📖 WORD OF THE WEEK YEAR🥳: Verification: The 2025 Word of the Year for Legal Technology ⚖️💻

all lawyers need to remember to check ai-generated legal citations

After reviewing a year's worth of content from The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page blog and podcast, one word emerged to me as the defining concept for 2025: Verification. This term captures the essential duty that separates competent legal practice from dangerous shortcuts in the age of artificial intelligence.

Throughout 2025, The Tech-Savvy Lawyer consistently emphasized verification across multiple contexts. The blog covered proper redaction techniques following the Jeffrey Epstein files disaster. The podcast explored hidden AI in everyday legal tools. Every discussion returned to one central theme: lawyers must verify everything. 🔍

Verification means more than just checking your work. The concept encompasses multiple layers of professional responsibility. Attorneys must verify AI-generated legal research to prevent hallucinations. Courts have sanctioned lawyers who submitted fictitious case citations created by generative AI tools. One study found error rates of 33% in Westlaw AI and 17% in Lexis+ AI. Note the study's foundation is from May 2024, but a 2025 update confirms these findings remain current—the risk of not checking has not gone away. "Verification" cannot be ignored.

The duty extends beyond research. Lawyers must verify that redactions actually remove confidential information rather than simply hiding it under black boxes. The DOJ's failed redaction of the Epstein files demonstrated what happens when attorneys skip proper verification steps. Tech-savvy readers simply copied text from beneath the visual overlays. ⚠️

use of ai-generated legal work requires “verification”, “Verification”, “Verification”!

ABA Model Rule 1.1 requires technological competence. Comment 8 specifically mandates that lawyers understand "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." Verification sits at the heart of this competence requirement. Attorneys cannot claim ignorance about AI features embedded in Microsoft 365, Zoom, Adobe, or legal research platforms. Each tool processes client data differently. Each requires verification of settings, outputs, and data handling practices. 🛡️

The verification duty also applies to cybersecurity. Zero Trust Architecture operates on the principle "never trust, always verify." This security model requires continuous verification of user identity, device health, and access context. Law firms can no longer trust that users inside their network perimeter are authorized. Remote work and cloud-based systems demand constant verification.

Hidden AI poses another verification challenge. Software updates automatically activate AI features in familiar tools. These invisible assistants process confidential client data by default. Lawyers must verify which AI systems operate in their technology stack. They must verify data retention policies. They must verify that AI processing does not waive attorney-client privilege. 🤖

ABA Formal Opinion 512 eliminates the "I didn't know" defense. Lawyers bear responsibility for understanding how their tools use AI. Rule 5.3 requires attorneys to supervise software with the same care they supervise human staff members. Verification transforms from a good practice into an ethical mandate.

verify your ai-generated work like your bar license depends on it!

The year 2025 taught legal professionals that technology competence means verification competence. Attorneys must verify redactions work properly. They must verify AI outputs for accuracy. They must verify security settings protect confidential information. They must verify that hidden AI complies with ethical obligations. ✅

Verification protects clients, preserves attorney licenses, and maintains the integrity of legal practice. As The Tech-Savvy Lawyer demonstrated throughout 2025, every technological advancement creates new verification responsibilities. Attorneys who master verification will thrive in the AI era. Those who skip verification steps risk sanctions, malpractice claims, and disciplinary action.

The legal profession's 2025 Word of the Year is verification. Master it or risk everything. 💼⚖️

MTC: Is Puerto Rico’s Professional Responsibility Rule 1.19 Really Necessary? A Technology Competence Perspective.

Is PR’s Rule 1.19 necessary?

The legal profession stands at a crossroads regarding technological competence requirements. With forty states already adopting Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1, which mandates lawyers "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology," the question emerges: do we need additional rules like PR Rule 1.19?

Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 establishes clear parameters for technological competence. This amendment, adopted by the ABA in 2012, expanded the traditional duty of competence beyond legal knowledge to encompass technological proficiency. The Rule requires lawyers to understand the "benefits and risks associated with relevant technology" in their practice areas.

The existing framework appears comprehensive. Comment 8 already addresses core technological competencies, including e-discovery, cybersecurity, and client communication systems. Under Rule 1.1 (Comment 5), legal professionals must evaluate whether their technological skills meet "the standards of competent practitioners" without requiring additional regulatory layers.

However, implementation challenges persist. Many attorneys struggle with the vague standard of "relevant technology". The rule's elasticity means that competence requirements continuously evolve in response to technological advancements. Some jurisdictions, like Puerto Rico (see PR’s Supreme Court’s Order ER-2025-02 approving adoption of its full set of Rules of Professional Conduct, have created dedicated technology competence rules (Rule 1.19) to provide clearer guidance.

The verdict: redundancy without added value. Rather than creating overlapping rules, the legal profession should focus on robust implementation of existing Comment 8 requirements. Enhanced continuing legal education mandates, clearer interpretive guidance, and practical competency frameworks would better serve practitioners than additional regulatory complexity.

Technology competence is essential, but regulatory efficiency should guide our approach. 🚀