📖 Word of the Week: “Cross‑Tenant” Learning in Legal Practice

Cross-tenant learning helps law firms improve AI tools without exposing data

If your firm uses cloud‑based tools, you are already living in a multi‑tenant world. In that world, cross‑tenant learning is quickly becoming a key concept that every lawyer and legal operations professional should understand. 🧠⚖️

In simple terms, a “tenant” is your firm’s logically separate space inside a cloud platform: your own users, matters, documents, and settings, isolated from everyone else’s. Cross‑tenant learning refers to techniques in which a vendor’s system learns from patterns across multiple tenants (for example, many law firms) to improve its features—such as search, drafting suggestions, or document classification—without exposing any other firm’s confidential data to you or yours to them.

Why cross‑tenant learning matters for law firms

Cross‑tenant learning is especially relevant as generative AI and machine‑learning tools become embedded in e‑discovery platforms, contract review tools, legal research systems, and practice‑management software. Vendors may use aggregated and anonymized usage data to:

• Improve relevance of search results and recommendations.

• Enhance clause and issue spotting in contracts and briefs.

• Reduce false positives in e‑discovery or compliance alerts.

• Optimize workflows based on how similar firms use the product.

For lawyers, the value proposition is straightforward: your tools can become “smarter” faster, based on lessons learned across many organizations, not just your own firm’s experience. Done properly, cross‑tenant learning can raise the baseline quality and efficiency of technology available to your practice. ⚙️📈

ABA Model Rules: Confidentiality and Competence

Any discussion of cross‑tenant learning for law firms must start with confidentiality and competence.

• Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) requires lawyers to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client. That obligation extends to how your vendors collect, store, and use your data. You must understand whether and how client data may be used for cross‑tenant learning and ensure that any such use preserves confidentiality through anonymization, aggregation, and strong technical and contractual controls. 🔐

• Model Rule 1.1 (Competence), including Comment 8, emphasizes that lawyers should keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Understanding cross‑tenant learning is now part of that duty. You do not need to become a data scientist, but you should be comfortable asking vendors precise questions and recognizing red flags.

• Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) applies when you rely on vendors as nonlawyer assistants. You must make reasonable efforts to ensure that their conduct is compatible with your professional obligations, including how they use your data for cross‑tenant learning. 🧾

Key questions to ask your vendors

ABA Model Rules guide ethical use of cross-tenant learning technologies

When evaluating a product that relies on cross‑tenant learning, consider asking:

1. What data is used?

• Is it only metadata or usage logs, or are actual document contents included?

• Is the data aggregated and anonymized before it is used to train shared models?

1. How is confidentiality protected?

• Can other tenants ever see prompts, documents, or client‑identifying information from our firm?

• What technical measures (encryption, access controls, tenant isolation) are in place?

1. Can cross‑tenant learning be limited or disabled?

• Do we have opt‑out or configuration controls?

• Is there a dedicated model or environment for our firm if needed?

1. What do the contract and policies say?

• Does the MSA or DPA clearly limit use of client data to defined purposes?

• How long is data retained, and how is it deleted if we leave?

These questions are not merely IT concerns; they go directly to your obligations under the ABA Model Rules and your firm’s risk profile.

Practical examples in law practice

Consider a cloud‑based contract‑analysis platform used by hundreds of firms. Over time, the provider can see which clauses lawyers routinely flag as risky, which edits are typically made, and what becomes the “preferred” language for certain issues. Through cross‑tenant learning, the system can use that aggregated knowledge to highlight problematic clauses and suggest alternatives more accurately for everyone.

Another example is an e‑discovery platform that uses cross‑tenant learning to distinguish between truly relevant documents and common “noise” such as automatically generated emails. The more matters the system processes across different tenants, the better it gets at ranking documents and reducing review burdens. This can be a material efficiency gain for litigation teams. ⚖️💼

In both scenarios, your ethical comfort depends on whether underlying data is appropriately anonymized, compartmentalized, and contractually protected.

Governance steps for your firm

To align cross‑tenant learning with professional obligations, firms can:

• Update vendor‑due‑diligence checklists to include explicit questions about cross‑tenant learning, training data use, and model isolation.

• Involve a cross‑functional team—lawyers, IT, information security, and risk management—in vendor selection and review.

• Document your analysis of vendor practices and how they satisfy confidentiality, competence, and supervision obligations under the ABA Model Rules.

• Educate lawyers and staff about how AI‑enabled tools work, what kinds of data they send into the system, and how to avoid unnecessary exposure of client‑identifying details.

Takeaway for busy practitioners

Smart vendor questions reduce risk in cross-tenant legal technology adoption

You do not need to reject cross‑tenant learning to protect your clients. Instead, you should approach it as a powerful capability that demands informed oversight. When well‑implemented, cross‑tenant learning can help your firm deliver faster, more consistent, and more cost‑effective legal services, while still honoring confidentiality and ethical duties. When poorly explained or loosely governed, it becomes an unnecessary and avoidable risk.

Understanding how your tools learn—and from whom—is now part of competent, modern legal practice. ⚖️💡

Word of the Week: “Phishing” 🎣 in the Legal Profession - What Every Lawyer Needs to Know in 2025 🛡️

Lawyers Battle phishing on a daily basis.

Phishing is one of the most persistent and dangerous cyber threats facing law firms today. Phishing is a form of computer and internet fraud in which criminals use fake emails, websites, or messages to trick recipients into revealing sensitive information such as passwords, bank details, or client data. For lawyers and legal professionals, the stakes are especially high: law firms hold vast amounts of confidential client information, making them prime targets for cybercriminals. The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules for Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) and Rule 1.1 (Competence), require lawyers to protect client data and maintain competence in technology relevant to their practice.

How Phishing Targets Law Firms

Phishing attacks against law firms have become more sophisticated in 2025. Criminals now use generative AI to craft emails that closely mimic real communications from clients, colleagues, or even senior partners. These messages often create a sense of urgency, pressuring recipients to act quickly—such as transferring funds, sharing login credentials, or downloading malicious attachments. Business Email Compromise (BEC) scams are particularly damaging, as attackers impersonate managing partners or clients to divert wire transfers or request sensitive documents.

Impersonation: The Hidden Dangers in Your Inbox

Attackers often use email spoofing to manipulate the display name and email address, making a message appear to come from someone you trust. The display name (the name that appears in your inbox) can be set to any familiar contact, but the actual email address may be subtly altered or completely fake. For example, a scammer might use “john.smith@lawfirm.com”or “John Smith of ….” as the display name, but the underlying address could be “jjohn.smith@lawf1rm.com” or “john..john.smith@lawfirm.co@lawfirm.co.” These changes are often just a single character off, designed to trick you into replying or clicking a malicious link.

Lawyers should always examine the full email address, not just the display name, before responding or acting on any request. On many smartphones and email clients, only the display name is shown by default, so you may need to click or tap to reveal the actual sender’s email address. If the message requests sensitive information, money transfers, or urgent action, verify the request through a separate communication channel, such as a phone call using a known number—not one provided in the suspicious email. This vigilance aligns with ABA Model Rule 1.1, which requires lawyers to maintain competence, including understanding risks associated with technology.

Recent Phishing Incidents Involving Lawyers

Phishing Email Threatens Law Firm Cybersecurity Defense

• In a widely reported scam, secretaries and junior lawyers at several law firms received emails that appeared to come from senior partners. The emails requested the purchase of iTunes gift cards for an “urgent presentation.” Victims, unfamiliar with the scam, were tricked into sending the codes to the attackers, who then sold or used them at the victims’ expense.

• In another case, scammers stole the identity of Western Australia’s Attorney-General, John Quigley, sending emails that claimed he was representing a deceased person with a large inheritance. The emails phished for personal information and requested payments for fake legal fees.

• Large law firms have also suffered massive data breaches following phishing attacks. In 2024, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe agreed to pay $8 million after cybercriminals accessed personal and health data of over 600,000 people. Similarly, Gunster Yoakley & Stewart settled for $8.5 million after a breach exposed sensitive information of nearly 10,000 individuals.

What Lawyers Should Watch For

• Impersonation: Always check the sender’s full email address, not just the display name. Watch for addresses that are off by one or more characters.

• Urgency and Pressure: Be cautious of emails that demand immediate action, especially those involving money or confidential data.

• Suspicious Links or Attachments: Hover over links to check their true destination, and never open unexpected attachments.

• Unusual Requests: Be wary of requests outside normal procedures, such as buying gift cards or changing payment instructions.

Prevention and Best Practices

• Employee Training: Regular cybersecurity awareness training is crucial. Staff should be able to recognize phishing attempts and know how to report them. This supports ABA Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance).

• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): MFA adds an extra layer of security, making it harder for attackers to access accounts even if credentials are compromised.

• Incident Response Plan: Every law firm should have a clear plan for responding to phishing incidents, including communication protocols and legal obligations for breach notification.

• Client Education: Educate clients about phishing risks and encourage them to verify any unusual requests that appear to come from your firm.

Professional Responsibility and Phishing

lawyers need to be proactive Against Cybersecurity Threats in 2025!

The ABA Model Rules make clear that lawyers must take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access to client information (Rule 1.6(c)). Lawyers must also keep abreast of changes in technology and its associated risks (Rule 1.1, Comment 8). Failing to implement basic cybersecurity measures, such as phishing awareness and email verification, may expose lawyers to disciplinary action and civil liability.

Final Thoughts

Phishing is not just an IT problem—it’s a business risk that can compromise client trust, cause financial loss, and result in legal liability. By staying vigilant, investing in training, and adopting robust security measures, lawyers can protect themselves, their clients, and their reputations in an increasingly digital world. Compliance with the ABA Model Rules is not optional—it's essential for ethical and effective law practice.