only 8% of solo practices and 4% of small firms have adopted AI widely or universally. This hesitant adoption creates a vulnerability, as client expectations continue to evolve at a faster pace than many smaller firms can adapt to.

Consumer-Driven Demand for Legal AI

Today's clients arrive at law offices with unprecedented technological literacy (and perhaps some unrealistic expectations - think a jury’s “CSI” expectation during a long trial). They've experienced AI chatbots for customer service, used AI-powered apps for financial planning, and watched AI streamline other professional services. This exposure creates natural expectations for similar innovation in legal representation. The shift is particularly pronounced among younger clients who view AI integration not as an optional luxury but as basic professional competence.

Small firms report that clients increasingly ask direct questions about AI use in their cases. Unlike corporate clients, who focus primarily on cost reduction, individual clients emphasize speed, transparency, and improvements in communication. They want faster responses to emails, quicker document turnaround, and more frequent case updates - all areas where AI excels.

The Competitive Reality for Solo and Small Firms

The playing field is rapidly changing. Solo practitioners using AI tools can now deliver services that historically required teams of associates. Document review, which once consumed entire weekends, can now be completed in hours with the assistance of AI, allowing attorneys to focus on high-value client counseling and strategic work. This transformation enables smaller firms to compete more effectively with larger practices while maintaining personalized service relationships.

AI adoption among small firms is creating clear competitive advantages. Firms that began using AI tools early are commanding higher fees, earning recognition as innovative practitioners, and becoming indispensable to their clients. The technology enables solo attorneys to handle larger caseloads without sacrificing quality, effectively multiplying their capacity without the need to hire additional staff.

Technology Competence as Client Expectation

Legal ethics opinions increasingly recognize technology competence as a professional obligation. Clients expect their attorneys to understand and utilize available tools that can enhance the quality and efficiency of their representation. This expectation extends beyond simple awareness to active implementation of appropriate technologies for client benefit.

The ethical landscape supports this evolution. State bar associations from California to New York are providing guidance on the responsible use of AI, emphasizing that lawyers should consider AI tools when they can enhance client service. This regulatory support validates client expectations for technological sophistication from their legal counsel.

The Efficiency Promise Meets Client Budget Reality

AI implementation offers particular value for small firm clients who historically faced difficult choices between quality legal representation and affordability. AI tools enable attorneys to reduce routine task completion time by 50-67%, allowing them to offer more competitive pricing while maintaining service quality. This efficiency gain directly benefits clients through faster turnaround times and potentially lower costs.

The technology is democratizing access to legal services. AI-powered document drafting, legal research, and client communication tools allow small firms to deliver sophisticated services previously available only from large firms with extensive resources. Individual clients benefit from this leveling effect through improved service quality at traditional small firm pricing.

From Reactive to Proactive Service Delivery

Small firms using AI are transforming from reactive service providers to proactive legal partners. AI-powered client intake systems operate 24/7, ensuring potential clients receive immediate responses regardless of office hours. Automated follow-up systems keep clients informed about the progress of their cases, while AI-assisted research enables attorneys to identify potential issues before they become problems.

This proactive approach particularly resonates with small business clients who appreciate preventive legal guidance. AI tools enable solo practitioners to monitor regulatory changes, track compliance requirements, and alert clients to relevant legal developments - services that smaller firms previously couldn't provide consistently.

The Risk of Falling Behind

Small firms that delay AI adoption face increasing competitive pressure from both larger firms and more technologically sophisticated solo practitioners. Clients comparing legal services increasingly favor attorneys who demonstrate technological competence and efficiency. The gap between AI-enabled and traditional practices continues widening as early adopters accumulate experience and refine their implementations.

The risk extends beyond losing new clients to losing existing ones. As clients experience AI-enhanced service from other professionals, their expectations for legal representation naturally evolve. Attorneys who cannot demonstrate similar efficiency and responsiveness risk being perceived as outdated or less competent.

Strategic Implementation for Small Firms

Successful AI adoption in small firms focuses on tools that directly enhance the client experience, rather than simply reducing attorney effort. Document automation, legal research enhancement, and client communication systems provide immediate value that clients can appreciate and experience directly. These implementations create positive feedback loops where improved client satisfaction leads to referrals and practice growth.

The key is starting with client-facing improvements rather than back-office efficiency alone. When clients see faster document production, more thorough legal research, and improved communication, they recognize the value of technological investment and often become advocates for the firm's innovative approach.

🧐 Final Thoughts: The Path Forward for Small Firm Success

clients who see lawyers using ai will be more confident that lawyers are using ai behind the scenes.

Just as Apple's suppliers must invest in automation to maintain business relationships, solo practitioners and small firms must embrace AI to meet evolving client expectations. The technology has moved from an optional enhancement to a competitive necessity. The question is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how quickly and effectively to implement it.

The legal profession's AI transformation is creating unprecedented opportunities for small firms willing to embrace change. Those who recognize client expectations and proactively adopt appropriate technologies will thrive in an increasingly competitive marketplace. The future belongs to attorneys who view AI not as a threat to traditional practice, but as an essential tool for delivering superior client service in the modern legal landscape.  Remember what previous podcast guest, Michigan Supreme Court Chief Judge (ret.) Bridget Mary McCormick shared with us in #65: Technologies impact on access to justice with Bridget Mary McCormick, lawyers who don’t embrace AI will be left behind by those who do!

MTC

📰 How to Ensure a Public Wi-Fi Network Is Legitimate (and Why Legal Professionals Must Always Use a VPN)!

Working remotely has become essential for legal professionals; however, public Wi-Fi networks pose significant security risks that can compromise client confidentiality and violate ethical obligations. Before connecting to any public network, lawyers must take specific steps to verify legitimacy and protect sensitive information.

Verify the Network Name with Staff

The first step in ensuring Wi-Fi legitimacy is confirmation. Ask an employee at the establishment for the exact network name and spelling. Cybercriminals frequently create "evil twin" networks with names nearly identical to legitimate ones, such as "LAX Free Public WiFi" instead of the official "_LAX Free WiFi". These spoofed networks are designed to capture your data the moment you connect.

Recognize Red Flags in Network Names

Be suspicious of generic network names like "Free WiFi," "Public Network," or "Guest WiFi”. Legitimate businesses typically use branded network names. Additionally, watch for small variations in spelling, extra spaces, underscores, or additional characters in familiar network names. These subtle differences often indicate malicious networks designed to deceive users.

Check for Proper Security Protocols

Once connected to a verified network, ensure websites load with HTTPS encryption. Look for the lock icon in your browser's address bar and confirm URLs begin with "https://" rather than "http://". If legitimate websites suddenly appear as HTTP instead of HTTPS, disconnect immediately, as this may indicate a man-in-the-middle attack.

Disable Automatic Connections

Turn off automatic Wi-Fi connections on all devices. This prevents your device from automatically connecting to potentially malicious networks with names similar to previously trusted ones. Always manually select the verified network name and choose "Public" when your device prompts you to select a network type.

Essential VPN Usage for Legal Professionals

Legal professionals must always use a VPN when connecting to public Wi-Fi. This is not merely a recommendation but an ethical necessity. The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to make reasonable efforts to protect client information from unauthorized disclosure. Using public Wi-Fi without VPN protection violates this duty of confidentiality.

A VPN encrypts all internet traffic, making it unreadable to potential eavesdroppers even on compromised networks. This encryption is crucial for maintaining attorney-client privilege and protecting sensitive case information during remote work.

Additional Security Measures

Enable two-factor authentication on all important accounts before traveling. Turn on your device's firewall and disable file sharing when using public networks. Keep your operating system and browser updated to patch security vulnerabilities. Never conduct sensitive activities like online banking (like accessing your Trust Account) or accessing confidential case management systems without VPN protection.

Ethical Obligations and Professional Competence

The duty of competence under professional conduct rules requires lawyers to understand relevant technology risks. Working from public locations without proper security measures can result in data breaches that damage client relationships and potentially violate professional ethics rules. Law firms must establish policies to ensure that all staff understand these requirements when working remotely. Editor’s note: I realize that as I’m delving into this subtopic, I could write a whole separate blog post on this - so stay tuned!

Emergency Alternatives

When in doubt about Wi-Fi legitimacy, use your mobile device's cellular hotspot instead of connecting to questionable public networks. This provides a more secure connection for accessing sensitive information. Many legal professionals keep backup mobile data plans specifically for situations where public Wi-Fi security cannot be verified. (You may find your mobile hotspot to be more, secure, reliable and even faster than public wifi networks [even your hotel’s wifi]. You may want to consider having devices on two different networks in case one network is having issues.)

Remember: Client confidentiality is paramount in legal practice. Taking these verification steps and always using VPN protection ensures you meet your ethical obligations while maintaining the flexibility to work from any location securely.

📖 Word of the Week: RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) - The Legal AI Breakthrough Eliminating Hallucinations. 📚⚖️

What is RAG?

USEd responsibly, rag can be a great tool for lawyers!

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a groundbreaking artificial intelligence technique that combines information retrieval with text generation. Unlike traditional AI systems that rely solely on pre-trained data, RAG dynamically retrieves relevant information from external legal databases before generating responses.

Why RAG Matters for Legal Practice

RAG addresses the most significant concern with legal AI: fabricated citations and "hallucinations." By grounding AI responses in verified legal sources, RAG systems dramatically reduce the risk of generating fictional case law. Recent studies show RAG-powered legal tools produce hallucination rates comparable to human-only work.

Key Benefits

RAG technology offers several advantages for legal professionals:

Enhanced Accuracy: RAG systems pull from authoritative legal databases, ensuring responses are based on actual statutes, cases, and regulations rather than statistical patterns.

Real-Time Updates: Unlike static AI models, RAG can access current legal information, making it valuable for rapidly evolving areas of law.

Source Attribution: RAG provides clear citations and references, enabling attorneys to verify and build upon AI-generated research.

Practical Applications

lawyers who don’t use ai technology like rag will be replaced those who do!

Law firms are implementing RAG for case law research, contract analysis, and legal memo drafting. The technology excels at tasks requiring specific legal authorities and performs best when presented with clearly defined legal issues.

Professional Responsibility Under ABA Model Rules

ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence): Comment 8 requires lawyers to "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." This mandates understanding RAG capabilities and limitations before use.

ABA Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): Lawyers must "make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client." When using RAG systems, attorneys must verify data security measures and understand how client information is processed and stored.

ABA Model Rule 5.3 (Supervision of Nonlawyer Assistants): ABA Formal Opinion 512 clarifies that AI tools may be considered "nonlawyer assistants" requiring supervision. Lawyers must establish clear policies for RAG usage and ensure proper training on ethical obligations.

ABA Formal Opinion 512: This 2024 guidance emphasizes that lawyers cannot abdicate professional judgment to AI systems. While RAG systems offer improved reliability over general AI tools, attorneys remain responsible for verifying outputs and maintaining competent oversight.

Final Thoughts: Implementation Considerations

lawyers must consider their ethical responsibilities when using generative ai, large language models, and rag.

While RAG significantly improves AI reliability, attorneys must still verify outputs and exercise professional judgment. The technology enhances rather than replaces legal expertise. Lawyers should understand terms of service, consult technical experts when needed, and maintain "human-in-the-loop" oversight consistent with professional responsibility requirements.

RAG represents a crucial step toward trustworthy legal AI, offering attorneys powerful research capabilities while maintaining the accuracy standards essential to legal practice and compliance with ABA Model Rules. Just make sure you use it correctly and check your work!