🎙️Ep. 126: AI and Access to Justice With Pearl.com Associate General Counsel Nick Tiger

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Our next guest is Nick Tiger, Associate General Counsel at Pearl.com, Nick shares insights on integrating AI into legal practice. Pearl.com champions AI and human expertise for professional services. He outlines practical uses such as market research, content creation, intake automation, and improved billing efficiency, while stressing the need to avoid liability through robust human oversight.

Nick is a legal leader at Pearl.com, partnering on product design, technology, and consumer-protection compliance strategy. He previously served as Head of Product Legal at EarnIn, an earned-wage access pioneer, building practical guidance for responsible feature launches, and as Senior Counsel at Capital One, supporting consumer products and regulatory matters. Nick holds a J.D. from the University of Missouri–Kansas City, lives in Richmond, Virginia, and is especially interested in using technology to expand rural community access to justice.

During the conversation, Nick highlights emerging tools, such as conversation wizards and expert-matching systems, that enhance communication and case preparation. He also explains Pearl AI's unique model, which blends chatbot capabilities with human expert verification to ensure accuracy in high-stakes or subjective matters.

Nick encourages lawyers to adopt human-in-the-loop protocols and consider joining Pearl's expert network to support accessible, reliable legal services.

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

  1. What are the top three most impactful ways lawyers can immediately implement AI technology in their practices while avoiding the liability pitfalls that have led to sanctions in recent high-profile cases?

  2. Beyond legal research and document review, what are the top three underutilized or emerging AI applications that could transform how lawyers deliver value to clients, and how should firms evaluate which technologies to adopt?

  3. What are the top three criteria Pearl uses to determine when human expert verification is essential versus when AI alone is sufficient? How can lawyers apply this framework to develop their own human-in-the-loop protocols for AI-assisted legal work, and how is Perl different from its competitors?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[00:56] Nick's Tech Setup

[07:28] Implementing AI in Legal Practices

[17:07] Emerging AI Applications in Legal Services

[26:06] Pearl AI's Unique Approach to AI and Legal Services

[31:42] Developing Human-in-the-Loop Protocols

[34:34] Pearl AI's Advantages Over Competitors

[36:33] Becoming an Expert on Pearl AI

Resources:

Connect with Nick:

Nick's LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/nicktigerjd

Pearl.com Website: pearl.com

Pearl.com Expert Application Portal: era.justanswer.com/

Pearl.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/pearl-com

Pearl.com X: x.com/Pearldotcom

ABA Resources:

ABA Formal Opinion 512: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

Anker Backup Battery / Power Bank: anker.com/collections/power-banks

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

🎙️ TSL Labs! Google AI Discussion of MTC: Deepfakes, Deception, and Professional Duty - What the North Bethesda AI Incident Teaches Lawyers About Ethics in the Digital Age 🧠⚖️

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

📌 To Busy to Read This Week’s Editorial?

Join us for an AI-powered deep dive into the ethical challenges facing legal professionals in the age of generative AI. 🤖 This episode explores the real-world story that sparked critical questions about professional responsibility: a North Bethesda prank that went wrong and became a legal cautionary tale. We unpack the implications of AI-generated deepfakes for evidence authentication, client confidentiality, and the fundamental duty lawyers owe to the court. Whether you're navigating emerging tech in your practice or learning how to protect yourself from costly bar complaints, this conversation provides actionable insights into ABA Model Rules 1.1, 3.3, and 8.4. 📋

What You'll Learn:
✅ The technology competence imperative for modern attorneys
✅ How deepfake detection connects to ethical obligations
✅ The clash between client confidentiality (Rule 1.6) and candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3)
✅ Five practical safeguards to implement immediately
✅ Why the "liar's dividend" threatens judicial integrity

⏱️ In Our Conversation, We Cover the Following:

  • [00:00:00 – 00:01:00] Welcome & episode overview—exploring generative AI and legal responsibility in the digital age 📱

  • [00:01:00 – 00:03:00] The North Bethesda deepfake incident—a 27-year-old woman's prank turns into criminal charges when her AI-generated photo triggers an emergency response 🚨

  • [00:03:00 – 00:04:00] The technology competence imperative—ABA Model Rule 1.1 and the 2012 amendment requiring lawyers to understand AI risks 📚

  • [00:04:00 – 00:05:00] The extent of adoption—31+ states have adopted or adapted tech competence language; it's no longer optional 📍

  • [00:05:00 – 00:06:00] Three core competencies lawyers need: How AI content is made, detection methods, and proper authentication practices 🔍

  • [00:06:00 – 00:07:00] Rule 3.3 in the AI era—candor toward the tribunal when evidence authenticity is questioned 🏛️

  • [00:07:00 – 00:08:00] The liar's dividend phenomenon—how deepfakes undermine trust in all evidence, even genuine materials 🎭

  • [00:08:00 – 00:09:00] Defending authentic evidence—proactive authentication, metadata, and chain of custody documentation 📊

  • [00:09:00 – 00:10:00] Rule 8.4 and the ethical precipice—the line between negligence and fraud when submitting unverified digital evidence ⚠️

  • [00:10:00 – 00:11:00] The Rule 1.6 vs. Rule 3.3 conflict—when client confidentiality must yield to candor with the court 🤝

  • [00:11:00 – 00:12:00] Disclosure obligations—lawyers must reveal false evidence, even if provided by their own client 📢

  • [00:12:00 – 00:13:00] Safeguard #1: Invest in education—CLE courses, Florida's three-hour tech requirement, and continuous learning 🎓

  • [00:12:00 – 00:13:00] Safeguard #2: Establish verification protocols—documentation, metadata demands, and forensic expert consultation 🔐

  • [00:13:00 – 00:14:00] Safeguard #3: Disclose limitations transparently—admitting gaps in expertise and using Rule 1.1 to bring in qualified co-counsel 👥

  • [00:14:00 – 00:15:00] Safeguards #4 & #5: Update client agreements and stay alert to evolving guidance from bar associations 📝

  • [00:14:00 – 00:15:00] The bigger question—what's the long-term cost to justice when digital evidence authenticity is perpetually questioned? 🔮

📚 Resources

Connect with Michael D.J. Eisenberg

🌐 Website: https://www.thetechsavvylawyer.com
📧 Email: MichaelDJ@TheTechSavvyLawyer.Page
💼 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaeldjeisenberg/ 
📱 Podcast: https://www.thetechsavvylawyer.page/podcast 

Mentioned in the Episode

🔹 ABA Model Rule 1.1 – Competence requirement (amended 2012)
🔹 ABA Model Rule 3.3 – Candor toward the tribunal
🔹 ABA Model Rule 8.4 – Misconduct (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation)
🔹 ABA Model Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of information
🔹 North Bethesda, Maryland Deepfake Incident – October 2025 case study
🔹 Florida CLE Mandate – Three hours of technology-focused continuing legal education every three years
🔹 40 States, D.C. & P.R. – Jurisdictions that have adopted ABA Model Rule 1.1 technology competence language