MTC: Google’s Claim Over LSA Client Intake Recordings: Why Lawyers Must Rethink Cloud Service Risks in 2025 ⚖️☁️

Client confidentiality under siege: The legal battle begins!

Google’s recent assertion of ownership rights over Local Services Ads (LSA) client intake recordings should send shockwaves through the legal community. In a quiet but consequential email, Google notified LSA advertisers that, going forward, it claims full creative license and access to all content-ranging from photos and bios to, most alarmingly, recorded phone calls and message conversations with prospective clients routed through Google’s systems. This change, effective June 5, 2025, requires advertisers to opt in or risk losing access to LSA advertising altogether.

The Heart of the Issue: Confidentiality and Control

For lawyers, the implications are profound. The attorney-client privilege is a cornerstone of legal ethics, and the duty to safeguard client confidences is absolute. When a third-party platform like Google claims ownership and unfettered use of intake recordings, the risk to confidentiality is not hypothetical-it is immediate and real. Intake calls often contain sensitive, privileged, or even incriminating information. If Google can analyze, synthesize, and potentially repurpose these recordings for algorithmic optimization or other commercial uses, lawyers may inadvertently breach ethical obligations simply by participating in LSA.  See ABA MRPC 1.1[8] and 1.6.

Cloud Services: Convenience vs. Compliance

Ensure your service providers aren't eavesdropping on confidential client communications!

Cloud-based services have revolutionized law practice, offering flexibility, scalability, and cost savings. However, these benefits come with significant risks, especially when the service provider is not lawyer-centric or fails to prioritize legal ethics. The American Bar Association’s TechReport found that 62% of lawyers cite confidentiality and security as their top concerns with cloud computing. The risk is compounded when vendors can unilaterally change terms of service, as Google has done, or when agencies can accept such terms on behalf of law firms, potentially without direct client notification.

Ethical and Legal Pitfalls

Multiple state bar associations and the ABA have issued opinions permitting cloud adoption-so long as lawyers exercise “reasonable care” to protect client data and maintain ongoing oversight of their providers. ABA MRPC 1.6. This includes:

• Conducting due diligence on security and privacy practices before signing up. ABA MRPC 1.1[8]

• Regularly reviewing provider terms and monitoring for changes that may impact confidentiality. ABA MRPC 5.3[8] and

• Ensuring that cloud vendors do not assert ownership or usage rights over client communications.

Google’s new LSA terms appear to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of these ethical requirements by granting itself broad rights to use, modify, and analyze sensitive client data.

Pricing, Profiling, and AI Risks

Google has no business listening on our conversations!

Google’s access to intake recordings is not just a privacy risk-it’s a competitive one. The company can now aggregate pricing, service details, and other confidential data across the legal industry, potentially using this information to inform its own advertising algorithms or AI-driven pricing models. This could lead to unfair competitive advantages, price manipulation, or even the inadvertent exposure of client strategies.

Practical Steps for Lawyers

Given these developments, lawyers should:

• Reevaluate participation in LSA and similar platforms where data rights are unclear or unfavorable.

• Insist on transparency and control over all client communications, especially intake recordings.

• Choose cloud providers with legal industry expertise and terms that explicitly preserve attorney-client privilege and data ownership.

• Educate staff and clients about the risks of sharing sensitive information through third-party channels.

Final Thoughts: The Stakes Are Higher Than Ever!

The legal profession’s embrace of technology must not come at the expense of client trust and ethical integrity. Google’s move is a stark reminder that not all cloud services are created equal, and that lawyers must remain vigilant-scrutinizing every vendor relationship for hidden pitfalls. The black box of big tech is only getting darker; it is up to the legal community to demand light.

Shout Out: Unlock AI's Potential with Ethics Expertise 🚀💻

Keep up with the constant changing world of AI and Legal ethics!

In the rapidly evolving legal landscape, embracing artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer optional—it's essential 🌟. The upcoming AI and Legal Ethics: A Risk-Benefit Analysis 2025 webinar offers a unique opportunity for lawyers to enhance their practice while navigating the complex ethical considerations surrounding AI use 📚. Join Hilary P. Gerzhoy and Julienne Pasichow of HWG LLP delve into critical areas such as competence in technology, supervision of AI tools, reasonable fees, confidentiality, truth in advertising, and client communication standards 📊.

By attending this webinar, you'll gain practical insights into integrating AI responsibly, ensuring compliance with professional conduct standards, and staying ahead in the legal tech revolution 🚀. Whether you're looking to improve efficiency, enhance client services, or simply stay updated on the latest legal tech trends, this event is a must-attend for any forward-thinking lawyer 🚀.

You can attend this information packed cle virtually!

Don't miss out! Register now and elevate your legal practice with AI expertise 💻👉 https://dcbar.inreachce.com/Details/Information/11092a42-cde2-426d-9dbf-25f270b2df09

I hope to “virtually” see you there!

MTC: Navigating the Legal Landscape of DOGE: Lessons for Lawyers from Ongoing Litigation 🚀

many are worried doge is mishandling citizens’ pii!

The recent involvement of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in accessing sensitive government databases has sparked a wave of lawsuits, raising significant concerns about data privacy and security 🚨. For lawyers, these legal challenges offer valuable insights into how to protect your clients’ personally identifiable information (PII) in light of DOGE's actions. I’d like to share some of the key takeaways from these lawsuits and explore how lawyers can apply these lessons to safeguard sensitive data, focusing on the ABA Model Rules and best practices for data protection.

Understanding the Legal Challenges:

At least a dozen lawsuits have been filed to stop DOGE from accessing tax records, student loan accounts, and other troves of personal data, often invoking the Privacy Act of 1974 📜. Created in response to the Watergate Scandal, this law restricts the sharing of sensitive information without consent, making it a crucial tool for plaintiffs seeking to limit DOGE's access to personal data 📝.

Legal and Ethical Responsibilities

Lawyers have a legal duty to protect client confidentiality, as outlined in ABA Model Rule 1.6 📜. This rule prohibits revealing information related to a client's representation unless exceptions apply, such as informed client consent or implied authorization to carry out the representation 📝. The duty of confidentiality extends beyond attorney-client privilege, covering all information related to the representation, regardless of its source 🌐.

Key Takeaways for Lawyers

are you ready to help protect your client'S DATA IF THE GOVERNMENT BREACHES Their pii?

1. Privacy Act of 1974: Lawyers should be aware of the Privacy Act's provisions, which prohibit unauthorized disclosure of personal information from federal systems of records 📊. This law is being used to challenge DOGE's access to sensitive data, highlighting its importance in protecting client confidentiality 🚫.

2. Standing and Harm: Courts have often ruled that plaintiffs must demonstrate irreparable harm to succeed in these lawsuits 📝. Lawyers should ensure that their clients can establish a clear risk of harm if seeking injunctive relief against similar data access efforts 🚨.

3. Data Security Protocols: The lawsuits emphasize the need for robust data security measures to prevent unauthorized access. Lawyers should implement strong encryption and access controls to protect client data, as suggested by ABA Formal Opinion 483, which emphasizes the duty to notify clients of data breaches and take reasonable steps to safeguard confidential information 🔒.

4. Compliance with Data Protection Regulations: Beyond the Privacy Act, lawyers must comply with other data protection laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) 🌎. Ensuring compliance with these regulations can help prevent unauthorized disclosures and maintain client trust 📨.

5. Transparency and Consent: The lawsuits highlight the importance of transparency and consent in handling personal information. Lawyers should ensure that clients are informed about how their data is used and processed, as required by ABA Model Rule 1.4, which mandates explaining matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation 📝.

Lessons from Specific Lawsuits:

Multiple law suits have been filed to enusre doge is not misusing pii - are your client’s pii at risk?

• Social Security Data Access: A lawsuit by labor unions seeks to prevent DOGE from accessing Social Security data, citing concerns about privacy protocols and the lack of clarity regarding DOGE's intentions 📊. This case underscores the need for clear policies on data access and use, aligning with ABA Model Rule 1.6, which requires lawyers to protect client information unless exceptions apply 📜.

• IRS Taxpayer Data: Privacy advocates have filed a lawsuit to block DOGE from accessing IRS taxpayer data, emphasizing the need to protect sensitive financial information 📊. This highlights the importance of safeguarding client financial data, consistent with ABA Model Rule 1.6, which prohibits revealing information related to client representation without consent 📝.

Implementing Best Practices

To safeguard client data effectively, lawyers should:

1. Conduct Regular Audits: Regularly review data handling practices to ensure compliance with privacy regulations and ethical standards 📊.

2. Enhance Data Security: Implement robust data encryption and access controls to protect client information, aligning with ABA Model Rule 1.6's requirement to prevent unauthorized disclosure 🔒.

3. Stay Informed: Keep up-to-date with legal developments and court rulings related to DOGE's access to sensitive data, ensuring compliance with ABA Model Rules 1.1 and 1.1[8], which requires lawyers to stay abreast of the benefits and risks associated with technology used in client services 📰.

Final Thoughts

The ongoing litigation surrounding DOGE provides valuable lessons for lawyers on protecting clients and personally identifiable information. By understanding legal obligations, implementing robust data security measures, and complying with data protection regulations, lawyers can uphold the trust that is fundamental to the client-lawyer relationship 💼.

MTC: AI in Legal Email - Balancing Innovation and Ethics 💼🤖

lawyers have an ethical duty when using ai in their work!

The integration of AI into lawyers' email systems presents both exciting opportunities and significant challenges. As legal professionals navigate this technological frontier, we must carefully weigh the benefits against potential ethical pitfalls.

Advantages of AI in Legal Email 📈

AI-powered email tools offer numerous benefits for law firms:

• Enhanced efficiency through automation of routine tasks

• Improved client service and satisfaction

• Assistance in drafting responses and suggesting relevant case law

• Flagging important deadlines

• Improved accuracy in document review and contract analysis

These capabilities allow lawyers to focus on high-value work, potentially improving outcomes for clients and minimizing liabilities for law firms.

AI Email Assistants 🖥️

Several AI email assistants are available for popular email platforms:

1. Microsoft Outlook:

• Copilot for Outlook: Enhances email drafting, replying, and management using ChatGPT.

2. Apple Mail:

• Apple Intelligence in Apple Mail: Generates, translates, and optimizes professional emails.

3. Gmail:

• Gemini 1.5 Pro: Offers email summarization, contextual Q&A, and suggested replies.

4. Multi-platform:

• Mailbutler's Smart Assistant: Works with Apple Mail, Gmail, and Outlook, offering smart compose, smart respond, and task finding features.

Always Proofread Your Work and Confirm Citations!

🚨

Always Proofread Your Work and Confirm Citations! 🚨

Ethical Considerations and Challenges 🚧

Confidentiality and Data Privacy

The use of AI in legal email raises several ethical concerns, primarily regarding the duty of confidentiality outlined in ABA Model Rule 1.6. Lawyers must ensure that AI systems do not compromise client information or inadvertently disclose sensitive data to unauthorized parties.

To address this:

lawyers should always check their work; especially when using AI!

1. Implement robust data security measures

2. Understand AI providers' data handling practices

3. Review and retain copies of AI system privacy policies

4. Make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure

Competence (ABA Model Rule 1.1)

ABA Model Rule 1.1, particularly Comment 8, emphasizes the need for lawyers to understand the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. This includes:

• Understanding AI capabilities and limitations

• Appropriate verification of AI outputs (Check Your Work!)

• Staying informed about changes in AI technology

• Considering the potential duty to use AI when benefits outweigh risks

The ABA's Formal Opinion 512 further emphasizes the need for lawyers to understand the AI tools they use to maintain competence.

Client Communication

Maintaining the personal touch in client communications is crucial. While AI can streamline processes, it should not replace nuanced, empathetic interactions. Lawyers should:

1. Disclose AI use to clients

2. Address any concerns about privacy and security

3. Consider including AI use disclosure in fee agreements or retention letters

4. Read your AI-generated/assisted drafts

Striking the Right Balance ⚖️

To ethically integrate AI into legal email systems, firms should:

1. Implement robust data security measures to protect client confidentiality

2. Provide comprehensive training on AI tools to ensure competent use

3. Establish clear policies on when and how AI should be used in client communications

4. Regularly review and audit AI systems for accuracy and potential biases

5. Maintain transparency with clients about the use of AI in their matters

6. Verify that AI tools are not using email content to train or improve their algorithms

Ai is a tool for work - not a replacement for final judgment!

By carefully navigating ⛵️ these considerations, lawyers can harness the power of AI to enhance their practice while upholding their ethical obligations. The key lies in viewing AI as a tool to augment 🤖 human expertise, not replace it.

As the legal profession evolves, embracing AI in email and other systems will likely become essential for remaining competitive. However, this adoption must always be balanced against the core ethical principles that define the practice of law.

And Remember, Always Proofread Your Work and Confirm Citations BEFORE Sending Your E-mail (w Use of AI or Not)!!!

🚨 MTC: Government Backdoors - A Looming Threat to Attorney-Client Privilege and Data Security 🔐

Legal Cyber Balance: Safeguarding Client Data While Navigating Government Backdoors and Cyber Threats 🚪💻⚖️

The UK government's recent demand for Apple to create a backdoor to iCloud accounts worldwide has sent shockwaves through the legal community. This unprecedented move raises serious concerns for lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly regarding their ethical obligations to maintain client confidentiality and safeguard sensitive information.

As attorneys, we have a fundamental duty to protect our clients' confidences. The American Bar Association's Model Rule 1.6 explicitly states that lawyers must make "reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client". Similarly, the UK's Solicitors Regulation Authority emphasizes the importance of maintaining client confidentiality.

However, government-mandated backdoors pose a significant threat to these ethical obligations. If implemented, such measures would essentially create a vulnerability that could be exploited not only by law enforcement but also by malicious actors. This puts attorneys in an impossible position: How can we fulfill our duty to safeguard client information when the very systems we rely on are compromised?

Moreover, the implications of such backdoors extend far beyond individual privacy concerns. The attorney-client privilege, a cornerstone of our legal system, could be severely undermined. This privilege exists to encourage open and honest communication between lawyers and their clients, which is essential for effective legal representation. If clients fear that their confidential discussions may be accessed by government agencies, it could have a chilling effect on their willingness to disclose crucial information.

Cybersecurity Crossroads: US & UK Government Interests vs. Hackers vs. Attorney-Client Privilege – The Legal Tightrope in the Digital Age 🌍🔒

To address these challenges, lawyers must take proactive steps to enhance their cybersecurity measures. As discussed in The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast Episode 93, Revolutionizing Law Practice. How Alexander Pakin Leverages Tech 🖥️ for Legal Success! (Part I & Part II), updating security protocols are essential practices for modern law firms. Recall, the ABA MRPC 1.1[8] requires attorneys to be up to date in their use of technology. Additionally, attorneys should consider on-premises storage solutions with zero-trust data access to maintain control over sensitive client data.

It's crucial for legal professionals to stay informed about these developments and advocate for policies that protect client confidentiality. Bar associations and legal organizations should take a strong stance against government-mandated backdoors, emphasizing the potential risks to the justice system and individual rights.

As we navigate this complex landscape, it's clear that the intersection of technology, privacy, and legal ethics will continue to present challenges. However, by remaining vigilant and adapting our practices to meet these challenges, we can uphold our professional responsibilities and protect the fundamental rights of our clients in the digital age.

MTC

Word of the Week: "Zoom Mullets" in Legal Practice!

Zoom Mullets: Balancing Comfort & Courtroom Credibility ⚖️💻"

Office mullets can be a Wardrobe option for work - just make sure it’s appropriate and that you can’t be seen below the belt!

 The "Zoom mullet"—professional tops paired with casual bottoms during virtual meetings—has become a staple for remote legal work. While 75% of professionals adopt this hybrid attire 🕴️👖, its impact on courtroom decorum demands scrutiny. James “Jamie” Holland II, featured on *The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page* Podcast Episode #35, pioneered the first fully virtual trial in U.S. history via Zoom 🏛️💡. His insights reveal:  

“Judges notice attire—even on camera. A wrinkled shirt or unkempt background can subconsciously undermine your credibility.”

— Jamie Holland

Key considerations for attorneys:  

You don’t want the judge’s ire if you can be seen dressed inappropriately for court (even through a zoom hearing)!

• Courtroom protocols: Texas and Michigan courts conducted 1.1 million+ virtual proceedings post-2020, with strict dress codes enforced despite partial visibility.  

• Tech setup: Holland advises testing cameras/mics pre-hearing and using neutral virtual backgrounds to mask informal spaces.  

• Ethical compliance: ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) applies to virtual settings—avoid exposing sensitive documents via camera angles.  

🚨Make sure that if you are wearing a Zoom Mullet, the viewer can’t see the bottom half! You don’t want to get in trouble with the judge, your client, or the bar!

📢 Shout out to previous podcast guest Wendy Meadows for illuminating me on this word! 🤗

🚨 BOLO: Apple's Latest Update Activates AI - Lawyers, Protect Your Clients' Data! 🚨

Attention tech-savvy lawyers! 📱💼 Apple's recent iOS and macOS updates have automatically enabled Apple Intelligence, raising significant concerns about client confidentiality and data privacy. As legal professionals, we must remain vigilant in protecting our clients' sensitive information. Here's what you need to know:

The Stealth Activation 🕵️‍♂️

In the last 24 hours, Apple released iOS 18.3, iPadOS 18.3, and macOS Sequoia 15.3, which automatically activate Apple Intelligence on compatible devices. This AI-powered suite offers various features, including rewriting text, generating images, and summarizing emails. While these capabilities may seem enticing, they pose potential risks to client confidentiality. 🚨

Privacy Concerns 🔒

Apple claims that Apple Intelligence uses on-device processing to enhance privacy. However, the system still requires 7GB of local storage and may analyze user interactions to refine its functionality. This level of data access and analysis raises red flags for lawyers bound by ethical obligations to protect client information.

Ethical Obligations ⚖️

Check your apple setting if you want to turn off “Apple Intelligence”!

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 1.6, emphasize the duty of confidentiality. This rule extends to all forms of client data, including information stored on devices or accessed remotely. As tech-savvy lawyers, we must exercise reasonable care to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information.

Potential Risks 🚫

Using AI-powered features without fully understanding their implications could lead to inadvertent breaches of client confidentiality. As we've discussed in our previous blog post, "My Two Cents: With AI Creeping Into Our Computers, Tablets, and Smartphones, Lawyers Need to Be Diligent About The Software They Use," lawyers must be cautious about adopting new technologies without proper vetting.

Lawyers MUST maintain reasonable competency in the use of technology! 🚨 ABA MRPC 1.1 [8] 🚨

Lawyers MUST maintain reasonable competency in the use of technology! 🚨 ABA MRPC 1.1 [8] 🚨

Steps to Take 🛡️

1. Disable Apple Intelligence: Navigate to Settings > Apple Intelligence & Siri to turn off specific features or disable the entire suite.

2. Educate Your Team: Ensure all staff members are aware of the potential risks associated with AI-powered features.

3. Review Privacy Policies: Carefully examine Apple's privacy policies and terms of service related to Apple Intelligence.

4. Implement Additional Safeguards: Consider using encrypted communication tools and secure cloud storage solutions for client data.

Final Thoughts 🧐

As we navigate this rapidly evolving technological landscape, it's essential to balance innovation with ethical obligations. Lawyers can thrive as tech-savvy professionals by embracing technology to enhance their practice while safeguarding client trust. Remember, maintaining reasonable competency in the use of technology is not just advisable—it’s an ethical duty. See Comment, #8, to ABA Model Rule, #1.1.

Subscribe to The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page for updates on this developing situation, news on the evolving impact of AI on the practice of law. Together, we can navigate the complexities of legal technology while upholding our professional responsibilities.

Stay safe, stay informed, and stay tech-savvy! 🚀📚💻

Happy Lawyering!

My Two Cents: Lessons from ABA's Formal Opinion 512 - A Follow-Up!

there will be many Collaborative discussions on ABA Formal Opinion 512's impact on legal practice!

This post is a follow-up to last week's editorial on my experience with the AI sessions at the American Bar Association's (ABA) 2024 Annual meeting. Today, I'll delve deeper into ABA's Formal Opinion 512 and explore its implications for legal practitioners.

Building on Prior Model Rules

ABA's Formal Opinion 512 builds on several foundational Model Rules of Professional Conduct. These include:

• Model Rule 1.1 (Competence): Lawyers must provide competent representation, which now explicitly includes understanding the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.

• Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information): Lawyers must make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.

• Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance): Lawyers must ensure that nonlawyer assistants, including AI tools, comply with the professional obligations of the lawyer.

 Breakdown of ABA Formal Opinion 512 

Tech-savvy lawyer reviews ethical implications of AI under ABA Opinion 512.

 1. Competence

Formal Opinion 512 emphasizes that competence in legal practice now extends to a lawyer's understanding and use of technology. Lawyers must stay informed about changes in technology that affect their practice areas. This includes:

• Understanding AI Capabilities: Lawyers must understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools they use.

• Continuing Education: Lawyers should engage in ongoing education about technological advancements relevant to their practice.

 2. Confidentiality

The opinion underscores the importance of maintaining client confidentiality when using AI tools. Key points include:

• Risk Assessment: Lawyers must assess the risks associated with using AI tools, particularly concerning data security and privacy.

• Vendor Due Diligence: Lawyers should conduct due diligence on AI vendors to ensure they comply with confidentiality obligations.

Lawyers will be Debating AI ethics and compliance for the foreseeable future!

 3. Supervision

Lawyers are responsible for supervising the AI tools and ensuring they are used ethically. This includes:

• Oversight: Lawyers must oversee the AI tools to ensure they are used appropriately and do not compromise ethical standards.

• Accountability: Lawyers remain accountable for the outcomes of AI-assisted tasks, ensuring that AI tools do not replace human judgment.

 4. Communication

Effective communication with clients about the use of AI is crucial. Lawyers should:

• Inform Clients: Clearly inform clients about the use of AI tools in their cases.

• Obtain Consent: Obtain informed consent from clients regarding the use of AI, especially when it involves sensitive data.

ABA's Formal Opinion 512 signals that AI is now essential in legal practice, but it also underscores the importance of maintaining ethical standards when using it.

Final Thoughts

ABA's Formal Opinion 512 is a significant step in ensuring that lawyers remain competent and ethical in an increasingly digital world. By emphasizing the need for technological proficiency, confidentiality, supervision, and clear communication, the ABA reinforces that staying updated with technology is not optional—it's a matter of maintaining one's bar license. Lawyers must embrace these guidelines to provide the best possible representation in the modern legal landscape.

Lawyers who do not keep up with the evolving AI landscape will be left behind by those who do!

🚨

Lawyers who do not keep up with the evolving AI landscape will be left behind by those who do! 🚨

My Two Cents: With AI Creeping Into Our Computers, Tablets, and Smartphones, Lawyers Need to Be Diligent About The Software They Use.

Lawyers need to be weary about the computer company behind the curtin as to what information they are taking from your data!

As Apple is anticipated to announce a new iPhone with AI baked into its operating system, lawyers, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, can no longer stand idly by and trust that the person behind the curtain, i.e., the software creator or owner of their software product, is both trustworthy and not going to use the customer’s data in ways inconsistent with the data owners’ objectives or to protect their data personal identification information. Per ABA Model Rule 1.6(a), lawyers must reasonably ensure that their client’s Personal Identification Information (PII) is protected. And recent events are providing a bit of a minefield for not just lawyers.

I use a popular subscription service application called SetApp. It’s a subscription service that gives me access to over 240 applications. I use many of them daily. But one of its applications, Bartender (which helps clean up and manage your Mac computer’s toolbar), was recently but secretively purchased by a private company. The problem is that little is known about the company. There is a very legitimate concern that Bartender may be improperly using its customer’s computer data – apparently (but not confirmed to be) making unauthorized screenshots. (Note that this is not a critique of SetApp, but I am going to reevaluate my use of Bartender – here are some alternatives you may want to check out.) But this general concern does not end with just “unknown” Wizards.

Lawyers need to be weary about the computer company behind the curtin as to what information they are taking from your data!

It was recently discovered that Adobe changed customer's terms of service. Lawyers should be deeply concerned about Adobe's updated terms of use for Photoshop, which grant the company broad rights to access and remove users' cloud-stored content. This raises significant privacy and confidentiality issues, particularly for legal professionals handling sensitive client data under non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), protecting PII, and trial strategies. Adobe's ability to view and potentially mishandle files covered by NDAs could lead to damaging leaks and breaches of client trust. You can “opt out” of this by going to your account’s privacy settings, going to “Content analysis,” and making sure the “Allow my content to be analyzed by Adobe for product improvement and development purposes” option is not selected. You can also not upload your material to Adobe’s could service – these steps may provide an extra layer of protection, but no one is 100% sure.

As custodians of confidential information, lawyers have an ethical duty to safeguard client secrets. Adobe's overreaching policy raises significant concerns for the legal community. These concerns extend beyond software, as computer companies now integrate AI into their hardware systems.

Many Windows machines are developing their computers to work inherently with MS Windows' own AI, Copilot. At the time of this writing, Apple is expected to announce a new operating system with an AI built into it to work with its new M4 chip. In other words, hardware and software companies work together to have their machines work naturally with operating systems that have AI built into their software. The biggest concern that should be on lawyers' minds is how their data is being used to train a company’s AI. What protections are being built into the systems? Can users opt-out? What does this all mean for us lawyers?

This means that lawyers at any computer skill level must pay attention to the Terms of Service (ToS) for the computers and software they use for work. The warning signs are there. So, stay tuned to your Tech-Savvy Lawyer as we navigate through this together!

MTC

My Two Cents: Lawyers Need to Remember to Navigate Ethical Boundaries When Using Listservs: ABA's Guidance on Client Information Sharing.

Lawyers need to maintain client confidentiality when talking with colleagues in online forums.

The legal profession's reliance on technology continues to grow, facilitating collaboration and knowledge sharing among practitioners. Listservs, e.g., the American Bar Association's (ABA) own “solosez”, serve as an excellent medium for lawyers to discuss day-to-day law office management concerns, legal issues, and even their own cases.  But, when doing so, lawyers must still remember to keep their (former or current) client’s confidentiality when using these public forums.

The ABA recently issued Formal Opinion 511 to address ethical concerns surrounding the dissemination of client information on listservs and similar platforms.  The opinion emphasizes the need for lawyers to exercise caution when discussing client matters online, even in closed forums intended for professional discourse. Revealing confidential client information without proper consent can violate the duty of confidentiality enshrined in Model Rule 1.6.

While listservs offer a valuable resource for seeking guidance from peers, the ABA underscores that lawyers must refrain from disclosing information that could reasonably lead to the identification of a client. This includes details about the client's identity, legal issues, or other specifics that may compromise confidentiality.  But to emphasize the point of the opinion, it’s not just keeping confidential the identity, legal issues, or other specifics that may compromise confidentiality; this includes any information that could reasonably lead to the identification of a client.

To strike a balance between confidentiality and the benefits of professional collaboration, the opinion suggests several best practices:

Lawyers need to maintain client confidentiality with even some of the most minute details if it could “reasonably” reveal the client when talking with colleagues in online forums.

• Anonymization: Lawyers should carefully anonymize client information by removing identifiers and altering specific facts to prevent inadvertent disclosure;

• Client Consent: Obtaining the client's informed consent before sharing any details about their matter is the safest approach, though not always practical.

• Forum Vetting: Evaluate the listserv's membership, policies, and security measures to ensure it provides adequate safeguards against unauthorized access or dissemination of shared information.

• Contextual Consideration: Assess the sensitivity of the client's matter and the potential risks of disclosure before deciding whether to share information on a listserv.

In today’s social media age, it is easy for people to feel anonymous online. This can lead some people to let their safeguards down and reveal too much personal information. Or, quite frankly, say things they would not say to others in public.  Lawyers, too, need to ensure they are not revealing client information that may breach their ethical obligations to their clients (both current and former).

So, I’d like to repeat myself from above, while digital platforms facilitate knowledge sharing and professional development, lawyers must exercise vigilance to protect client confidentiality.  By adhering to the ABA's guidance and implementing robust safeguards, lawyers can leverage the benefits of online collaboration while upholding their ethical duties. Striking this balance is crucial for maintaining public trust and preserving the integrity of the legal profession in the digital age.

MTC.