MTC: The End of Dial-Up Internet: A Digital Divide Crisis for Legal Practice 📡⚖️

Dial-up shutdown deepens rural legal digital divide.

The legal profession faces an unprecedented access to justice challenge as AOL officially terminated its dial-up internet service on September 30, 2025, after 34 years of operation. This closure affects approximately 163,401 American households that depended solely on dial-up connections as of 2023, creating barriers to legal services in an increasingly digital world. While other dial-up providers like NetZero, Juno, and DSLExtreme continue operating, they may not cover all geographic areas previously served by AOL and offer limited long-term viability.

While many view dial-up as obsolete, its elimination exposes critical technology gaps that disproportionately impact vulnerable populations requiring legal assistance. Rural residents, low-income individuals, and elderly clients who relied on this affordable connectivity option now face digital exclusion from essential legal services and court systems. The remaining dial-up options provide minimal relief as these smaller providers lack AOL's extensive infrastructure coverage.

Split Courtroom!

Legal professionals must recognize that technology barriers create access to justice issues. When clients cannot afford high-speed internet or live in areas without broadband infrastructure, they lose the ability to participate in virtual court proceedings, access online legal resources, or communicate effectively with their attorneys. This digital divide effectively creates a two-tiered justice system where technological capacity determines legal access.

The legal community faces an implicit ethical duty to address these technology barriers. While no specific ABA Model Rule mandates accommodating clients' internet limitations, the professional responsibility to ensure access to justice flows from fundamental ethical obligations.

This implicit duty derives from several ABA Model Rules that create relevant obligations. Rule 1.1 (Competence) requires attorneys to understand "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology," including how technology barriers affect client representation. Rule 1.4 (Communication) mandates effective client communication, which encompasses understanding technology limitations that prevent meaningful attorney-client interaction. Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality) requires reasonable efforts to protect client information, necessitating awareness of technology security implications. Additionally, 41 jurisdictions have adopted technology competence requirements that obligate lawyers to stay current with technological developments affecting legal practice.

Lawyers are a leader when it comes to calls for action to help narrow the access to justice devide!

The legal community must advocate for affordable internet solutions and develop technology-inclusive practices to fulfill these professional responsibilities and ensure equal access to justice for all clients.

MTC

MTC: Federal Circuit's Drop Box Relocation Sends a Signal Threatening Access to Justice: Why Paper Filing Options Must Remain Accessible 📝⚖️

Midnight Filing Rights Under Threat by Federal Court Drop Box Move.

The Federal Circuit's recent decision to relocate its paper filing drop box from outside the courthouse to inside the building, with restricted hours of 8:30 AM to 7:00 PM, represents a concerning step backward for legal accessibility. This policy change, effective October 20, 2025, fundamentally undermines decades of established legal practice and creates unnecessary barriers to justice that disproportionately impact solo practitioners, small firms, and self-represented litigants.

The Critical Role of 24/7 Drop Box Access 🕐

For generations, the legal profession has relied on midnight filing capabilities as an essential safety net. The traditional 24-hour drop box access has served as a crucial backup system when electronic filing systems fail, internet connectivity issues arise, or attorneys face last-minute technical emergencies. Federal courts have long recognized that electronic filing deadlines extend until midnight in the court's time zone, acknowledging that legal work often continues around the clock and in different time zones across the globe.

The ability to file papers at any hour has been particularly vital for attorneys handling time-sensitive matters such as emergency motions, appeals with strict deadlines, and patent applications where timing can be critical to a client's rights. Research shows that approximately 10% of federal court filings occur after 5:00 PM, with many of these representing urgent legal matters that cannot wait until the next business day.

Technology's Promise and Perils ⚙️

While electronic filing systems have revolutionized legal practice, they are far from infallible. Court system outages occur with concerning regularity - as recently demonstrated by Washington State's two-week court system shutdown due to unauthorized network activity. When CM/ECF systems go offline, attorneys must have reliable alternative filing methods to meet critical deadlines.

The Federal Circuit's own procedures acknowledge this reality, noting that their CM/ECF system undergoes scheduled maintenance and may experience unexpected outages. During these periods, having accessible backup filing options becomes essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal process. The relocation of the drop box inside the building with limited hours eliminates this crucial failsafe, potentially leaving attorneys with no viable filing option during system emergencies outside business hours.

Digital Divide and Access to Justice Concerns 📱

Tech-Savvy Lawyer Battles Drop Box Access and Justice Barrier.

The restricted drop box access exacerbates existing digital equity issues within the legal system. While large law firms have robust IT infrastructure and technical support, solo practitioners and small firms often lack these resources. Self-represented litigants, who represent approximately 75-95% of parties in many civil cases, face even greater challenges navigating electronic filing requirements.

Studies have shown that technology adoption in courts has disproportionately benefited well-resourced parties while creating additional barriers for vulnerable populations. The Federal Circuit's policy change continues this troubling trend by prioritizing operational convenience over equal access to justice.

Legal Practice Realities 💼

The Federal Circuit's restricted hours—8:30 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday—fail to recognize the realities of modern legal practice. Patent attorneys, who frequently practice before this court, often work across multiple time zones and may need to file documents outside traditional business hours due to client demands or international coordination requirements.

Moreover, the new policy requires documents to be date-stamped and security-screened before deposit, adding additional procedural steps that could create delays and complications. These requirements, while perhaps well-intentioned from a security perspective, create practical obstacles that could prevent the timely filing of critical documents.

Recommendations for Balanced Approach ✅

The Federal Circuit should reconsider this policy change and adopt a more balanced approach that strikes a balance between security and access to justice. Recommended alternatives include:

Hybrid access model: Maintain extended drop box hours (perhaps 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM) to accommodate working attorneys while addressing security concerns.

Emergency filing provisions: Establish clear procedures for after-hours emergency filings when deadlines cannot be met due to the restricted schedule.

Enhanced electronic backup systems: Invest in more robust CM/ECF infrastructure and backup systems to reduce the likelihood of system outages that would necessitate paper filing.

Stakeholder consultation: Engage with the patent bar and other frequent court users to develop solutions that balance operational needs with practitioner requirements.

Preserving the Foundation of Legal Practice ⚖️

Drop Box Limits Highlight Digital Divide in Federal Courthouse Access.

The Federal Circuit's drop box policy change represents more than an administrative adjustment - it undermines a fundamental principle that the courthouse doors should remain open to all who seek justice. The legal profession has long operated on the understanding that filing deadlines are absolute, and courts have historically provided mechanisms to ensure compliance even under challenging circumstances.

By restricting drop box access, the Federal Circuit sends a troubling message that convenience trumps accessibility. This policy particularly harms the very practitioners who help maintain the patent system's vitality - innovative small businesses, independent inventors, and emerging technology companies that rely on accessible filing procedures.

The court should reverse this decision and either restore 24-hour drop box access or, at a minimum, extend the hours to serve the legal community and the public better. In an era where access to justice faces mounting challenges, courts must resist policies that create additional barriers to legal participation. The integrity of our judicial system depends on maintaining pathways for all parties to present their cases, regardless of their technological capabilities or the timing of their legal needs.

MTC

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