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

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

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

What Happened in the LexisNexis Breach?

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

Why Should You Worry About Other Lexis Products?

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

Ethical Implications: ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

ALL LawyerS NEED TO BE PREPARED TO FighT Data LeakS!

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

In light of the LexisNexis breach, lawyers must:

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

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

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

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

What Should Legal Professionals Do Next?

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

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

• Consider offering affected clients identity protection services.

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

ABA Model Rules: The Foundation for Ethical Tech Use

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

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

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

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

Lessons from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page

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

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

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

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

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

The SoundCloud Example: Ownership, Control, and Risk

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

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

Why This Matters for Lawyers

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

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

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

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

Practical Steps: Protecting Clients and Your Practice

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

• Who owns the data entered into the platform?

• What rights does the provider claim over your data?

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

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

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

The Adversarial Risk: More Than Just Theory

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

Final Thoughts: Vigilance Is Essential

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

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

Defend Client Data from Malware!

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

Why the ABA Model Rules Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawyers: Secure Your Practice Now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advanced Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

lawyers avoid sanctions - check your work!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Do These Mistakes Keep Happening? 🤔

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

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

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

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

The Real-World Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

What Needs to Change-Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Attend?

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

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

• Setting up and applying Styles for consistent, professional briefs

• Automating cross-references and section links

• Creating and updating Tables of Contents and Tables of Authorities

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

• And much more!

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

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

Who Should Attend?

• Attorneys who draft briefs, motions, or contracts

• Paralegals and legal assistants

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

How to Register

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

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

🎙️ Ep. 111: Empowering Attorneys With AI: A Conversation with Hilary Bowman, Co-Winner of the 2025 ABA Startup Alley Competition.

Our next guest is Hilary Bowman, Co-Winner of the 2025 ABA Startup Alley Competition and CEO of Querious. She shares how lawyers can use AI tools like Querious to make client interactions better and more efficient without losing their personal touch. She explains the common challenges lawyers face in client conversations that led to the creation of Querious. Hilary also discusses the steps Querious has taken to address lawyers' concerns about security, privacy, and ethics, ensuring the platform follows professional rules and keeps client information safe.

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

1. What are the top three ways lawyers can leverage AI tools like Querious to improve the efficiency and quality of their client interactions without compromising the human element of legal practice?

2. What are the top three challenges in attorney-client conversations that led you to Querious?

3. For lawyers who may be hesitant to adopt AI due to security, privacy, or ethical considerations, what are the top three steps Querious has taken to ensure compliance with professional responsibility rules while safeguarding client confidentiality?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[01:18] Enhancing Client Interaction

[03:46] Key Challenges Driving Querious Adoption

[09:37] Balancing Privilege and Innovation

[12:34] How Querious Ensures Ethical, Secure AI for Lawyers

[17:33] Integration and Future Plans

Resources:

Connect with Hilary:

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/hilarybowman/

Website: querious.ai/

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

• Querious: querious.ai/

• Fireflies.ai: fireflies.ai/

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

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

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

The Power of AI in Legal Research 🚀

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

AI language models excel at:

• Producing initial legal research summaries

• Analyzing contracts and identifying potential issues

• Drafting first versions of legal memoranda

• Summarizing lengthy case law

• Answering straightforward legal questions

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

Top Five AI Legal Research Tools 💻

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations of AI Legal Research Tools ⚠️

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

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

General Limitations

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

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

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

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

Tool-Specific Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Legal Research Platforms: The Gold Standard 📚

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

General Strengths

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

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

• Comprehensive case law coverage across jurisdictions

• Established citation systems that courts recognize and trust

• Advanced filtering and search capabilities refined over decades

• Specialized practice area materials including forms and secondary sources

Platform-Specific Strengths

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

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

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

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

Traditional Platform Limitations

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

• Steep learning curves - Complex interfaces require significant training

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

• Limited natural language processing capabilities in traditional search functions

• Time-intensive research processes even for experienced users

The Hybrid Approach: Best of Both Worlds 🔄

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

Practical Implementation Guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

Real-World Application Examples

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

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

Comparison of AI and Traditional Legal Research Platforms 📊

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Thoughts: Strategic Integration is Key 🔑

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Google Study: Training Unlocks Real AI Value

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

Empirical Evidence: AI Boosts Legal Work Quality and Efficiency

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

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

The Real Roadblock: Training, Not Technology

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

Legal AI Tools: What’s Available Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Training Programs for Lawyers: Building AI Competency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Empower lawyers with AI training for ethical, efficient practice!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🎉

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

🚨 BOLO: Zoom Remote Access Attacks – Critical Security Alert for Legal Professionals 🚨

Zoom Attack Exposes Lawyers to Major Cyber Risk: Why Vigilance Is Now an Ethical Imperative!

Lawyers need to be able to Spot fake Zoom invites—protect your client data now!

A sophisticated cyberattack targeting Zoom users has recently emerged, with direct implications for lawyers and legal professionals. The attack, detailed by Malwarebytes, involves a crime group dubbed ELUSIVE COMET that lures victims into Zoom meetings and tricks them into granting remote access. This enables the installation of malware and theft of sensitive data, including financial assets and confidential client information, e.g., PII.

How the Attack Works

• Attackers pose as reputable contacts (e.g., media invitations) and set up Zoom calls.

• During the meeting, the attacker often sends a remote control request with their camera off, disguising their screen name as “Zoom” to appear legitimate.

• If the victim approves, the attacker gains full control of the victim’s system, installs malware, and can access files, emails, and even financial accounts.

Why Lawyers Must Be Extra Cautious

Ethical Duties Under ABA Model Rules

You need to be careful who you let into your zoom conferences!

• Competence (Rule 1.1): Lawyers must provide competent representation, which now explicitly includes technological competence. Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 states:
  To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

• Confidentiality (Rule 1.6): Attorneys are ethically obligated to protect client information from unauthorized disclosure. Allowing remote access to your device can expose privileged communications, work product, and sensitive client data to malicious actors.

• Failing to maintain technological competence or safeguard client data can result in ethical violations, malpractice claims, and reputational harm.

Best Practices to Prevent Zoom-Based Attacks

• Never accept remote control requests from unknown or unverified participants.

• Use Zoom via your web browser when possible, as the browser version does not support remote control, reducing risk.

• Enable meeting passwords and waiting rooms to control access.

• Restrict screen sharing and disable remote control features unless absolutely necessary.

• Verify all meeting invitations-scrutinize the sender’s identity, and be wary of unsolicited requests, especially those involving media opportunities or unfamiliar contacts.

• Keep Zoom and all security software updated to address known vulnerabilities.

• Educate staff and colleagues about the risks and proper protocols for virtual meetings.

What to Do If You Suspect a Breach

You control access—deny hackers, defend your practice.

• Disconnect from the internet immediately to limit further access.

• Contact your IT or cybersecurity team and initiate your incident response plan.

• Notify affected clients and relevant authorities as required by law and ethical rules.

• Document the incident and steps taken for compliance and potential reporting obligations.

• Review and update your security protocols to prevent future incidents.

Let’s be careful out there - it could cost you your job or, worse yet, your bar license if you don’t!

Happy Lawyering!!!

🎙️ Ep. 110: Unlock The Power of Video for Law Firms with Ecamm Live!

Join me as we talk with, Katie Fawkes, Director of Marketing at Ecamm. We discuss how lawyers can leverage Ecamm, a live streaming and video production studio for Mac, to enhance their practice. She outlines the top three ways legal professionals can use Ecamm, including remote depositions and virtual hearings.

The discussion compares Ecamm to Zoom, highlighting Ecamm’s advanced functionality. Katie addresses critical security and privacy concerns, offering reassurances for sensitive legal communications. Also, Katie shares expert tips for creating impactful video content, emphasizing how legal professionals can present themselves effectively and professionally using Ecamm’s robust features.

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

1. What are the top three ways lawyers can use Ecamm to improve virtual client meetings and presentations?

2. What are the top three tips for lawyers looking to create impactful video content - for example, webinars, tutorials, and thought leadership videos using Ecamm?

3. What are the top three features of Ecamm that make it particularly useful for lawyers conducting remote depositions or virtual hearings?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[01:20] Katie’s Tech Setup

[07:10] Top Three Ways Lawyers Can Use Ecamm

[09:36] Ecamm vs. Zoom: Additional Functionality

[12:24] Security and Privacy Concerns

[13:37] Top Three Tips for Creating Impactful Video Content

[18:34] Using Ecamm for Remote Depositions and Virtual Hearings

[19:53] Common Tech Issues and Solutions

Resources:

Connect with Katie:

• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/katie-anne-fawkes/

• Website: ecamm.com/

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

• OBSBOT Tiny 2 Cameras: obsbot.com/store/products/tiny-2

• Shure MV6 Microphone: shure.com/en-US/products/microphones

• Shure MV7 Microphone: shure.com/en-US/products/microphones/mv7

• Shure MV7i Microphone: shure.com/en-US/products/microphones/mv7i?variant=MV7i