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

Competence, Confidentiality, Vendor Oversight!

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

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

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

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

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

ABA Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality in a Litigation Spotlight

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the Clio–Alexi Battle Can Create Problems for Users

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

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

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

Practical Steps for Firms at a Basic–Moderate Tech Level

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

Practical Tech Steps for Today’s Law Firms

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

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

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

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

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

From “IT Problem” to Core Professional Skill

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

🎙️ Ep. 123: Former Federal Prosecutor Reveals How AI Levels the Playing Field in Criminal Defense 🎙️⚖️🤖

My next guest is Lance Kennedy. Lance is a former federal prosecutor who now operates a tech forward criminal defense practice in Texas. He combines his prosecutorial experience with cutting edge AI and automation tools to compete against well-resourced government teams, helping criminal defense attorneys leverage technology for data analytics, digital forensics, and case management across both federal and state courts.

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

  1. What are the top three ways criminal defense attorneys can leverage technology to level the playing field against well-resourced prosecution teams? And how has your prosecutorial experience informed your approach to implementing these tools?

  2. With your experience handling both federal cases and state Texas matters, what are the top three technological tools or approaches that criminal defense attorneys should prioritize differently when managing federal cases versus state cases? And how can technology help attorneys navigate the distinct procedural and evidentiary challenges of each system?

  3. What are the top three ethical and practical considerations criminal defense attorneys must address when implementing AI tools in their practice? And how can lawyers ensure they maintain the 'human in the loop' while maximizing AI's benefits for client representation?

In our conversation, we cover the following ⏱️

00:00:00 - Introduction

00:01:00 - Guest's Current Tech Setup

00:05:00 - Top Three Ways Criminal Defense Attorneys Can Leverage Technology

00:08:00 - Federal vs State Technology Tools and Approaches

00:10:00 - Top Three Tech Tools Better Than Government Systems

00:13:00 - Data Privacy and PII Protection in AI Tools

00:14:00 - Ethical and Practical Considerations for AI Implementation

00:16:00 - Where to Find Lance Kennedy

RESOURCES 📚

Connect with Lance Kennedy 🤝

Mentioned in the Episode 💡

Hardware Mentioned in the Conversation 💻

Software & Cloud Services Mentioned in the Conversation ☁️

TRANSCRIPT

Introduction

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Episode 123 former federal prosecutor reveals how AI levels the playing field in criminal defense.

My next guest is Lance Kennedy. Lance is a former federal prosecutor who now operates a tech forward criminal defense practice in Texas. He combines his prosecutorial experience with cutting edge AI and automation tools to compete against well-resourced government teams, helping criminal defense attorneys leverage technology for data analytics, digital forensics, and case management across both federal and state courts.

All this and more, enjoy.

AD# 1: Consider Giving The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast A Five-Star ⭐️ Review!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Have you been enjoying the Tech Savvy lawyer.page podcast? Consider giving us a five star review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast feeds.

Lance, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for having me on. I appreciate you being here. [00:01:00] And to get things started, please tell us what your current tech setup is.

Our Guest's Current Tech Setup!

Lance Kennedy: Well, you know, it really has evolved since I started my practice, but currently I do have, a MacBook Pro that I use kind of as my normative computer.

I do use Mac almost exclusively along with a dual sim. iPhone 17 Pro Max. Mm-hmm. Which has two different lines. One for business, one for personal use, so it can kind of consolidate it into one. And then on my actual desk, which I actually use a, standing desk. Really, it makes it nice to be able to adjust along with a gaming chair.

'cause I think that was actually the most comfortable, best. Chair that Define was actually a gaming chair, and its Secret Lab is the company, so Yep. You're looking for a good one. That's, my recommendation. And then of course, extended monitors, because we use so many different systems, so that's more of the hardware setup.

In terms of software though, we, I use of course, Gmail interface for our firm along with our website, which is managed by Scorpion, one of , the ad companies. And then other software that we utilize are matics for our [00:02:00] CRM and my case for our client management portal, along with some other intake software that we utilize.

So I'm gonna ask, which MacBook Pro do you have? That's a good question. So I bought it a little bit, but it's the, you know, it has , the M two chip in it. Okay. 16 gig MacBook Air. So I've had it for about a year and a half and Excellent.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Really

Lance Kennedy: well for me.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yep. And of course you have a Apple store.

Business account, right? I do. Yeah, of course. Excellent. And what about your monitors? Do you have a particular brand?

Lance Kennedy: Well, the monitors I currently am using , are, curved Samsung monitors. Mm-hmm. They, and then I have a articulating arm that I have them on just so I can kind of maneuver them.

I still use my, my laptop for most things with the laptop screen, and then use the extended monitors to kind of host documents or platforms that I'm utilizing.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: For your curve monitors, do you have more than one on your desk? I have two. And so the curve monitor, my understanding of the concept is to kind of keep your eyes on the screen so that you don't lose anything.

You [00:03:00] know, moving from left to right, you know, I've got a three monitor set up, main one and two FLA flanking left and right. They say that having a curve monitor is better because you need, again, you keeping your eyes on the screen. Do you find to have any conflict with that, given that you have two curved monitors?

Lance Kennedy: I don't find any real issue with it. I mean, they're not the most extreme, you know, curved monitors. Some of them are, have a, I dunno if it's concave or convex, but point is, is that they do have a little bit more of an angle to them. Right. These are almost flat, but they do have a slight curve and I really haven't found an issue with, it, it just, it works for me and I kind of have them set up on opposite sides of my deck and

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: that's all that matters.

Your iPhone 17 pro. Is it a pro promax or pro promax? And did you get the orange? I did get

Lance Kennedy: the orange. How do you like that? It's all right, but I have a OtterBox, one of the defender. Mm-hmm. OtterBox cases. And I know some people think the Promax versions are a little large, and then I add a, an additional right kind of bulk to it.

But I figured if I'm gonna have that expensive of a piece of hardware, [00:04:00] I'm gonna get the most rugged. Protective system that I could get, which is the defender.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I do the same thing, and I agree with you. I've got some sort of, I have a knockoff case for my iPhone, PROMAX 17, but the nice thing about it is it has a little kickstand built.

It's really nice. So that comes in handy, like when you're, elsewhere, you wanna just prop it up, whether you're in the kitchen, dining room table or at a Starbucks and you only have your phone with you. That's been a little trick that I found out from my last anchor case that I had for my 16.

I'm on the annuals recycle program with Apple, so I get the new phone every year. Well let's get into the questions.

Q?#1:  What are the top three ways criminal defense attorneys can leverage technology to level the playing field against well-resourced prosecution teams?And how has our guest's prosecutorial experience informed your approach to implementing these tools?

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Question number one. Lance as a former federal prosecutor who now runs a tech forward criminal defense practice. What are the top three ways criminal defense attorneys can leverage technology to level the playing field against well-resourced prosecution teams?

And how has your prosecutorial experience informed your approach to implementing

Lance Kennedy: these tools? Yeah, those are great questions. And so what I would say on the outset, as you know, particularly with the new AI revolution, I [00:05:00] think we're at the onset of it. It still has, you know, a lot to go. We'll see where it takes us.

But really with these technological changes, what I see in at least our market, and I think it's probably in any practice area, it's becoming. More key is you're g you're really gonna have firms that take advantage of the full weight of technology available to them. And those that don't, and the ones that don't, are just gonna be left behind because they're not able, they're not gonna be able to leverage their time and resources in the same way.

Mm-hmm. And it goes to, you know, the different ways we're utilizing technology, I mean, the first would be data analytics and, and case management with all the AI tools available. You know, you have to, of course, make sure you're following bar rules and not sharing PII in places. Right. Utilizing AI either on your own server or running it without sharing data has been a game changer because what you can do is you can organize discovery and spotting consistencies or quickly cross-reference evidence and you know, which is really critical when you're going against prosecution teams with more manpower.

Whenever you, you know, you're up against the federal government or a state government, [00:06:00] they have almost unlimited resources available to them, investigators, analysts, experts and and whatnot. And so having that ability to quickly analyze data and spotting consistencies is key. The next would be digital forensic tools.

You know, by employing such like forensic software or utilizing experts that have access to forensic software, like cell tower data, digital communication or, or different types of video analysis, we've been able to really. Bolster our client's defense. And part of that is my prosecutorial background, particularly with the Department of Justice, , taught me how the government's gonna build a case against you.

Mm-hmm. So we want to utilize the same tools to, to be able to dismantle a case, or at least provide the best defense to our clients. And in our area, of course, is criminal defense. Most of this is gonna be done though through experts that have, you know, either DEC decryption tools or other analytic tools.

And, and starting to leverage again, the same forensic opportunities that the, the state or government has. And then finally, I kind of touched on this with data analytics is really AI and automation. This is, you [00:07:00] know, things such as automated receptionist, document review, legal research. All of these have, we've been able to successfully offload to AI platforms.

And that does free up bandwidth for our team to focus on, strategy rather than just paperwork. So those would be the three ways, categories of the ways we're utilizing technology.

Ad#2: Consider Buying The Tech-Savvy Lawyer a Cup of Coffee ☕️ or Two ☕️☕️!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Pardon the interruption. I hope you're enjoying the Tech Heavy Layer page podcast. As much as I enjoy making them consider buying us a cup of coffee or two to help toray some of the production costs, thanks and enjoy.

Q?#2: What are the top three technological tools or approaches that criminal defense attorneys should prioritize differently when managing federal cases versus state cases? And how can technology help attorneys navigate the distinct procedural and evidentiary challenges of each system? system. .

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So let's move on to question number two. With your experience handling both federal cases and state and Texas state matters, what are the top three technological tools or approaches that criminal defense attorneys should prioritize differently when managing federal cases versus state cases? And how can technology help attorneys navigate the distinct procedural and evidentiary challenges of each

Lance Kennedy: system. Great question. So I'll take these kind of separately because federal and state work are, are somewhat distinct, albeit both [00:08:00] kind of deal with the same subject matter, federal cases and, and the federal system. Of course, you have a, you have a unified online platform, ECF case, sir.

And then of course you have box, which is the, the typical way that evidence is shared with you from, you know, the agency's DOJ, the prosecutor to you as the attorney. And so when it comes to utilizing technology with federal cases, particularly those that are, you know, again, very, have a very large amount of discovery such as white collar cases, wire fraud, things of that nature.

We utilize and leverage, for instance, like co-counsel with Westlaw to be able to, to create trial books and really look at the discovery and help us manage our, the vast amount of discovery. I mean, you know, a small white collar case could have 10, 15,000. Exhibits or files, they're white collar cases that go into hundreds of thousands, if not millions of documents.

So, mm-hmm. You know, quickly being able to utilize AI rather than have to have, you know, an associate comb through those and really look for things has, is a, is definitely something that you should leverage if you're [00:09:00] not doing that already. In terms of, you know, state practice things, you know, 'cause criminal practices and state work, you're dealing with a lot of volume of clients such as, UIs, assaults, drugs, right.

And the like. So utilizing AI and, and other automated technologies for rapid response call tracking, text automation, even like case management software mm-hmm. You know, are very helpful. And that's just because state cases can move pretty quickly. Or involve high client volume. And so you want to be able to utilize automation as much as possible.

So that's what we do as well. And then finally, the technol technological advantage you get by utilizing all these different platforms. You know, like for instance, using dashboards to track procedural deadlines or evidentiary issues really enables you to, to stop things from slipping through the cracks.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So my question to you, going back to the first, and, course the second question. As you mentioned that you wanna be using the same platforms as the government does, whether it's state or federal. Have you found, say, maybe three [00:10:00] pieces of tech or software. That you find to be better than what the state or federal government uses.

Lance Kennedy: I mean, you don't have access to their internal systems. Right. And then mm-hmm. In terms of like state, the state, and I'm speaking of particularly the federal system that, the state prosecution, depending on the county, can be fairly antiquated. You know, because we work throughout Texas. My firm Lance Kennedy law, we work through all the major metros of the Texas Triangle, but also rural counties with five, 6,000 people. Right? And so you see a wide discrepancy between tools that they're using. And so what I would say is you may have access, for instance, to like Westlaw, which they're gonna be utilizing. Mm-hmm. In preparation as well. But I would venture to say that if you're a tech savvy defense attorney, like in my position, you're gonna have access to more platforms and be willing to use , more platforms, right.

In the state or feds. And that's just because. You know, they're not gonna go outta their way to purchase a software that's not being provided for them. Right. Whereas, if you're running your own business, you can select [00:11:00] the best software possible to help your clients. Are you willing to share your top three?

Yeah, I would say, I mean, the easiest for me is chat. GPTI do have a pro account that would be top of the list. There's just so many features available with the new agents that they've rolled out. Deep research functionality, copy editing, replying, you know, for instance, making sure that whatever communication is compliant with whatever rules of professional conduct or Texas Code of Criminal procedure, you can really utilize, you know, AI in that capacity to shore up your communication, even if it's merely looking at, what you're typing , or research question or the like.

The next one would be Westlaw, the AI enabled Westlaw with co-counsel. Just because it makes, you know, when I, when I went into law school, we were still learning how to, , and granted it was still, it was antiquated at this point, but they were still making us learn how to pull cases from the volumes in the library.

Right. I've never done that actually, in practice. It was a waste of time, but then of course, we were using Westlaw, but you had to use some of , the connectors and you had to [00:12:00] be really adept at the coding of how you phrased a question. Now, that's not even , a question. You can literally type in any search query and sort it by case, like, how does XJ judge handle this matter?

And it leverages the entire Westlaw database. And then finally, I would say a really easy one to utilize is Grammarly. And so , my team is Grammarly integrated in all of our platforms that enables us to. Make sure that our copy is clear and professional and gets the right tone. And when you're dealing with criminal clients, many times you're gonna get a client screed, you can't even understand it's gonna be, you know, run on sentences , and stream of consciousness.

So to be able to quickly utilize AI to interpret it and then respond with a proper tone , is incredible as well. So I'd say those were my top three.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Excellent. Excellent. I appreciate you sharing that, but I'm gonna focus on one, which is gonna bleed into our third question. Talked about chat, GPT Pro. Now, is the information that you put into that system at that tier, is that still protected or are you [00:13:00] worried get to be wary of your PII?

Lance Kennedy: Yeah, that, that's a, that's kind of a real open question right now. So most of the LMS and other platforms are gonna enable you to turn off data sharing. Mm-hmm. And so that should, for, for all intents and purposes, protect your data. But, but really ensure, you know, you're doing what is compliant with your bar.

The next thing is you can actually host your own, you know, server with mm-hmm. AI on it and just kind of keep it in a closed ecosystem. So that's the safer method. But I think probably both of them meet the criter and confidentiality. The issue is you just don't want PII getting onto the internet some way, somehow inadvertently, and I think as long as it's not being shared.

That should prevent that from ever occurring. But again, you know, that's just my opinion and you have to kind of figure it out. I think the issue , is that, you know, state bars are, you know, and I would say advertising committees, there are government workers or individuals mm-hmm. That never run a business. And there's Right, they know impetus for them to move quickly on these types of issues or be sensible or reasonable. And so. [00:14:00] I would just say be a smart practitioner and don't put yourself in any type of harm's way. And for our last question,

Q?#3: What are the top three ethical and practical considerations criminal defense attorneys must address when implementing AI tools in their practice? And how can lawyers ensure they maintain the quote unquote human in the loop while maximizing AI's benefits for client representation?

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: as someone who has worked on both sides of the courtroom and now integrates AI into your defense strategies, what are the top three ethical and practical considerations criminal defense attorneys must address when implementing AI tools in their practice?

And how can lawyers ensure they maintain the quote unquote human in the loop while maximizing AI's benefits for client representation ?

Lance Kennedy: You know, I think this kind of goes to the use of any technology is. When it comes to replacing repetitive tasks, things that really are, I would say, tasks that don't take a true technician or someone with a mm-hmm.

Skill set to do. Those are the ones that need and should be automated and can be automated.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Mm-hmm.

Lance Kennedy: As quickly, even things like receptionist. Mm-hmm. You have an AI receptionist. So the point is, is that there are things that generally do have a human like component or interact. Mm-hmm. Can be easily replaced with ai.

However, you know, depending on your competency and where you're [00:15:00] practicing, what type of law. For instance, you know, we're never gonna replace attorneys in the courtroom, at least right. For the way foreseeable future things like hearings or visiting a client in jail. Or making phone calls to family members to, you know, assure them everything's being done.

Those are the tasks that of course we are still gonna have to have a human touch. The more we automate, the more we leverage technology, the more we're utilizing AI to be able to help us do things like research or in something that took us. Five hours we can now do in 30 minutes. Right. We're gonna leverage because that frees up my attorneys to do the things that they're really paid to do, which is, you know, win cases, resolve them favorably for our clients and keep them in the loop.

And, and that's where, technology really is enabling us to

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: succeed.

Have you come across any ethical pitfalls in dealing with ai? Maybe not necessarily with yourself, but you've seen with other colleagues?

Lance Kennedy: No. I mean, what, you know, the question , is like, what would be the ethical grounds here?

It's the, the same rules apply whether guides writing copy for you from mm-hmm. Or [00:16:00] producing a video. Then if you did it on your own, I think as long as the presentation is accurate and doesn't give clients or potential clients the wrong. Opinion of you or your team or your staff. Mm-hmm. You know, then you're in good territory.

So it's a tool, but it doesn't replace ethical behavior or discretion. Gotcha.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, Lance, I wanna thank you for being here today. Please.

Where You Can Find Our Guest!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Where can people find you?

Lance Kennedy: You can find me@lancekennedy.com. It's our firm's website. You can also find me on LinkedIn, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook. Excellent. Well, Lance,

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: again, thank you for being here.

Absolutely. Thank you.

See You In Two Weeks!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Thank you for joining me on this episode of the Tech Savvy Lawyer Page podcast. Our next episode will be posted in about two weeks. If you have any ideas about a future episode, please contact me at Michael DJ at the Tech Savvy lawyer.page. Have a great day and happy [00:17:00] lawyering.

How to Ask AI "Are You Sure?" for Better Legal Research Accuracy!

Lawyers need to be “sure” their AI use is accurate

Legal professionals increasingly rely on AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini for research and document preparation. However, these powerful tools can produce inaccurate information or "hallucinations" — fabricated facts, citations, or legal precedents that appear credible but don't exist. A simple yet effective technique is asking AI systems "Are you sure?" or requesting verification of their responses.

The "Are You Sure?" Technique:

When you ask ChatGPT, Claude, or similar AI tools "Are you sure about this information?" they often engage in a second review process. This prompt triggers the AI to:

  • Re-examine the original question more carefully

  • Cross-reference information internally

  • Flag potential uncertainties in their responses

  • Provide additional context about confidence levels

For example, after receiving an AI response about case law, follow up with: "Are you sure this case citation is accurate? Please double-check the details." This often reveals when the AI is uncertain or has potentially fabricated information.

Other AI Verification Features

Google Gemini offers a built-in "double-check" feature that uses Google Search to verify responses against web sources. However, this feature can make mistakes and may show contradictory information.

Claude AI focuses on thorough reasoning and can be prompted to verify complex legal analysis through step-by-step breakdowns.

ChatGPT can be instructed to provide sources and verify information when specifically requested, though it requires explicit prompting for verification.

Essential Legal Practice Reminders 

While AI verification techniques help identify potential inaccuracies, they never replace the fundamental duty of legal professionals to verify all citations, case law, and factual claims. Recent court cases have imposed sanctions on attorneys who submitted AI-generated content without proper verification. If you don’t, you run the risk of running afoul of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct — including Rule 1.1 (Competence), which requires the legal knowledge, skill, and thoroughness reasonably necessary for representation; Rule 1.1, Comment 8, which stresses that competent representation includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology; Rule 1.3 (Diligence), which obligates attorneys to act with commitment and promptness; and Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), which prohibits attorneys from knowingly making false statements or failing to correct false material before the court.

Best practices for legal AI use include:

  • Always verify AI-generated citations against primary sources

  • Never submit AI content without human review

  • Maintain clear policies about AI use in your practice

  • Understand that professional responsibility remains with the attorney, not the AI tool

The "Are you sure?" technique serves as a helpful first-line check when you notice something seems off in AI responses, but thorough legal research and verification remain your professional responsibility. Your reputation and bar license could depend on it.

MTC: Why Courts Hesitate to Adopt AI - A Crisis of Trust in Legal Technology

Despite facing severe staffing shortages and mounting operational pressures, America's courts remain cautious about embracing artificial intelligence technologies that could provide significant relief. While 68% of state courts report staff shortages and 48% of court professionals lack sufficient time to complete their work, only 17% currently use generative AI tools. This cautious approach reflects deeper concerns about AI reliability, particularly in light of recent (and albeit unnecessarily continuing) high-profile errors by attorneys using AI-generated content in court documents.

The Growing Evidence of AI Failures in Legal Practice

Recent cases demonstrate why courts' hesitation may be justified. In Colorado, two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell were fined $3,000 each after submitting a court filing containing nearly 30 AI-generated errors, including citations to nonexistent cases and misquoted legal authorities. The attorneys admitted to using artificial intelligence without properly verifying the output, violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Similarly, a federal judge in California sanctioned attorneys from Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP $31,000 after they submitted briefs containing fabricated citations generated by AI tools including CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Google Gemini. The attorneys had used AI to create an outline that was shared with colleagues who incorporated the fabricated authorities into their final brief without verification.

These incidents are part of a broader pattern of AI hallucinations in legal documents. The June 16, 2025, Order to Show Cause from the Oregon federal court case Sullivan v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL, D. Or. (June 16, 2025) demonstrates another instance where plaintiffs cited "fifteen non-existent cases and misrepresented quotations from seven real cases" after relying on what they claimed was "an automated legal citation tool". The court found this explanation insufficient to avoid sanctions.

The Operational Dilemma Facing Courts

LAWYERS NEED TO BalancE Legal Tradition with Ethical AI Innovation

The irony is stark: courts desperately need technological solutions to address their operational challenges, yet recent AI failures have reinforced their cautious approach. Court professionals predict that generative AI could save them an average of three hours per week initially, growing to nearly nine hours within five years. These time savings could be transformative for courts struggling with increased caseloads and staff shortages.

However, the profession's experience with AI-generated hallucinations has created significant trust issues. Currently, 70% of courts prohibit employees from using AI-based tools for court business, and 75% have not provided any AI training to their staff. This reluctance stems from legitimate concerns about accuracy, bias, and the potential for AI to undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The Technology Adoption Paradox

Courts have successfully adopted other technologies, with 86% implementing case management systems, 85% using e-filing, and 88% conducting virtual hearings. This suggests that courts are not inherently resistant to technology. But they are specifically cautious about AI due to its propensity for generating false information.

The legal profession's relationship with AI reflects broader challenges in implementing emerging technologies. While 55% of court professionals recognize AI as having transformational potential over the next five years, the gap between recognition and adoption remains significant. This disconnect highlights the need for more reliable AI systems and better training for legal professionals.

The Path Forward: Measured Implementation

The solution is not to abandon AI but to implement it more carefully. Legal professionals must develop better verification protocols. As one expert noted, "AI verification isn't optional—it's a professional obligation." This means implementing systematic citation checking, mandatory human review, and clear documentation of AI use in legal documents. Lawyers must stay up to date on the technology available to them, as required by the American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1[8], including the expectation that they use the best available technology currently accessible. Thus, courts too need comprehensive governance frameworks that address data handling, disclosure requirements, and decision-making oversight before evaluating AI tools. The American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools provides essential guidance, emphasizing that lawyers must fully consider their ethical obligations when using AI.

Final Thoughts

THE Future of Law: AI and Justice in Harmony!

Despite the risks, courts and legal professionals cannot afford to ignore AI indefinitely. The technology's potential to address staffing shortages, reduce administrative burdens, and improve access to justice makes it essential for the future of the legal system. However, successful implementation requires acknowledging AI's limitations while developing robust safeguards to prevent the types of errors that have already damaged trust in the technology.

The current hesitation reflects a profession learning to balance innovation with reliability. As AI systems improve and legal professionals develop better practices for using them, courts will likely become more willing to embrace these tools. Until then, the cautious approach may be prudent, even if it means forgoing potential efficiency gains.

The legal profession's experience with AI serves as a reminder that technological adoption in critical systems requires more than just recognizing potential benefits—it demands building the infrastructure, training, and governance necessary to use these powerful tools responsibly.

MTC

🎙️ TSL Labs: Listen to June 30, 2025, TSL editorial as Discussed by two AI-Generated Podcast Hosts Turn Editorial Into Engaging Discussion for Busy Legal Professionals!

🎧 Can't find time to read lengthy legal tech editorials? We've got you covered.

As part of our Tech Savvy Lawyer Labs initiative, I've been experimenting with cutting-edge AI to make legal content more accessible. This bonus episode showcases how Notebook.AI can transform written editorials into engaging podcast discussions.

Our latest experiment takes the editorial "AI and Legal Research: The Existential Threat to Lexis, Westlaw, and Fastcase" and converts it into a compelling conversation between two AI hosts who discuss the content as if they've thoroughly analyzed the piece.

This Labs experiment demonstrates how AI can serve as a time-saving alternative for legal professionals who prefer audio learning or lack time for extensive reading. The AI hosts engage with the material authentically, providing insights and analysis that make complex legal tech topics accessible to practitioners at all technology skill levels.

🚀 Perfect for commutes, workouts, or multitasking—get the full editorial insights without the reading time.

Enjoy!

MTC: AI and Legal Research: The Existential Threat to Lexis, Westlaw, and Fastcase.

How does this ruling for anthropic change the business models legal information providers operate under?

MTC: The legal profession faces unprecedented disruption as artificial intelligence reshapes how attorneys access and analyze legal information. A landmark federal ruling combined with mounting evidence of AI's devastating impact on content providers signals an existential crisis for traditional legal databases.

The Anthropic Breakthrough

Judge William Alsup's June 25, 2025 ruling in Bartz v. Anthropic fundamentally changed the AI landscape. The court found that training large language models on legally acquired copyrighted books constitutes "exceedingly transformative" fair use under copyright law. This decision provides crucial legal clarity for AI companies, effectively creating a roadmap for developing sophisticated legal AI tools using legitimately purchased content.

The ruling draws a clear distinction: while training on legally acquired materials is permissible, downloading pirated content remains copyright infringement. This clarity removes a significant barrier that had constrained AI development in the legal sector.

Google's AI Devastates Publishers: A Warning for Legal Databases

The news industry's experience with Google's AI features provides a sobering preview of what awaits legal databases. Traffic to the world's 500 most visited publishers has plummeted 27% year-over-year since February 2024, losing an average of 64 million visits per month. Google's AI Overviews and AI Mode have created what industry experts call "zero-click searches," where users receive information without visiting original sources.

The New York Times saw its share of organic search traffic fall from 44% in 2022 to just 36.5% in April 2025. Business Insider experienced devastating 55% traffic declines and subsequently laid off 21% of its workforce. Major outlets like HuffPost and The Washington Post have lost more than half their search traffic.

This pattern directly threatens legal databases operating on similar information-access models. If AI tools can synthesize legal information from multiple sources without requiring expensive database subscriptions, the fundamental value proposition of Lexis, WestLaw, and Fastcase erodes dramatically.

The Rise of Vincent AI and Legal Database Alternatives

The threat is no longer theoretical. Vincent AI, integrated into vLex Fastcase, represents the emergence of sophisticated legal AI that challenges traditional database dominance. The platform offers comprehensive legal research across 50 states and 17 countries, with capabilities including contract analysis, argument building, and multi-jurisdictional comparisons—all often available free through bar association memberships.

Vincent AI recently won the 2024 New Product Award from the American Association of Law Libraries. The platform leverages vLex's database of over one billion legal documents, providing multimodal capabilities that can analyze audio and video files while generating transcripts of court proceedings. Unlike traditional databases that added AI as supplementary features, Vincent AI integrates artificial intelligence throughout its core functionality.

Stanford University studies reveal the current performance gaps: Lexis+ AI achieved 65% accuracy with 17% hallucination rates, while Westlaw's AI-Assisted Research managed only 42% accuracy with 33% hallucination rates. However, AI systems improve rapidly, and these quality gaps are narrowing.

Economic Pressures Intensify

Can traditional legal resources protect their proprietary information from AI?

Goldman Sachs research indicates 44% of legal work could be automated by emerging AI tools, targeting exactly the functions that justify expensive database subscriptions. The legal research market, worth $68 billion globally, faces dramatic cost disruption as AI platforms provide similar capabilities at fractions of traditional pricing.

The democratization effect is already visible. Vincent AI's availability through over 80 bar associations provides enterprise-level capabilities to solo practitioners and small firms previously unable to afford comprehensive legal research tools. This accessibility threatens the pricing power that has sustained traditional legal database business models.

The Information Ecosystem Transformation

The parallel between news publishers and legal databases extends beyond surface similarities. Both industries built their success on controlling access to information and charging premium prices for that access. AI fundamentally challenges this model by providing synthesized information that reduces the need to visit original sources.

AI chatbots have provided only 5.5 million additional referrals per month to publishers, a fraction of the 64 million monthly visits lost to AI-powered search features. This stark imbalance demonstrates that AI tools are net destroyers of traffic to content providers—a dynamic that threatens any business model dependent on information access.

Publishers describe feeling "betrayed" by Google's shift toward AI-powered search results that keep users within Google's ecosystem rather than sending them to external sites. Legal databases face identical risks as AI tools become more capable of providing comprehensive legal analysis without requiring expensive subscriptions.

Quality and Professional Responsibility Challenges

Despite AI's advancing capabilities, significant concerns remain around accuracy and professional responsibility. Legal practice demands extremely high reliability standards, and current AI tools still produce errors that could have serious professional consequences. Several high-profile cases involving lawyers submitting AI-generated briefs with fabricated case citations have heightened awareness of these risks.

However, platforms like Vincent AI address many concerns through transparent citation practices and hybrid AI pipelines that combine generative and rules-based AI to increase reliability. The platform provides direct links to primary legal sources and employs expert legal editors to track judicial treatment and citations.

Adaptation Strategies and Market Response

Is AI the beginning for the end of Traditional legal resources?

Traditional legal database providers have begun integrating AI capabilities, but this strategy faces inherent limitations. By incorporating AI into existing platforms, these companies risk commoditizing their own products. If AI can provide similar insights using publicly available information, proprietary databases lose their exclusivity advantage regardless of AI integration.

The more fundamental challenge is that AI's disruptive potential extends beyond individual products to entire business models. The emergence of comprehensive AI platforms like Vincent AI demonstrates this disruption is already underway and accelerating.

Looking Forward: Scenarios and Implications

Several scenarios could emerge from this convergence of technological and economic pressures. Traditional databases might successfully maintain market position through superior curation and reliability, though the news industry's experience suggests this is challenging without fundamental business model changes.

Alternatively, AI-powered platforms could continue gaining market share by providing comparable functionality at significantly lower costs, forcing traditional providers to dramatically reduce prices or lose market share. The rapid adoption of vLex Fastcase by bar associations suggests this disruption is already underway.

A hybrid market might develop where different tools serve different needs, though economic pressures favor comprehensive, cost-effective solutions over specialized, expensive ones.

Preparing for Transformation

The confluence of the Anthropic ruling, advancing AI capabilities, evidence from news industry disruption, and sophisticated legal AI platforms creates a perfect storm for the legal information industry. Legal professionals must develop AI literacy while implementing robust quality control processes and maintaining ethical obligations.

For legal database providers, the challenge is existential. The news industry's experience shows traffic declines of 50% or more would be catastrophic for subscription-dependent businesses. The rapid development of comprehensive AI legal research platforms suggests this disruption may occur faster than traditional providers anticipate.

The legal profession's relationship with information is fundamentally changing. The Anthropic ruling removed barriers to AI development, news industry data shows the potential scale of disruption, and platforms like Vincent AI demonstrate achievable sophistication. The race is now on to determine who will control the future of legal information access.

MTC