🎙️ Ep. #130: Taming Client Data Security – Nick Martin’s Proven Tech Strategies for Law Firms 🚀

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

My next guest is Nick Martin, CEO of FileScience. He shares expert insights on stabilizing law firm operations with smart backups and automation. Join us to discover practical, easy-to-implement ways to protect your data from outages and errors, so your clients’ information stays safe, secure, and accessible when you need it most. 

Listen in with Nick Martin and me as we discuss the following three questions and more! 💡

  • When a firm is drowning in document chaos, what are the first three specific workflows to digitize or automate to stabilize operations?

  • Beyond just losing documents, what are the three specific silent killers of document hygiene that lawyers ignore?

  • How do lawyers solve the top three friction points of digital collaboration: version conflicts, insecure sharing methods, and the loss of institutional knowledge buried inside files?

In our conversation, we cover the following 📊

  • 00:00 – Guest intro and Nick’s tech setup (MacBook Pro, iPad, iPhone 15, Bang & Olufsen speaker) 🔊

  • 00:30 – Q1: Digitizing workflows – unification of memory, forever undo button, retention 🛡️

  • 04:00 – Backups for iManage, NetDocuments, Clio, FileVine; air-gapped copies 📁

  • 06:00 – Microsoft 365 outage resilience with FileScience ☁️

  • 08:00 – Retention periods (5-7 years by state/practice); NY lawful order policy ⚖️

  • 10:00 – Q2: Silent killers – file degradation, wrong versions, insider threats 🕵️

  • 13:00 – Q3: Solving friction – immutable timelines, encryption (Purview, CBC), institutional knowledge preservation 🔒

  • 15:00 – End-to-end encryption details; where to find Nick

Resources 🔗

Connect with Nick Martin 🤝

Mentioned in the episode 📚

Hardware mentioned in the conversation 💻

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation ☁️

SHOUT OUT: Your Tech-Savvy Lawyer Blogger and Podcaster was Highlighted in an ABA "Best of 2025" Podcast!

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Shout Out to Terrell A. Turner, and the ABA Law Practice Division for featuring myself with Amy Wood and Matt Darner in their "Best of 2025" special episode, The Law Firm Finance Lessons Every Lawyer Needs. 🎙️ Our conversations emphasized critical intersections between legal technology systems, financial processes, and ethical compliance that deserve attention from every law firm leader.

Terrell's expertise in making finance accessible to non-finance professionals mirrors a broader shift in legal operations: the recognition that effective law firm management requires both financial literacy and technological competence. Throughout this episode, my fellow guests and I reinforced that technology isn't merely about efficiency—it's fundamentally about creating sustainable financial practices that support your firm's growth and stability.

This “Best of 2025” episode highlighted how proper process design and system implementation directly impact your firm's ability to maintain trust accounting standards, address cash flow challenges, and make confident business decisions. For attorneys building tech stacks or evaluating process improvements, the intersection of ABA Model Rules requirements and practical technology solutions cannot be overlooked. Rule 1.15 obligations around client funds, for instance, demand both procedural discipline and technological infrastructure that supports compliance automatically.

Our conversations reinforced an essential principle: law firms operating with clear financial visibility and integrated technology systems don't just perform better financially—they also reduce ethical risk and enhance client service delivery. Terrell's work in translating complex financial concepts for legal professionals demonstrates real value in bridging the gap between accounting best practices and law firm operations.

Whether your firm is optimizing existing systems or evaluating new solutions, this episode provides actionable direction. Our discussion reinforces that financial health and technological competence work together, not separately. 

Thank you Terrell and the ABA for the recognition and elevating these critical conversations. 🚀

MTC: Clio–Alexi Legal Tech Fight: What CRM Vendor Litigation Means for Your Law Firm, Client Data and ABA Model Rule Compliance ⚖️💻

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Competence, Confidentiality, Vendor Oversight!

When the companies behind your CRM and AI research tools start suing each other, the dispute is not just “tech industry drama” — it can reshape the practical and ethical foundations of your practice. At a basic to moderate level, the Clio–Alexi fight is about who controls valuable legal data, how that data can be used to power AI tools, and whether one side is using its market position unfairly. Clio (a major practice‑management and CRM platform) is tied to legal research tools and large legal databases. Alexi is a newer AI‑driven research company that depends on access to caselaw and related materials to train and deliver its products. In broad strokes, one side claims the other misused or improperly accessed data and technology; the other responds that the litigation is “sham” or anticompetitive, designed to limit a smaller rival and protect a dominant ecosystem. There are allegations around trade secrets, data licensing, and antitrust‑style behavior. None of that may sound like your problem — until you remember that your client data, workflows, and deadlines live inside tools these companies own, operate, or integrate with.

For lawyers with limited to moderate technology skills, you do not need to decode every technical claim in the complaints and counterclaims. You do, however, need to recognize that vendor instability, lawsuits, and potential regulatory scrutiny can directly touch: your access to client files and calendars, the confidentiality of matter information stored in the cloud, and the long‑term reliability of the systems you use to serve clients and get paid. Once you see the dispute in those terms, it becomes squarely an ethics, risk‑management, and governance issue — not just “IT.”

ABA Model Rule 1.1: Competence Now Includes Tech and Vendor Risk

Model Rule 1.1 requires “competent representation,” which includes the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. In the modern practice environment, that has been interpreted to include technology competence. That does not mean you must be a programmer. It does mean you must understand, in a practical way, the tools on which your work depends and the risks they bring.

If your primary CRM, practice‑management system, or AI research tool is operated by a company in serious litigation about data, licensing, or competition, that is a material fact about your environment. Competence today includes: knowing which mission‑critical workflows rely on that vendor (intake, docketing, conflicts, billing, research, etc.); having at least a baseline sense of how vendor instability could disrupt those workflows; and building and documenting a plan for continuity — how you would move or access data if the worst‑case scenario occurred (for example, a sudden outage, injunction, or acquisition). Failing to consider these issues can undercut the “thoroughness and preparation” the Rule expects. Even if your firm is small or mid‑sized, and even if you feel “non‑technical,” you are still expected to think through these risks at a reasonable level.

ABA Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality in a Litigation Spotlight

Model Rule 1.6 is often front of mind when lawyers think about cloud tools, and the Clio–Alexi dispute reinforces why. When a technology company is sued, its systems may become part of discovery. That raises questions like: what types of client‑related information (names, contact details, matter descriptions, notes, uploaded files) reside on those systems; under what circumstances that information could be accessed, even in redacted or aggregate form, by litigants, experts, or regulators; and how quickly and completely you can remove or export client data if a risk materializes.

You remain the steward of client confidentiality, even when data is stored with a third‑party provider. A reasonable, non‑technical but diligent approach includes: understanding where your data is hosted (jurisdictions, major sub‑processors, data‑center regions); reviewing your contracts or terms of service for clauses about data access, subpoenas, law‑enforcement or regulatory requests, and notice to you; and ensuring you have clearly defined data‑export rights — not only if you voluntarily leave, but also if the vendor is sold, enjoined, or materially disrupted by litigation. You are not expected to eliminate all risk, but you are expected to show that you considered how vendor disputes intersect with your duty to protect confidential information.

ABA Model Rule 5.3: Treat Vendors as Supervised Non‑Lawyer Assistants

ABA Rules for Modern Legal Technology can be a factor when legal tech companies fight!

Model Rule 5.3 requires lawyers to make reasonable efforts to ensure that non‑lawyer assistants’ conduct is compatible with professional obligations. In 2026, core technology vendors — CRMs, AI research platforms, document‑automation tools — clearly fall into this category.

You are not supervising individual programmers, but you are responsible for: performing documented diligence before adopting a vendor (security posture, uptime, reputation, regulatory or litigation history); monitoring for material changes (lawsuits like the Clio–Alexi matter, mergers, new data‑sharing practices, or major product shifts); and reassessing risk when those changes occur and adjusting your tech stack or contracts accordingly. A litigation event is a signal that “facts have changed.” Reasonable supervision in that moment might mean: having someone (inside counsel, managing partner, or a trusted advisor) read high‑level summaries of the dispute; asking the vendor for an explanation of how the litigation affects uptime, data security, and long‑term support; and considering whether you need contractual amendments, additional audit rights, or a backup plan with another provider. Again, the standard is not perfection, but reasoned, documented effort.

How the Clio–Alexi Battle Can Create Problems for Users

A dispute at this scale can create practical, near‑term friction for everyday users, quite apart from any final judgment. Even if the platforms remain online, lawyers may see more frequent product changes, tightened integrations, shifting data‑sharing terms, or revised pricing structures as companies adjust to litigation costs and strategy. Any of these changes can disrupt familiar workflows, create confusion around where data actually lives, or complicate internal training and procedures.

There is also the possibility of more subtle instability. For example, if a product roadmap slows down or pivots under legal pressure, features that firms were counting on — for automation, AI‑assisted drafting, or analytics — may be delayed or re‑scoped. That can leave firms who invested heavily in a particular tool scrambling to fill functionality gaps with manual workarounds or additional software. None of this automatically violates any rule, but it can introduce operational risk that lawyers must understand and manage.

In edge cases, such as a court order that forces a vendor to disable key features on short notice or a rapid sale of part of the business, intense litigation can even raise questions about long‑term continuity. A company might divest a product line, change licensing models, or settle on terms that affect how data can be stored, accessed, or used for AI. Firms could then face tight timelines to accept new terms, migrate data, or re‑evaluate how integrated AI features operate on client materials. Without offering any legal advice about what an individual firm should do, it is fair to say that paying attention early — before options narrow — is usually more comfortable than reacting after a sudden announcement or deadline.

Practical Steps for Firms at a Basic–Moderate Tech Level

You do not need a CIO to respond intelligently. For most firms, a short, structured exercise will go a long way:

Practical Tech Steps for Today’s Law Firms

  1. Inventory your dependencies. List your core systems (CRM/practice management, document management, time and billing, conflicts, research/AI tools) and note which vendors are in high‑profile disputes or under regulatory or antitrust scrutiny.

  2. Review contracts for safety valves. Look for data‑export provisions, notice obligations if the vendor faces litigation affecting your data, incident‑response timelines, and business‑continuity commitments; capture current online terms.

  3. Map a contingency plan. Decide how you would export and migrate data if compelled by ethics, client demand, or operational need, and identify at least one alternative provider in each critical category.

  4. Document your diligence. Prepare a brief internal memo or checklist summarizing what you reviewed, what you concluded, and what you will monitor, so you can later show your decisions were thoughtful.

  5. Communicate without alarming. Most clients care about continuity and confidentiality, not vendor‑litigation details; you can honestly say you monitor providers, have export and backup options, and have assessed the impact of current disputes.

From “IT Problem” to Core Professional Skill

The Clio–Alexi litigation is a prominent reminder that law practice now runs on contested digital infrastructure. The real message for working lawyers is not to flee from technology but to fold vendor risk into ordinary professional judgment. If you understand, at a basic to moderate level, what the dispute is about — data, AI training, licensing, and competition — and you take concrete steps to evaluate contracts, plan for continuity, and protect confidentiality, you are already practicing technology competence in a way the ABA Model Rules contemplate. You do not have to be an engineer to be a careful, ethics‑focused consumer of legal tech. By treating CRM and AI providers as supervised non‑lawyer assistants, rather than invisible utilities, you position your firm to navigate future lawsuits, acquisitions, and regulatory storms with far less disruption. That is good risk management, sound ethics, and, increasingly, a core element of competent lawyering in the digital era. 💼⚖️

TSL.P Labs Bonus: Google AI Discussion: Everyday Tech, Extraordinary Evidence: Smartphones, Dash Cams, and Wearables as Silent Witnesses in Your Cases ⚖️📱

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Join us for an AI-powered deep dive into the ethical challenges facing legal professionals in the age of generative AI. 🤖 In this Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Labs episode, our Google AI hosts unpack our January 26, 2026, editorial and discuss how everyday devices—smartphones, dash cams, wearables, and connected cars—are becoming “silent witnesses” that can make or break your next case, while walking carefully through ABA Model Rules on competence, candor, privacy, and preservation of digital evidence.

In our conversation, we cover the following:

  • 00:00 – Welcome to The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Labs Initiative and this week’s “Everyday Tech, Extraordinary Evidence” AI roundtable 🧪

  • 00:30 – Why classic “surprise witness” courtroom drama is giving way to always-on digital witnesses 🎭

  • 01:15 – Introducing the concept of smartphones, dash cams, and wearables as objective “silent witnesses” in litigation 📱

  • 02:00 – Overview of Michael D.J. Eisenberg’s editorial “Everyday Tech, Extraordinary Evidence” and his mission to bridge tech and courtroom practice 📰[

  • 03:00 – Case study setup: the Alex Preddy shooting in Minneapolis and the clash between official reports and digital evidence ⚖️

  • 04:00 – How bystander smartphone video reframed the legal narrative in the Preddy matter and dismantled “brandished a weapon” claims 🎥

  • 05:00 – From “pressing play” to full video synchronization: building a unified timeline from multiple cameras to audit police reports 🧩06:00 – Using frame-by-frame analysis to test loaded terms like “lunging,” “aggressive resistance,” and “brandishing” against what the pixels actually show 🔍

  • 07:00 – Moving beyond what we see: introducing “quiet evidence” such as GPS logs, telemetry, and sensor data as litigation tools 📡

  • 08:00 – GPS data for location, duration, and speed: turning “he was charging” into a measurable movement profile in protest and road-rage cases 🚶‍♂️🚗

  • 09:00 – Layering GPS from phones with vehicle telematics to create a multi-source reconstruction that is hard to impeach in court 📊

  • 10:00 – Dash cams as 360-degree witnesses: solving blind spots of human perception and single-angle video 🛞

  • 11:00 – Why exterior audio from dash cams—shouts, commands, crowd noise—can be crucial to proving state of mind and mens rea 🔊

  • 12:00 – Wearables as a body-wide sensor network: heart rate, sleep, and step count as quantitative proof of pain, fear, and trauma ⌚

  • 13:00 – Using longitudinal wearable data to support claims of emotional distress or sleep disruption in personal injury and civil-rights litigation 😴

  • 14:00 – Heart-rate spikes and movement logs at the moment of an encounter as corroboration of fear or immobility in use-of-force matters

  • 15:00 – Why none of this evidence exists in your case file unless you know to ask for it at intake 🗂️

  • 16:00 – Updating intake: adding questions about smartwatches, location services, doorbell cameras, dash cams, and connected cars to your client questionnaires 📝

  • 17:00 – Data preservation as an emergency task: deletion cycles, cloud overwrites, and using TROs to stop digital spoliation 🚨

  • 18:00 – Turning raw logs into compelling visuals: maps, synced clips, and timelines that juries can understand without sacrificing accuracy 🗺️

  • 19:00 – Ethics spotlight: ABA Model Rule 1.1 competence and Comment 8—why “I’m not a tech person” is now an ethical problem, not an excuse 📚

  • 20:00 – Candor to the tribunal and the line between strong advocacy and fraud when editing or excerpting digital evidence ⚠️

  • 21:00 – Respecting third-party privacy under Rule 4.4: when you must blur faces, redact audio, or limit collateral exposure of bystanders 🧩

  • 22:00 – Advising clients not to delete texts, videos, or logs and explaining spoliation risks under Rule 3.4 ⚖️

  • 23:00 – The uranium analogy: digital tools as powerful but dangerous if used without adequate ethical “containment” ☢️

  • 24:00 – Philosophical closing: will juries someday trust heart-rate logs more than tears on the witness stand, and what does that mean for human testimony? 🤔

  • 25:00 – Closing remarks and invitation to explore the full editorial, show notes, and resources on The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page 🌐

If you enjoyed this episode, please like, comment, subscribe, and share!

HOW TO: How Lawyers Can Protect Themselves on LinkedIn from New Phishing 🎣 Scams!

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Fake LinkedIn warnings target lawyers!

LinkedIn has become an essential networking tool for lawyers, making it a high‑value target for sophisticated phishing campaigns.⚖️ Recent scams use fake “policy violation” comments that mimic LinkedIn’s branding and even leverage the official lnkd.in URL shortener to trick users into clicking on malicious links. For legal professionals handling confidential client information, falling victim to one of these attacks can create both security and ethical problems.

First, understand how this specific scam works.💻 Attackers create LinkedIn‑themed profiles and company pages (for example, “Linked Very”) that use the LinkedIn logo and post “reply” comments on your content, claiming your account is “temporarily restricted” for non‑compliance with platform rules. The comment urges you to click a link to “verify your identity,” which leads to a phishing site that harvests your LinkedIn credentials. Some links use non‑LinkedIn domains, such as .app, or redirect through lnkd.in, making visual inspection harder.

To protect yourself, treat all public “policy violation” comments as inherently suspect.🔍 LinkedIn has confirmed it does not communicate policy violations through public comments, so any such message should be considered a red flag. Instead of clicking, navigate directly to LinkedIn in your browser or app, check your notifications and security settings, and only interact with alerts that appear within your authenticated session. If the comment uses a shortened link, hover over it (on desktop) to preview the destination, or simply refuse to click and report it.

From an ethics standpoint, these scams directly implicate your duties under ABA Model Rules 1.1 and 1.6.⚖️ Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 stresses that competent representation includes understanding the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Failing to use basic safeguards on a platform where you communicate with clients and colleagues can fall short of that standard. Likewise, Rule 1.6 requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access to client information, which includes preventing account takeover that could expose your messages, contacts, or confidential discussions.

Public “policy violations” are a red flag!

Practically, you should enable multi‑factor authentication (MFA) on LinkedIn, use a unique, strong password stored in a reputable password manager, and review active sessions regularly for unfamiliar devices or locations.🔐 If you suspect you clicked a malicious link, immediately change your LinkedIn password, revoke active sessions, enable or confirm MFA, and run updated anti‑malware on your device. Then notify your firm’s IT or security contact and consider whether any client‑related disclosures are required under your jurisdiction’s ethics rules and breach‑notification laws.

Finally, build a culture of security awareness in your practice.👥 Brief colleagues and staff about this specific comment‑reply scam, show screenshots, and explain that LinkedIn does not resolve “policy violations” via comment threads. Encourage a “pause before you click” mindset and make reporting easy—internally to your IT team and externally to LinkedIn’s abuse channels. Taking these steps not only protects your professional identity but also demonstrates the technological competence and confidentiality safeguards the ABA Model Rules expect from modern legal practitioners.

From an ethics standpoint, these scams directly implicate your duties under ABA Model Rules 1.1 and 1.6.⚖️ Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 stresses that competent representation includes understanding the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Failing to use basic safeguards on a platform where you communicate with clients and colleagues can fall short of that standard. Likewise, Rule 1.6 requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access to client information, which includes preventing account takeover that could expose your messages, contacts, or confidential discussions.

Train your team to pause and report!

Practically, you should enable multi‑factor authentication (MFA) on LinkedIn, use a unique, strong password stored in a reputable password manager, and review active sessions regularly for unfamiliar devices or locations.🔐 If you suspect you clicked a malicious link, immediately change your LinkedIn password, revoke active sessions, enable or confirm MFA, and run updated anti‑malware on your device. Then notify your firm’s IT or security contact and consider whether any client‑related disclosures are required under your jurisdiction’s ethics rules and breach‑notification laws.

Finally, build a culture of security awareness in your practice.👥 Brief colleagues and staff about this specific comment‑reply scam, show screenshots, and explain that LinkedIn does not resolve “policy violations” via comment threads. Encourage a “pause before you click” mindset and make reporting easy—internally to your IT team and externally to LinkedIn’s abuse channels. Taking these steps not only protects your professional identity but also demonstrates the technological competence and confidentiality safeguards the ABA Model Rules expect from modern legal practitioners.

Word of the week: “Legal AI institutional memory” engages core ethics duties under the ABA Model Rules, so it is not optional “nice to know” tech.⚖️🤖

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Institutional Memory Meets the ABA Model Rules

“Legal AI institutional Memory” is AI that remembers how your firm actually practices law, not just what generic precedent says. It captures negotiation history, clause choices, outcomes, and client preferences across matters so each new assignment starts from experience instead of a blank page.

From an ethics perspective, this capability sits directly in the path of ABA Model Rule 1.1 on competence, Rule 1.6 on confidentiality, and Rule 5.3 on responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance (which now includes AI systems). Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 stresses that competent representation requires understanding the “benefits and risks associated with relevant technology,” which squarely includes institutional‑memory AI in 2026. Using or rejecting this technology blindly can itself create risk if your peers are using it to deliver more thorough, consistent, and efficient work.🧩

Rule 1.6 requires “reasonable efforts” to prevent unauthorized disclosure or access to information relating to representation. Because institutional memory centralizes past matters and sensitive patterns, it raises the stakes on vendor security, configuration, and firm governance. Rule 5.3 extends supervision duties to “nonlawyer assistance,” which ethics commentators and bar materials now interpret to include AI tools used in client work. In short, if your AI is doing work that would otherwise be done by a human assistant, you must supervise it as such.🛡️

Why Institutional Memory Matters (Competence and Client Service)

Tools like Luminance and Harvey now market institutional‑memory features that retain negotiation patterns, drafting preferences, and matter‑level context across time. They promise faster contract cycles, fewer errors, and better use of a firm’s accumulated know‑how. Used wisely, that aligns with Rule 1.1’s requirement that you bring “thoroughness and preparation” reasonably necessary for the representation, and Comment 8’s directive to keep abreast of relevant technology.

At the same time, ethical competence does not mean turning judgment over to the model. It means understanding how the system makes recommendations, what data it relies on, and how to validate outputs against your playbooks and client instructions. Ethics guidance on generative AI emphasizes that lawyers must review AI‑generated work product, verify sources, and ensure that technology does not substitute for legal judgment. Legal AI institutional memory can enhance competence only if you treat it as an assistant you supervise, not an oracle you obey.⚙️

Legal AI That Remembers Your Practice—Ethics Required, Not Optional

How Legal AI Institutional Memory Works (and Where the Rules Bite)

Institutional‑memory platforms typically:

  • Ingest a corpus of contracts or matters.

  • Track negotiation moves, accepted fall‑backs, and outcomes over time.

  • Expose that knowledge through natural‑language queries and drafting suggestions.

That design engages several ethics touchpoints🫆:

  • Rule 1.1 (Competence): You must understand at a basic level how the AI uses and stores client information, what its limitations are, and when it is appropriate to rely on its suggestions. This may require CLE, vendor training, or collaboration with more technical colleagues until you reach a reasonable level of comfort.

  • Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): You must ensure that the vendor contract, configuration, and access controls provide “reasonable efforts” to protect confidentiality, including encryption, role‑based access, and breach‑notification obligations. Ethics guidance on cloud and AI use stresses the need to investigate provider security, retention practices, and rights to use or mine your data.

  • Rule 5.3 (Nonlawyer Assistance): Because AI tools are “non‑human assistance,” you must supervise their work as you would a contract review outsourcer, document vendor, or litigation support team. That includes selecting competent providers, giving appropriate instructions, and monitoring outputs for compliance with your ethical obligations.🤖

Governance Checklist: Turning Ethics into Action

For lawyers with limited to moderate tech skills, it helps to translate the ABA Model Rules into a short adoption checklist.✅

When evaluating or deploying legal AI institutional memory, consider:

  1. Define Scope (Rules 1.1 and 1.6): Start with a narrow use case such as NDAs or standard vendor contracts, and specify which documents the system may use to build its memory.

  2. Vet the Vendor (Rules 1.6 and 5.3): Ask about data segregation, encryption, access logs, regional hosting, subcontractors, and incident‑response processes; confirm clear contractual obligations to preserve confidentiality and notify you of incidents.

  3. Configure Access (Rules 1.6 and 5.3): Use role‑based permissions, client or matter scoping, and retention settings that match your existing information‑governance and legal‑hold policies.

  4. Supervise Outputs (Rules 1.1 and 5.3): Require that lawyers review AI suggestions, verify sources, and override recommendations where they conflict with client instructions or risk tolerance.

  5. Educate Your Team (Rule 1.1): Provide short trainings on how the system works, what it remembers, and how the Model Rules apply; document this as part of your technology‑competence efforts.

Educating Your Team Is Core to AI Competence

This approach respects the increasing bar on technological competence while protecting client information and maintaining human oversight.⚖️

This approach respects the increasing bar on technological competence while protecting client information and maintaining human oversight.⚖️

📽️ BONUS Labs 🧪 Initiative: Tech-Savvy Lawyer on Law Practice Today Podcast — Essential Trust Account Tips for Solo & Small Law Firms w/ Terrell Turner (Copy)

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

For those who prefer video over plain audio, enjoy this take on my guest appearance on Law Practice Today Podcast!

🙏 Special Thanks to Terrell Turner and the ABA for having me on the Law Practice Today Podcast, produced by the Law Practice Division of the American Bar Association. We have an important discussion on trust account management. We cover essential insights on managing trust accounts using online services. This episode has been edited for time, but no information was altered. We are grateful to the ABA and the Law Practice Today Podcast for allowing us to share this valuable conversation with our audience.

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

  1. What precautions should lawyers using online services to manage trust accounts be aware of?

  2. How can solo and small firm attorneys find competent bookkeepers who understand legal trust accounting?

  3. What security measures should attorneys implement when using online payment processors for client funds?

⏱️ In our conversation, we cover the following:

00:00 – Introduction & Preview: Trust Accounts in the Digital Age

01:00 – Welcome to the Law Practice Today Podcast

01:30 â€“ Today's Topic: Online Services for Payments

02:00 â€“ Guest Introduction: Michael D.J. Eisenberg's Background

03:00 â€“ Michael's Experience with Trust Accounts

04:00 â€“ Challenges for Solo and Small Practitioners

05:00 â€“ Ensuring Security in Online Services

06:00 â€“ Questions to Ask Online Payment Providers

07:00 â€“ Password Security & Two-Factor Authentication

08:00 â€“ Finding a Competent Legal Bookkeeper

09:00 â€“ Why 8AM Law Pay Works for Attorneys

10:00 â€“ Daily Monitoring of Trust Accounts

11:00 â€“ FDIC Insurance & Silicon Valley Bank Lessons

13:00 â€“ Researching Trust Account Best Practices

15:00 – Closing Remarks & Podcast Information

📚 Resources

🔗 Connect with Terrell

💼 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/terrellturner/

🌐 Website: https://www.tlturnergroup.com/

🎙️ Law Practice Today Podcast â€“ https://lawpracticetoday.buzzsprout.com

📰 Mentioned in the Episode

💻 Software & Cloud Services Mentioned in the Conversation

  • 8AM Law Pay â€“ Legal payment processing designed for trust account compliance – https://www.8am.com/lawpay/

  • 1Password â€“ Password manager for generating and syncing complex passwords – https://1password.com/

  • LastPass – Mentioned as a password manager with noted security concerns – https://www.lastpass.com/

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting Is Here: A Practical, Ethical Launch Plan for Busy Lawyers 🎙️⚖️

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

I’m excited to share! The wait is over! The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting is officially released. 🎉🎙️ This book is built for lawyers, paralegals, and legal professionals who want a clear, practical path to launching a podcast—without needing to be “techy” to get it right.

Podcasting has become one of the most effective ways to build trust at scale. People want more than ads. They want a real voice. They want context. They want clarity. A podcast lets you educate, connect, and show your professional judgment in a way a website cannot. It also gives prospective clients a low-pressure way to get to know you before they ever call. 📈🤝

This guide covers the full podcast lifecycle in plain language. You will learn how to pick a topic that fits your goals and schedule. You will learn the most useful show formats for legal audiences, including solo episodes, interviews, storytelling, and educational series. You will also learn what to buy (and what to skip) when building your gear setup. That includes microphones, headphones, webcams, lighting, and basic acoustic improvements that matter in real offices. 🎧🎥💡

QR Code for 📚 purchase on amazon

Software matters too. In this book, I explain beginner and pro options for recording and editing. It also covers remote recording tools and simple video workflows for YouTube and modern platforms. You will get a clear explanation of podcast hosting and distribution, including how RSS feeds deliver your episodes to directories like Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 📲🌍

A major focus of this book is professional responsibility. Lawyers must avoid accidental legal advice. Lawyers must avoid creating unintended attorney-client relationships. Lawyers must also watch multi-jurisdictional issues and advertising rules. This guide addresses those risks directly and gives practical guardrails you can use in real episodes. 🛡️📜

You will also learn how to use AI efficiently and ethically. AI can save time on transcripts, show notes, clips, and repurposed content. It can also create risk if you feed it sensitive data or publish unverified output. The book offers a workflow-first approach that protects confidentiality and supports accuracy. ✅🤖

The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting is part of the Lawyers Tech Guide (LTG) series from Michael D.J. Eisenberg, creator of The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page. The mission is simple: use technology to communicate clearly, serve people better, and reclaim time. ⏳✨

Ready to launch?
You are just one click away!

🔗 Purchase here on Amazon 🔗

MTC: Everyday Tech, Extraordinary Evidence: How Lawyers Can Turn Smartphones, Dash Cams, and Wearables Into Case‑Winning Proof After the Minnesota ICE Shooting 📱⚖️

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Smartphone evidence: Phone as Proof!

The recent fatal shooting of ICU nurse Alex Pretti by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis has become a defining example of how everyday technology can reshape a high‑stakes legal narrative. 📹 Federal officials claimed Pretti “brandished” a weapon, yet layered cellphone videos from bystanders, later analyzed by major news outlets, appear to show an officer disarming him moments before multiple shots were fired while he was already on the ground. In a world where such encounters are documented from multiple angles, lawyers who ignore ubiquitous tech risk missing powerful, and sometimes exonerating, evidence.

Smartphones: The New Star Witness

In the Minneapolis shooting, multiple smartphone videos captured the encounter from different perspectives, and a visual analysis highlighted discrepancies between official statements and what appears on camera. One video reportedly shows an officer reaching into Pretti’s waistband, emerging with a handgun, and then, barely a second later, shots erupt as he lies prone on the sidewalk, still being fired upon. For litigators, this is not just news; it is a case study in how to treat smartphones as critical evidentiary tools, not afterthoughts.

Practical ways to leverage smartphone evidence include:

  • Identifying and preserving bystander footage early through public calls, client outreach, and subpoenas to platforms when appropriate.

  • Synchronizing multiple clips to create a unified timeline, revealing who did what, when, and from where.

  • Using frame‑by‑frame analysis to test or challenge claims about “brandishing,” “aggressive resistance,” or imminent threat, as occurred in the Pretti shooting controversy.

In civil rights, criminal defense, and personal‑injury practice, this kind of video can undercut self‑defense narratives, corroborate witness accounts, or demonstrate excessive force, all using tech your clients already carry every day. 📲

GPS Data and Location Trails: Quiet but Powerful Proof

The same smartphones that record video also log location data, which can quietly become as important as any eyewitness. Modern phones can provide time‑stamped GPS histories that help confirm where a client was, how long they stayed, and in some instances approximate movement speed—details that matter in shootings, traffic collisions, and kidnapping cases. Lawyers increasingly use this location data to:

Dash cam / cameras: Dashcam Truth!

  • Corroborate or challenge alibis by matching GPS trails with claimed timelines.

  • Reconstruct movement patterns in protest‑related incidents, showing whether someone approached officers or was simply present, as contested in the Minneapolis shooting narrative.

  • Support or refute claims that a vehicle was fleeing, chasing, or unlawfully following another party.

In complex matters with multiple parties, cross‑referencing GPS from several phones, plus vehicle telematics, can create a robust, data‑driven reconstruction that a fact‑finder can understand without a computer science degree.

Dash Cams and 360‑Degree Vehicle Video: Replaying the Scene

Cars now function as rolling surveillance systems. Many new vehicles ship with factory cameras, and after‑market 360‑degree dash‑cam systems are increasingly common, capturing impacts, near‑misses, and police encounters in real time. In a Minneapolis‑style protest environment, vehicle‑mounted cameras can document:

  • How a crowd formed, whether officers announced commands, and whether a driver accelerated or braked before an alleged assault.

  • The precise position of pedestrians or officers relative to a car at the time of a contested shooting.

  • Sound cues (shouts of “he’s got a gun!” or “where’s the gun?”) that provide crucial context to the video, like those reportedly heard in footage of the Pretti shooting.

For injury and civil rights litigators, requesting dash‑cam footage from all involved vehicles—clients, third parties, and law‑enforcement—should now be standard practice. 🚗 A single 360‑degree recording might capture the angle that police‑worn cameras miss or omit.

Wearables and Smartwatches: Biometrics as Evidence

GPS & wearables: Data Tells All!

Smartwatches and fitness trackers add a new dimension: heart‑rate, step counts, sleep data, and sometimes even blood‑oxygen metrics. In use‑of‑force incidents or violent encounters, this information can be unusually persuasive. Imagine:

  • A heart‑rate spike precisely at the time of an assault, followed by a sustained elevation that reinforces trauma testimony.

  • Step‑count and GPS data confirming that a client was running away, standing still, or immobilized as claimed.

  • Sleep‑pattern disruptions and activity changes supporting damages in emotional‑distress claims.

These devices effectively turn the body into a sensor network. When combined with phone video and location data, they help lawyers build narratives supported by objective, machine‑created logs rather than only human recollection. ⌚

Creative Strategies for Integrating Everyday Tech

To move from concept to courtroom, lawyers should adopt a deliberate strategy for everyday tech evidence:

  • Build intake questions that explicitly ask about phones, car cameras, smartwatches, home doorbell cameras, and even cloud backups.

  • Move quickly for preservation orders, as Minnesota officials did when a judge issued a temporary restraining order to prevent alteration or removal of shooting‑related evidence in the Pretti case.

  • Partner with reputable digital‑forensics professionals who can extract, authenticate, and, when needed, recover deleted or damaged files.

  • Prepare demonstrative exhibits that overlay video, GPS points, and timelines in a simple visual, so judges and juries understand the story without technical jargon.

The Pretti shooting also underscores the need to anticipate competing narratives: federal officials asserted he posed a threat, while video and witness accounts cast doubt on that framing, fueling protests and calls for accountability. Lawyers on all sides must learn to dissect everyday tech evidence critically—scrutinizing what it shows, what it omits, and how it fits with other proof.

Ethical and Practical Guardrails

Ethics-focused image: Ethics First!

With this power comes real ethical responsibility. Lawyers must align their use of everyday tech with core duties under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

  • Competence (ABA Model Rule 1.1)
    Rule 1.1 requires “competent representation,” and Comment 8 now expressly includes a duty to keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. When you rely on smartphone video, GPS logs, or wearable data, you must either develop sufficient understanding yourself or associate with or consult someone who does.

  • Confidentiality and Data Security (ABA Model Rule 1.6)
    Rule 1.6 obligates lawyers to make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access to or disclosure of client information. This extends to sensitive video, location trails, and biometric data stored on phones, cloud accounts, or third‑party platforms. Lawyers should use secure storage, limit access, and, where appropriate, obtain informed consent about how such data will be used and shared.

  • Preservation and Integrity of Evidence (ABA Model Rules 3.4, 4.1, and related e‑discovery ethics)
    ABA ethics guidance and case law emphasize that lawyers must not unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal evidence. That means clients should be instructed not to edit, trim, or “clean up” recordings, and that any forensic work should follow accepted chain‑of‑custody protocols.

  • Candor and Avoiding Cherry‑Picking (ABA Model Rule 3.3, 4.1)
    Rule 3.3 requires candor toward the tribunal, and Rule 4.1 prohibits knowingly making false statements of fact. Lawyers should present digital evidence in context, avoiding selective clips that distort timing, perspective, or sound. A holistic, transparent approach builds credibility and protects both the client and the profession.

  • Respect for Privacy and Non‑Clients (ABA Model Rule 4.4 and related guidance)
    Rule 4.4 governs respect for the rights of third parties, including their privacy interests. When you obtain bystander footage or data from non‑clients, you should consider minimizing unnecessary exposure of their identities and, where feasible, seek consent or redact sensitive information.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Handled with these rules in mind, everyday tech can reduce factual ambiguity and support more just outcomes. Misused, it can undermine trust, compromise admissibility, and trigger disciplinary scrutiny. ⚖️

Word of the Week: What is a “Token” in AI parlance?

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Lawyers need to know what “tokens” are in ai jargon!

In artificial intelligence, a “token” is a small segment of text—such as a word, subword, or even punctuation—that AI tools like ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs) use to understand and generate language. In simple terms, tokens are the “building blocks” of communication for AI. When you type a sentence, the system breaks it into tokens so it can analyze meaning, predict context, and produce a relevant response.

For example, the sentence “The court issued its opinion.” might be split into six tokens: “The,” “court,” “issued,” “its,” “opinion,” and “.” By interpreting how those tokens relate, the AI produces natural and coherent language that feels human-like.

This concept matters to law firms and practitioners because AI systems often measure capacity and billing by token count, not by word count. AI-powered tools used for document review, legal research, and e-discovery commonly calculate both usage and cost based on the number of tokens processed. Naturally, longer or more complex documents consume more tokens and therefore cost more to analyze. As a result, a lawyer’s AI platform may also be limited in how much discovery material it can process at once, depending on the platform’s token capacity.

lawyers have an ethical duty to know how tokens apply when using ai in their legal work!~

But there’s a second, more important dimension to tokens: ethics and professional responsibility. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct—particularly Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), and 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance)—apply directly when lawyers use AI tools that process client data.

  • Rule 1.1 requires technological competence. Attorneys must understand how their chosen AI tools function, at least enough to evaluate token-based costs, data use, and limitations.

  • Rule 1.6 restricts how client confidential information may be shared or stored. Submitting text to an AI system means tokens representing that text may travel through third-party servers or APIs. Lawyers must confirm the AI tool’s data handling complies with client confidentiality obligations.

  • Rule 5.3 extends similar oversight duties when relying on vendors that provide AI-based services. Understanding what happens to client data at the token level helps attorneys fulfill those responsibilities.

a “token” is a small segment of text.

In short, tokens are not just technical units. They represent the very language of client matters, billing data, and confidential work. Understanding tokens helps lawyers ensure efficient billing, maintain confidentiality, and stay compliant with professional ethics rules while embracing modern legal technology.

Tokens may be tiny units of text—but for lawyers, they’re big steps toward ethical, informed, and confident use of AI in practice. ⚖️💡