🎙️ My Law School Library Adds The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting to Empower Ethical, Tech-Savvy Attorneys ⚖️

https://law-capital.libguides.com/SpecialCollections/NewBooks

I’m thrilled to share that my alma mater, Capital University Law School, has added my book, The Lawyer’s Guide to Podcasting, to its Law Library Special Collections. 🎉📚 Seeing this guide on the same shelves where I learned to think like a lawyer underscores how central ethical technology use has become to modern advocacy. 🎙️ Written for attorneys with limited to moderate tech skills, it walks readers through planning, recording, and promoting a law‑firm podcast while honoring ABA Model Rules on technology competence, confidentiality, and attorney advertising, helping you communicate confidently, credibly, and compliantly. ⚖️🚀

You can pick up your copy on Amazon Today!

MTC: Everyday Tech, Extraordinary Evidence—Again: How Courts Are Punishing Fake Digital and AI Data ⚖️📱

Check your Ai work - AI fraud can meet courtroom consequences.

In last month’s editorial, “Everyday Tech, Extraordinary Evidence,” we walked through how smartphones, dash cams, and wearables turned the Minnesota ICE shooting into a case study in modern evidence practice, from rapid preservation orders to multi‑angle video timelines.📱⚖️ We focused on the positive side: how deliberate intake, early preservation, and basic synchronization tools can turn ordinary devices into case‑winning proof.📹 This follow‑up tackles the other half of the equation—what happens when “evidence” itself is fake, AI‑generated, or simply unverified slop, and how courts are starting to respond with serious sanctions.⚠️

From Everyday Tech to Everyday Scrutiny

The original article urged you to treat phones and wearables as critical evidentiary tools, not afterthoughts: ask about devices at intake, cross‑reference GPS trails, and treat cars as rolling 360‑degree cameras.🚗⌚ We also highlighted the Minnesota Pretti shooting as an example of how rapid, court‑ordered preservation of video and other digital artifacts can stop crucial evidence from “disappearing” before the facts are fully understood.📹 Those core recommendations still stand—if anything, they are more urgent now that generative AI makes it easier to fabricate convincing “evidence” that never happened.🤖

The same tools that helped you build robust, data‑driven reconstructions—synchronized bystander clips, GPS logs, wearables showing movement or inactivity—are now under heightened scrutiny for authenticity.📊 Judges and opposing counsel are no longer satisfied with “the video speaks for itself”; they want to know who created it, how it was stored, whether metadata shows AI editing, and what steps counsel took to verify that the file is what it purports to be.📁

When “Evidence” Is Fake: Sanctions Arrive

We have moved past the hypothetical stage. Courts are now issuing sanctions—sometimes terminating sanctions—when parties present fake or AI‑generated “evidence” or unverified AI research.💥

• In Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2025), plaintiffs submitted multiple videos, photos, and screenshots that the court determined were deepfakes or altered with generative AI.📹 Judge Victoria Kolakowski found intentional submission of false testimony and imposed terminating sanctions, dismissing the case outright and emphasizing that deepfake evidence “fundamentally undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.”⚖️

• In New York, two lawyers became infamous in 2023 after filing a brief containing six imaginary cases generated by ChatGPT; Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned them under Rule 11 for abandoning their responsibilities and failing to verify the authorities they cited.📑 They were ordered to pay a monetary penalty and to notify the real judges whose names had been falsely invoked, a reputational hit that far exceeded the dollar amount.💸

• A California appellate lawyer, Amir Mostafavi, was later fined $10,000 for filing an appeal with twenty‑one fake case citations generated by ChatGPT.💻 The court stressed that he had not read or verified the AI‑generated text, and treated that omission as a violation of court rules and a waste of judicial resources and taxpayer money.⚠️ 

These are not “techie” footnotes; they are vivid warnings that falsified or unverified digital and AI data can end careers and destroy cases.🚨

ABA Model Rules: The Safety Rails You Ignore at Your Peril

Train to verify—defend truth in the age of AI.

Your original everyday‑tech playbook already fits neatly within ABA Model Rule 1.1 and Comment 8’s duty of technological competence; the new sanctions landscape simply clarifies the stakes.📚

• Rule 1.1 (Competence): You must understand the benefits and risks of relevant technology, which now clearly includes generative AI and deepfake tools.⚖️ Using AI to draft or “enhance” without checking the output is not a harmless shortcut—it is a competence problem.

• Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): Uploading client videos, wearable logs, or sensitive communications to consumer‑grade AI sites can expose them to unknown retention and training practices, risking confidentiality violations.🔐

• Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal) and Rule 4.1 (Truthfulness): Presenting AI‑altered video or fake citations as if they were genuine is the very definition of misrepresentation, as the New York and California sanction orders make clear.⚠️ Even negligent failure to verify can be treated harshly once the court’s patience for AI excuses runs out.

• Rules 5.1–5.3 (Supervision): Supervising lawyers must ensure that associates, law clerks, and vendors understand that AI outputs are starting points, not trustworthy final products, and that fake or manipulated digital evidence will not be tolerated.👥

Bridging Last Month’s Playbook With Today’s AI‑Risk Reality

In Last month’s editorial, we urged three practical habits: ask about devices, move fast on preservation, and build a vendor bench for extraction and authentication.📱⌚🚗 This month, the job is to wrap those habits in explicit AI‑risk controls that lawyers with modest tech skills can realistically follow.🧠

1. Never treat AI as a silent co‑counsel. If you use AI to draft research, generate timelines, or “enhance” video, you must independently verify every factual assertion and citation, just as you would double‑check a new associate’s memo.📑 “The AI did it” is not a defense; courts have already said so.

2. Preserve the original, disclose the enhancement. Our earlier advice to keep raw smartphone files and dash‑cam footage now needs one more step: if you use any enhancement (AI or otherwise), label it clearly and be prepared to explain what was done, why, and how you ensured that the content did not change.📹

3. Use vendors and examiners as authenticity firewalls. Just as we suggested, bringing in digital forensics vendors to extract phone and wearable data, you should now consider them for authenticity challenges as well—especially where the opposing side may have incentives or tools to create deepfakes.🔍 A simple expert declaration that a file shows signs of AI manipulation can be the difference between a credibility battle and a terminating sanction.

4. Train your team using real sanction orders. Nothing clarifies the risk like reading Judge Castel’s order in the ChatGPT‑citation case or Judge Kolakowski’s deepfake ruling in Mendones.⚖️ Incorporate those cases into short internal trainings and CLEs; they translate abstract “AI ethics” into concrete, courtroom‑tested consequences.

5. Document your verification steps. For everyday tech evidence, a simple log—what files you received, how you checked metadata, whether you compared against other sources, which AI tools (if any) you used, and what you did to confirm their outputs—can demonstrate good faith if a judge later questions your process.📋

Final Thoughts: Authenticity as a First‑Class Question

be the rock star! know how to use ai responsibly in your work!

In the first editorial, the core message was that everyday devices are quietly turning into your best witnesses.📱⌚ The new baseline is that every such “witness” will be examined for signs of AI contamination, and you will be expected to have an answer when the court asks, “What did you do to make sure this is real?”🔎

Lawyers with limited to moderate tech skills do not need to reverse‑engineer neural networks or master forensic software. Instead, they must combine the practical habits from January’s piece—asking, preserving, synchronizing—with a disciplined refusal to outsource judgment to AI.⚖️ In an era of deepfakes and hallucinated case law, authenticity is no longer a niche evidentiary issue; it is the moral center of digital advocacy.✨

Handled wisely, your everyday tech strategy can still deliver “extraordinary evidence.” Handled carelessly, it can just as quickly produce extraordinary sanctions.🚨

MTC

Word of the Week: "Constitutional AI" for Lawyers - What It Is, Why It Matters for ABA Rules, and How Solo & Small Firms Should Use It!

Constitutional AI’s ‘helpful, harmless, honest’ standard is a solid starting point for lawyers evaluating AI platforms.

The term “Constitutional AI” appeared this week in a Tech Savvy Lawyer post about the MTC/PornHub breach as a cybersecurity wake‑up call for lawyers 🚨. That article used it to highlight how AI systems (like those law firms now rely on) must be built and governed by clear, ethical rules — much like a constitution — to protect client data and uphold professional duties. This week’s Word of the Week unpacks what Constitutional AI really means and explains why it matters deeply for solo, small, and mid‑size law firms.

🔍 What is Constitutional AI?

Constitutional AI is a method for training large language models so they follow a written set of high‑level principles, called a “constitution” 📜. Those principles are designed to make the AI helpful, honest, and harmless in its responses.

As Claude AI from Anthropic explains:
“Constitutional AI refers to a set of techniques developed by researchers at Anthropic to align AI systems like myself with human values and make us helpful, harmless, and honest. The key ideas behind Constitutional AI are aligning an AI’s behavior with a ‘constitution’ defined by human principles, using techniques like self‑supervision and adversarial training, developing constrained optimization techniques, and designing training data and model architecture to encode beneficial behaviors.” — Claude AI, Anthropic (July 7th, 2023).

In practice, Constitutional AI uses the model itself to critique and revise its own outputs against that constitution. For example, the model might be told: “Do not generate illegal, dangerous, or unethical content,” “Be honest about what you don’t know,” and “Protect user privacy.” It then evaluates its own answers against those rules before giving a final response.

Think of it like a junior associate who’s been given a firm’s internal ethics manual and told: “Before you send that memo, check it against these rules.” Constitutional AI does that same kind of self‑checking, but at machine speed.

🤝 How Constitutional AI Relates to Lawyers

For lawyers, Constitutional AI is important because it directly shapes how AI tools behave when handling legal work 📚. Many legal AI tools are built on models that use Constitutional AI techniques, so understanding this concept helps lawyers:

• Judge whether an AI assistant is likely to hallucinate, leak sensitive info, or give ethically problematic advice.

• Choose tools whose underlying AI is designed to be more transparent, less biased, and more aligned with professional norms.

• Better supervise AI use in the firm, which is a core ethical duty under the ABA Model Rules.

Solo and small firms, in particular, often rely on off‑the‑shelf AI tools (like chatbots or document assistants). Knowing that a tool is built on Constitutional AI principles can give more confidence that it’s designed to avoid harmful outputs and respect confidentiality.

⚖️ Why It Matters for ABA Model Rules

For solo and small firms, asking whether an AI platform aligns with Constitutional AI’s standards is a practical first step in choosing a trustworthy tool.

The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 on generative AI makes clear that lawyers remain responsible for all work done with AI, even if an AI tool helped draft it 📝. Constitutional AI is relevant here because it’s one way that AI developers try to build in ethical guardrails that align with lawyers' obligations.

Key connections to the Model Rules:

• Rule 1.1 (Competence): Lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of the technology they use. Knowing that a tool uses Constitutional AI helps assess whether it’s reasonably reliable for tasks like research, drafting, or summarizing.

• Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): Constitutional AI models are designed to refuse to disclose sensitive information and to avoid memorizing or leaking private data. This supports the lawyer’s duty to make “reasonable efforts” to protect client confidences.

• Rule 5.1 / 5.3 (Supervision): Managing partners and supervising attorneys must ensure that AI tools used by staff are consistent with ethical rules. A tool built on Constitutional AI principles is more likely to support, rather than undermine, those supervisory duties.

• Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal): Constitutional AI models are trained to admit uncertainty and avoid fabricating facts or cases, which helps reduce the risk of submitting false or misleading information to a court.

In short, Constitutional AI doesn’t relieve lawyers of their ethical duties, but it can make AI tools safer and more trustworthy when used under proper supervision.

🛡️ The “Helpful, Harmless, and Honest” Principle

The three pillars of Constitutional AI — helpful, harmless, and honest — are especially relevant for lawyers:

• Helpful: The AI should provide useful, relevant information that advances the client’s matter, without unnecessary or irrelevant content.

• Harmless: The AI should avoid generating illegal, dangerous, or unethical content, and should respect privacy and confidentiality.

• Honest: The AI should admit when it doesn’t know something, avoid fabricating facts or cases, and not misrepresent its capabilities.

For law firms, this “helpful, harmless, and honest” standard is a useful mental checklist when using AI:

• Is this AI output actually helpful to the client’s case?

• Could this output harm the client (e.g., by leaking confidential info or suggesting an unethical strategy)?

• Is the AI being honest (e.g., not hallucinating case law or pretending to know facts it can’t know)?

If the answer to any of those questions is “no,” the AI output should not be used without significant human review and correction.

🛠️ Practical Takeaways for Law Firms

For solo, small, and mid‑size firms, here’s how to put this into practice:

Lawyers need to screen AI tools and ensure they are aligned with ABA Model Rules.

1. Know your tools. When evaluating a legal AI product, ask whether it’s built on a Constitutional AI–style model (e.g., Claude). That tells you it’s designed with explicit ethical constraints.

2. Treat AI as a supervised assistant. Never let AI make final decisions or file work without a lawyer’s review. Constitutional AI reduces risk, but it doesn’t eliminate the need for human judgment.

3. Train your team. Make sure everyone in the firm understands that AI outputs must be checked for accuracy, confidentiality, and ethical compliance — especially when using third‑party tools.

4. Update your engagement letters and policies. Disclose to clients when AI is used in their matters, and explain how the firm supervises it. This supports transparency under Rule 1.4 and Rule 1.6.

5. Focus on “helpful, honest, harmless.” Use Constitutional AI as a mental checklist: Is this AI being helpful to the client? Is it honest about its limits? Is it harmless (no bias, no privacy leaks)? If not, don’t rely on it.