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

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

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.

🔒 Word (Phrase) of the Week: “Zero Data Retention” Agreements: Why Every Lawyer Must Pay Attention Now!

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

Understanding Zero Data Retention in Legal Practice

🚨 Lawyers Must Know Zero Data Retention Now!

Zero Data Retention (ZDR) agreements represent a fundamental shift in how law firms protect client confidentiality when using third-party technology services. These agreements ensure that sensitive client information is processed but never stored by vendors after immediate use. For attorneys navigating an increasingly digital practice environment, understanding ZDR agreements has become essential to maintaining ethical compliance.

ZDR works through a simple but powerful principle: access, process, and discard. When lawyers use services with ZDR agreements, the vendor connects to data only when needed, performs the requested task, and immediately discards all information without creating persistent copies. This architectural approach dramatically reduces the risk of data breaches and unauthorized access.

The Legal Ethics Crisis Hidden in Your Vendor Contracts

Recent court orders have exposed a critical vulnerability in how lawyers use technology. A federal court ordered OpenAI to preserve all ChatGPT conversation logs indefinitely, including deleted content—even for paying subscribers. This ruling affects millions of users and demonstrates how quickly data retention policies can change through litigation.

The implications for legal practice are severe. Attorneys using consumer-grade AI tools, standard cloud storage, or free collaboration platforms may unknowingly expose client confidences to indefinite retention. This creates potential violations of fundamental ethical obligations, regardless of the lawyer's intent or the vendor's original promises.

ABA Model Rules Create Mandatory Obligations

Three interconnected ABA Model Rules establish clear ethical requirements for lawyers using technology vendors.

Rule 1.1 and its Comment [8] requires technological competence. Attorneys must understand "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology". This means lawyers cannot simply trust vendor marketing claims about data security. They must conduct meaningful due diligence before entrusting client information to any third party.

Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality protection. Lawyers must "make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client". This obligation extends to all digital communications and cloud-based storage. When vendors retain data beyond the immediate need, attorneys face heightened risks of unauthorized disclosure.

Rule 5.3 governs supervision of nonlawyer assistants. This rule applies equally to technology vendors who handle client information. Lawyers with managerial authority must ensure their firms implement measures that provide reasonable assurance that vendors comply with the attorney's professional obligations.

Practical Steps for Ethical Compliance

Attorneys must implement specific practices to satisfy their ethical obligations when selecting technology vendors.

1. Demand written confirmation of zero data retention policies from all vendors handling client information. Ask whether the vendor uses client data for training AI models. Determine how long any data remains accessible after processing. These questions must be answered clearly before using any service.

Lawyers Need Zero Data Retention Agreements!

Review vendor agreements carefully. Standard terms of service often fail to provide adequate confidentiality protections. Attorneys should negotiate explicit contractual provisions that prohibit data retention beyond immediate processing needs. These agreements must specify encryption standards, access controls, and breach notification procedures.

Obtain client consent when using third-party services that may access confidential information. While not always legally required, informed consent demonstrates respect for client autonomy and provides an additional layer of protection.

Conduct ongoing monitoring of vendor practices. Initial due diligence is insufficient. Technology changes rapidly, and vendors may alter their data handling practices. Regular reviews ensure continued compliance with ethical obligations.

Restrict employee use of unauthorized tools. Many data breaches stem from "shadow IT"—employees using personal accounts or unapproved services for work purposes. Clear policies and training can prevent inadvertent ethical violations.

The Distinction Between Consumer and Enterprise Services

Not all AI and cloud services create equal ethical risks. Consumer versions of popular tools often lack the security features required for legal practice. Enterprise subscriptions typically provide enhanced protections, including zero data retention options.

For example, OpenAI offers different service tiers with dramatically different data handling practices. ChatGPT Free, Plus, Pro, and Team subscriptions now face indefinite data retention due to court orders. However, ChatGPT Enterprise and API customers with ZDR agreements remain unaffected. This distinction matters enormously for attorney compliance.

Industry-Specific Legal AI Offers Additional Safeguards

Legal-specific AI platforms build confidentiality protections into their core architecture. These tools understand attorney-client privilege requirements and design their systems accordingly. They typically offer encryption, access controls, SOC 2 compliance, and explicit commitments not to use client data for training.

When evaluating legal technology vendors, attorneys should prioritize those offering private AI environments, end-to-end encryption, and contractual guarantees about data retention. These features align with the ethical obligations imposed by the Model Rules.

Zero Data Retention as Competitive Advantage

Beyond ethical compliance, ZDR agreements offer practical benefits. They reduce storage costs, simplify regulatory compliance, and minimize the attack surface for cybersecurity threats. In an era of increasing data breaches, the ability to tell clients that their information is never stored by third parties provides meaningful competitive differentiation.

Final Thoughts: Action Required Now

Lawyers must Protect Client Data with ZDR!

The landscape of legal technology changes constantly. Court orders can suddenly transform data retention policies. Vendors can modify their terms of service. New ethical opinions can shift compliance expectations.

Attorneys cannot afford passive approaches to vendor management. They must actively investigate, negotiate, and monitor the data handling practices of every technology provider accessing client information. Zero data retention agreements represent one powerful tool for maintaining ethical compliance in an increasingly complex technological environment.

The duty of confidentiality remains absolute, regardless of the tools lawyers choose. By demanding ZDR agreements and implementing comprehensive vendor management practices, attorneys can embrace technological innovation while protecting the fundamental trust that defines the attorney-client relationship.

MTC: Balancing Digital Transparency and Government Employee Safety: The Legal Profession's Ethical Crossroads in the Age of ICE Tracking Apps

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

The balance between government employee saftey and the public’s right to know is always in flux.

The intersection of technology, government transparency, and employee safety has created an unprecedented ethical challenge for the legal profession. Recent developments surrounding ICE tracking applications like ICEBlock, People Over Papers, and similar platforms have thrust lawyers into a complex moral and professional landscape where the traditional principle of "sunlight as the best disinfectant" collides with legitimate security concerns for government employees.

The Technology Landscape: A New Era of Crowdsourced Monitoring

The proliferation of ICE tracking applications represents a significant shift in how citizens monitor government activities. ICEBlock, developed by Joshua Aaron, allows users to anonymously report ICE agent sightings within a five-mile radius, functioning essentially as "Waze for immigration enforcement". People Over Papers, created by TikTok user Celeste, operates as a web-based platform using Padlet technology to crowdsource and verify ICE activity reports with photographs and timestamps. Additional platforms include Islip Forward, which provides real-time push notifications for Suffolk County residents, and Coquí, offering mapping and alert systems for ICE activities.

These applications exist within a broader ecosystem of similar technologies. Traditional platforms like Waze, Google Maps, and Apple Maps have long enabled police speed trap reporting. More controversial surveillance tools include Fog Reveal, which allows law enforcement to track civilian movements using advertising IDs from popular apps. The distinction between citizen-initiated transparency tools and government surveillance technologies highlights the complex ethical terrain lawyers must navigate.

The Ethical Framework: ABA Guidelines and Professional Responsibilities

Legal professionals face multiple competing ethical obligations when addressing these technological developments. ABA Model Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to maintain technological competence, understanding both the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. This competence requirement extends beyond mere familiarity to encompass the ethical implications of technology use in legal practice.

Rule 1.6's confidentiality obligations create additional complexity when lawyers handle cases involving government employees, ICE agents, or immigration-related matters. The duty to protect client information becomes particularly challenging when technology platforms may compromise attorney-client privilege or expose sensitive personally identifiable information to third parties.

The tension between advocacy responsibilities and ethical obligations becomes acute when lawyers represent clients on different sides of immigration enforcement. Attorneys representing undocumented immigrants may view transparency tools as legitimate safety measures, while those representing government employees may consider the same applications as security threats that endanger their clients.

Balancing Transparency and Safety: The Core Dilemma

Who watches whom? Exploring transparency limits in democracy.

The principle of transparency in government operations serves as a cornerstone of democratic accountability. However, the safety of government employees, including ICE agents, presents legitimate counterbalancing concerns. Federal officials have reported significant increases in assaults against ICE agents, citing these tracking applications as contributing factors.

The challenge for legal professionals lies in advocating for their clients while maintaining ethical standards that protect all parties' legitimate interests. This requires nuanced understanding of both technology capabilities and legal boundaries. Lawyers must recognize that the same transparency tools that may protect their immigrant clients could potentially endanger government employees who are simply performing their lawful duties.

Technology Ethics in Legal Practice: Professional Standards

The legal profession's approach to technology ethics must evolve to address these emerging challenges. Lawyers working with sensitive immigration cases must implement robust cybersecurity measures, understand the privacy implications of various communication platforms, and maintain clear boundaries between personal advocacy and professional obligations.

The ABA's guidance on generative AI and technology use provides relevant frameworks for addressing these issues. Legal professionals must ensure that their technology choices do not inadvertently compromise client confidentiality or create security vulnerabilities that could harm any party to legal proceedings.

Jurisdictional and Regulatory Considerations

The removal of ICEBlock from Apple's App Store and People Over Papers from Padlet demonstrates how private platforms exercise content moderation that can significantly impact government transparency tools. These actions raise important questions about the role of technology companies in mediating between transparency advocates and security concerns.

Legal professionals must understand the complex regulatory environment governing these technologies. Federal agencies like CISA recommend encrypted communications for high-value government targets while acknowledging the importance of government transparency. This creates a nuanced landscape where legitimate security measures must coexist with accountability mechanisms.

Professional Recommendations and Best Practices

Legal practitioners working in this environment should adopt several key practices. First, maintain clear separation between personal political views and professional obligations. Second, implement comprehensive cybersecurity measures that protect all client information regardless of their position in legal proceedings proceedings. Third, stay informed about technological developments and their legal implications through continuing education focused on technology law and ethics.

Lawyers should also engage in transparent communication with clients about the risks and benefits of various technology platforms. This includes obtaining informed consent when using technologies that may impact privacy or security, and maintaining awareness of how different platforms handle data security and user privacy.

The legal profession must also advocate for balanced regulatory approaches that protect both government transparency and employee safety. This may involve supporting legislation that creates appropriate oversight mechanisms while maintaining necessary security protections for government workers.

The Path Forward: Ethical Technology Advocacy

The future of legal practice will require increasingly sophisticated approaches to balancing competing interests in our digital age. Legal professionals must serve as informed advocates who understand both the technological landscape and the ethical obligations that govern their profession. This includes recognizing that technology platforms designed for legitimate transparency purposes can be misused, while also acknowledging that government accountability remains essential to democratic governance.

transparency is a balancing act that all lawyers need to be aware of in their practice!

The legal profession's response to ICE tracking applications and similar technologies will establish important precedents for how lawyers navigate future ethical challenges in our increasingly connected world. By maintaining focus on professional ethical standards while advocating effectively for their clients, legal professionals can help ensure that technological advances serve justice rather than undermining it.

Success in this environment requires lawyers to become technologically literate advocates who understand both the promise and perils of digital transparency tools. Only through this balanced approach can the legal profession effectively serve its clients while maintaining the ethical standards that define professional practice in the digital age.

MTC

📖 Word of the Week: RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) - The Legal AI Breakthrough Eliminating Hallucinations. 📚⚖️

/ The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page/

What is RAG?

USEd responsibly, rag can be a great tool for lawyers!

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a groundbreaking artificial intelligence technique that combines information retrieval with text generation. Unlike traditional AI systems that rely solely on pre-trained data, RAG dynamically retrieves relevant information from external legal databases before generating responses.

Why RAG Matters for Legal Practice

RAG addresses the most significant concern with legal AI: fabricated citations and "hallucinations." By grounding AI responses in verified legal sources, RAG systems dramatically reduce the risk of generating fictional case law. Recent studies show RAG-powered legal tools produce hallucination rates comparable to human-only work.

Key Benefits

RAG technology offers several advantages for legal professionals:

Enhanced Accuracy: RAG systems pull from authoritative legal databases, ensuring responses are based on actual statutes, cases, and regulations rather than statistical patterns.

Real-Time Updates: Unlike static AI models, RAG can access current legal information, making it valuable for rapidly evolving areas of law.

Source Attribution: RAG provides clear citations and references, enabling attorneys to verify and build upon AI-generated research.

Practical Applications

lawyers who don’t use ai technology like rag will be replaced those who do!

Law firms are implementing RAG for case law research, contract analysis, and legal memo drafting. The technology excels at tasks requiring specific legal authorities and performs best when presented with clearly defined legal issues.

Professional Responsibility Under ABA Model Rules

ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence): Comment 8 requires lawyers to "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." This mandates understanding RAG capabilities and limitations before use.

ABA Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): Lawyers must "make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client." When using RAG systems, attorneys must verify data security measures and understand how client information is processed and stored.

ABA Model Rule 5.3 (Supervision of Nonlawyer Assistants): ABA Formal Opinion 512 clarifies that AI tools may be considered "nonlawyer assistants" requiring supervision. Lawyers must establish clear policies for RAG usage and ensure proper training on ethical obligations.

ABA Formal Opinion 512: This 2024 guidance emphasizes that lawyers cannot abdicate professional judgment to AI systems. While RAG systems offer improved reliability over general AI tools, attorneys remain responsible for verifying outputs and maintaining competent oversight.

Final Thoughts: Implementation Considerations

lawyers must consider their ethical responsibilities when using generative ai, large language models, and rag.

While RAG significantly improves AI reliability, attorneys must still verify outputs and exercise professional judgment. The technology enhances rather than replaces legal expertise. Lawyers should understand terms of service, consult technical experts when needed, and maintain "human-in-the-loop" oversight consistent with professional responsibility requirements.

RAG represents a crucial step toward trustworthy legal AI, offering attorneys powerful research capabilities while maintaining the accuracy standards essential to legal practice and compliance with ABA Model Rules. Just make sure you use it correctly and check your work!