📖 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 (Bonus): National Court Technology Rules: Finding Balance Between Guidance and Flexibility ⚖️

Standardizing Tech Guidelines in the Legal System

Lawyers and their staff needs to know the standard and local rules of AI USe in the courtroom - their license could depend on it.

The legal profession stands at a critical juncture where technological capability has far outpaced judicial guidance. Nicole Black's recent commentary on the fragmented approach to technology regulation in our courts identifies a genuine problem—one that demands serious consideration from both proponents of modernization and cautious skeptics alike.

The core tension is understandable. Courts face legitimate concerns about technology misuse. The LinkedIn juror research incident in Judge Orrick's courtroom illustrates real risks: a consultant unknowingly violated a standing order, resulting in a $10,000 sanction despite the attorney's good-faith disclosure and remedial efforts. These aren't theoretical concerns—they reflect actual ethical boundaries that protect litigants and preserve judicial integrity. Yet the response to these concerns has created its own problems.

The current patchwork system places practicing attorneys in an impossible position. A lawyer handling cases across multiple federal districts cannot reasonably track the varying restrictions on artificial intelligence disclosure, social media evidence protocols, and digital research methodologies. When the safe harbor is simply avoiding technology altogether, the profession loses genuine opportunities to enhance accuracy and efficiency. Generative AI's citation hallucinations justify judicial scrutiny, but the ad hoc response by individual judges—ranging from simple guidance to outright bans—creates unpredictability that chills responsible innovation.

SHould there be an international standard for ai use in the courtroom

There are legitimate reasons to resist uniform national rules. Local courts understand their communities and case management needs better than distant regulatory bodies. A one-size-fits-all approach might impose burdensome requirements on rural jurisdictions with fewer tech-savvy practitioners. Furthermore, rapid technological evolution could render national rules obsolete within months, whereas individual judges retain flexibility to respond quickly to emerging problems.

Conversely, the current decentralized approach creates serious friction. The 2006 amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for electronically stored information succeeded partly because they established predictability across jurisdictions. Lawyers knew what preservation obligations applied regardless of venue. That uniformity enabled the profession to invest in training, software, and processes. Today's lawyers lack that certainty. Practitioners must maintain contact lists tracking individual judge orders, and smaller firms simply cannot sustain this administrative burden.

The answer likely lies between extremes. Rather than comprehensive national legislation, the profession would benefit from model standards developed collaboratively by the Federal Judicial Conference, state supreme courts, and bar associations. These guidelines could allow reasonable judicial discretion while establishing baseline expectations—defining when AI disclosure is mandatory, clarifying which social media research constitutes impermissible contact, and specifying preservation protocols that protect evidence without paralyzing litigation.

Such an approach acknowledges both legitimate judicial concerns and legitimate professional needs. It recognizes that judges require authority to protect courtroom procedures while recognizing that lawyers require predictability to serve clients effectively.

I basically agree with Nicole: The question is not whether courts should govern technology use. They must. The question is whether they govern wisely—with sufficient uniformity to enable compliance, sufficient flexibility to address local concerns, and sufficient clarity to encourage rather than discourage responsible innovation.

📖 WORD OF THE WEEK (WoW): Zero Trust Architecture ⚖️🔐

Zero Trust Architecture and ABA Model Rules Compliance 🛡️

Lawyers need to "never trust, always verify" their network activity!

Zero Trust Architecture represents a fundamental shift in how law firms approach cybersecurity and fulfill ethical obligations. Rather than assuming that users and devices within a firm's network are trustworthy by default, this security model operates on the principle of "never trust, always verify." For legal professionals managing sensitive client information, implementing this framework has become essential to protecting confidentiality while maintaining compliance with ABA Model Rules.

The traditional security approach created a protective perimeter around a firm's network, trusting anyone inside that boundary. This model no longer reflects modern legal practice. Remote work, cloud-based case management systems, and mobile device usage mean that your firm's data exists across multiple locations and devices. Zero Trust abandons the perimeter-based approach entirely.

ABA Model Rule 1.6(c) requires lawyers to "make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client." Zero Trust Architecture directly fulfills this mandate by requiring continuous verification of every user and device accessing firm resources, regardless of location. This approach ensures compliance with the confidentiality duty that forms the foundation of legal practice.

Core Components Supporting Your Ethical Obligations

Zero Trust Architecture operates through three interconnected principles aligned with ABA requirements.

legal professionals do you know the core components of modern cyber security?

• Continuous verification means that authentication does not happen once at login. Instead, systems continuously validate user identity, device health, and access context in real time.

• Least privilege access restricts each user to only the data and systems necessary for their specific role. An associate working on discovery does not need access to billing systems, and a paralegal in real estate does not need access to litigation files.

• Micro-segmentation divides your network into smaller, secure zones. This prevents lateral movement, which means that if a bad actor compromises one device or user account, they cannot automatically access all firm systems.

ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8 requires that lawyers maintain competence, including competence in "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." Understanding Zero Trust Architecture demonstrates that your firm maintains technological competence in cybersecurity matters. Additional critical components include multi-factor authentication, which requires users to verify their identity through multiple methods before accessing systems. Device authentication ensures that only approved and properly configured devices can connect to firm resources. End-to-end encryption protects data both at rest and in transit.

ABA Model Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to keep clients "reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation." Zero Trust Architecture supports this duty by protecting client information and enabling prompt client notification if security incidents occur.

ABA Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3 require supervisory lawyers and managers to ensure that subordinate lawyers and non-lawyer staff comply with professional obligations. Implementing Zero Trust creates the framework for effective supervision of cybersecurity practices across your entire firm.

Addressing Safekeeping Obligations

ABA Model Rule 1.15 requires lawyers to "appropriately safeguard" property of clients, including electronic information. Zero Trust Architecture provides the security infrastructure necessary to meet this safekeeping obligation. This rule mandates maintaining complete records of client property and preserving those records. Zero Trust's encryption and access controls ensure that stored records remain protected from unauthorized access.

Implementation: A Phased Approach 📋

Implementing Zero Trust need not happen all at once. Begin by assessing your current security infrastructure and identifying sensitive data flows. Establish identity and access management systems to control who accesses what. Deploy multi-factor authentication across all applications. Then gradually expand micro-segmentation and monitoring capabilities as your systems mature. Document your efforts to demonstrate compliance with ABA Model Rule 1.6(c)'s requirement for "reasonable efforts."

Final Thoughts

Zero Trust Architecture transforms your firm's security posture from reactive protection to proactive verification while ensuring compliance with essential ABA Model Rules. For legal practices handling confidential client information, this security framework is not optional. It protects your clients, your firm's reputation, and your ability to practice law with integrity.

TSL Labs 🧪Bonus: 🎙️ From Cyber Compliance to Cyber Dominance: What VA's AI Revolution Means for Government Cybersecurity, Legal Ethics, and ABA Model Rule Compliance!

In this TSL Labs bonus episode, we examine this week’s editorial on how the Department of Veterans Affairs is leading a historic transformation from traditional compliance frameworks to a dynamic, AI-driven approach called "cyber dominance." This conversation unpacks what this seismic shift means for legal professionals across all practice areas—from procurement and contract law to privacy, FOIA, and litigation. Whether you're advising government agencies, representing contractors, or handling cases where data security matters, this discussion provides essential insights into how continuous monitoring, zero trust architecture, and AI-driven threat detection are redefining professional competence under ABA Model Rule 1.1. 💻⚖️🤖

Join our AI hosts and me as we discuss the following three questions and more!

1. How has federal cybersecurity evolved from the compliance era to the cyber dominance paradigm? 🔒

2. What are the three technical pillars—continuous monitoring, zero trust architecture, and AI-driven detection—and how do they interconnect? 🛡️

3. What professional liability and ethical obligations do lawyers now face under ABA Model Rule 1.1 regarding technology competence? ⚖️

In our conversation, we cover the following:

• [00:00:00] - Introduction: TSL Labs Bonus Podcast on VA's AI Revolution 🎯

• [00:01:00] - Introduction to Federal Cybersecurity: The End of the Compliance Era 📋

• [00:02:00] - Legal Implications and Professional Liability Under ABA Model Rules ⚖️

• [00:03:00] - From Compliance to Continuous Monitoring: Understanding the Static Security Model 🔄

• [00:04:00] - The False Comfort of Compliance-Only Approaches 🚨

• [00:05:00] - The Shift to Cyber Dominance: Three Integrated Technical Pillars 💪

• [00:06:00] - Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) Explained: Verify Everything, Trust Nothing 🔐

• [00:07:00] - AI-Driven Detection and Legal Challenges: Professional Competence Under Model Rule 1.1 🤖

• [00:08:00] - The New Legal Questions: Real-Time Risk vs. Static Compliance 📊

• [00:09:00] - Evolving Compliance: From Paper Checks to Dynamic Evidence 📈

• [00:10:00] - Cybersecurity as Operational Discipline: DevSecOps and Security by Design 🔧

• [00:11:00] - Litigation Risks: Discovery, Red Teaming, and Continuous Monitoring Data ⚠️

• [00:12:00] - Cyber Governance with AI: Algorithmic Bias and Explainability 🧠

• [00:13:00] - Synthesis and Future Outlook: Law Must Lead, Not Chase Technology 🚀

• [00:14:00] - The Ultimate Question: Is Your Advice Ready for Real-Time Risk Management? 💡

• [00:15:00] - Conclusion and Resources 📚

Resources

Mentioned in the Episode

• ABA Model Rule 1.1 - Competent Representation (including technology competence requirement) - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/

• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cybersecurity Initiative - https://www.va.gov/oit/cybersecurity/

• DevSecOps Pipelines - Security integration in software development - https://www.devsecops.org/

• FedRAMP (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program) - https://www.fedramp.gov/

• FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) - https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/federal-information-security-modernization-act

• Google Notebook AI - AI discussion generation tool - https://notebooklm.google.com/

• HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) - https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.html

• NIST Cybersecurity Framework - https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework

• Red Teaming - Ethical hacking and security testing methodology - https://www.cisa.gov/red-team-assessments

• Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) - Federal mandate for security verification - https://www.cisa.gov/zero-trust

Software & Cloud Services Mentioned in the Conversation

• AI-Driven Detection Systems - Automated threat detection and response platforms

• Automated Compliance Platforms - Dynamic evidence generation systems

• Continuous Monitoring Systems - Real-time security assessment platforms

• DevSecOps Tools - Automated security testing in software development pipelines

• Firewalls - Network security hardware devices

• Google Notebook AI - https://notebooklm.google.com/

• Penetration Testing Software - Security vulnerability assessment tools

• Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) Solutions - Identity and access verification systems

📻 BONUS: Tech-Savvy Lawyer on Law Practice Today Podcast — Essential Trust Account Tips for Solo & Small Law Firms w/ Terrell Turner

🙏 Special Thanks to Terrell Turner and the ABA for having me on the Law Practice Today Podcast, produced by the Law Practice Division of the American Bar Association. We have an important discussion on trust account management. We cover essential insights on managing trust accounts using online services. This episode has been edited for time, but no information was altered. We are grateful to the ABA and the Law Practice Today Podcast for allowing us to share this valuable conversation with our audience.

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

1. What precautions should lawyers using online services to manage trust accounts be aware of?

2. How can solo and small firm attorneys find competent bookkeepers who understand legal trust accounting?

3. What security measures should attorneys implement when using online payment processors for client funds?

⏱️ In our conversation, we cover the following:

00:00 – Introduction & Preview: Trust Accounts in the Digital Age

01:00 – Welcome to the Law Practice Today Podcast

01:30 – Today's Topic: Online Services for Payments

02:00 – Guest Introduction: Michael D.J. Eisenberg's Background

03:00 – Michael's Experience with Trust Accounts

04:00 – Challenges for Solo and Small Practitioners

05:00 – Ensuring Security in Online Services

06:00 – Questions to Ask Online Payment Providers

07:00 – Password Security & Two-Factor Authentication

08:00 – Finding a Competent Legal Bookkeeper

09:00 – Why 8AM Law Pay Works for Attorneys

10:00 – Daily Monitoring of Trust Accounts

11:00 – FDIC Insurance & Silicon Valley Bank Lessons

13:00 – Researching Trust Account Best Practices

15:00 – Closing Remarks & Podcast Information

📚 Resources

🔗 Connect with Terrell

💼 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/terrellturner/

🌐 Website: https://www.tlturnergroup.com/

🎙️ Law Practice Today Podcast – https://lawpracticetoday.buzzsprout.com

📰 Mentioned in the Episode

• ABA Model Rule 1.5 – Maintaining client property separate from your own

• ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 – Technology competence requirement for attorneys

• ABA TECHSHOW 2026 – March 25-28, 2026 in Chicago, IL – https://www.techshow.com

• Law Practice Today Article by Michael D.J. Eisenberg (May 15, 2025): "What Precautions Should Lawyers Using Online Services to Manage Trust Accounts Be Aware Of?” - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-practice-today/2025/may-2025/what-precautions-should-lawyers-using-online-services-to-manage-trust-accounts-be-aware-of/

💻 Software & Cloud Services Mentioned in the Conversation

• 8AM Law Pay – Legal payment processing designed for trust account compliance – https://www.8am.com/lawpay/

• 1Password – Password manager for generating and syncing complex passwords – https://1password.com/

• LastPass – Mentioned as a password manager with noted security concerns – https://www.lastpass.com/

📖 Word ("Phrase") of the Week: Mobile Device Management: Essential Security for Today's Law Practice 📱🔒

Mobile Device Management is an essential concept for lawyers.

Mobile Device Management (MDM) has become essential for law firms navigating today's mobile-first legal landscape. As attorneys increasingly access confidential client information from smartphones, tablets, and laptops outside traditional office settings, MDM technology provides the security framework necessary to protect sensitive data while enabling productive remote work.

Understanding MDM in Legal Practice

MDM refers to software that allows IT teams to remotely manage, secure, and support mobile devices used across an organization. For law firms, this technology provides centralized control to enforce password requirements, encrypt data, install security updates, locate devices, and remotely lock or wipe lost or stolen devices. These capabilities directly address the ethical obligations attorneys face under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Ethical Obligations Drive MDM Adoption

The legal profession faces unique ethical requirements regarding technology use. ABA Model Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to maintain technological competence, including understanding "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology". Rule 1.6 mandates that lawyers "make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client".

ABA Formal Opinion 498 specifically addresses virtual practice considerations. The opinion cautions that lawyers should disable listening capabilities of smart speakers and virtual assistants while discussing client matters unless the technology assists the law practice. This guidance underscores the importance of thoughtful technology implementation in legal practice.

Core MDM Features for Law Firms

Device encryption forms the foundation of MDM security. All client data should be encrypted both in transit and at rest, with granular permissions determining who accesses specific information. Remote wipe capabilities allow immediate data deletion when devices are lost or stolen, preventing unauthorized access to sensitive case information.

Application management enables IT teams to control which applications can access firm resources. Maintaining an approved application list and regularly scanning for vulnerable or unauthorized applications reduces security risks. Containerization separates personal and professional data, ensuring client information remains isolated and secure even if the device is compromised.

Compliance and Monitoring Benefits

lawyers, do you know where your mobile devices are?

MDM solutions help law firms maintain compliance with ABA guidelines, state bar requirements, and privacy laws. The systems generate detailed logs and reports on device activity, which prove vital during audits or internal investigations. Continuous compliance monitoring ensures devices meet security standards while automated checks flag devices falling below required security levels.

Implementation Best Practices

Successful MDM implementation requires establishing clear policies outlining device eligibility, security requirements, and user responsibilities. Firms should enforce device enrollment and compliance, requiring all users to register devices before accessing sensitive systems. Multi-factor authentication enhances security for sensitive data access.

Regular training ensures staff understand security expectations and compliance requirements. Automated software updates and security patches keep devices protected against evolving threats. Role-based access controls prevent unauthorized access to corporate resources by assigning permissions based on job functions.

MDM technology has evolved from optional convenience to ethical necessity. Law firms that implement comprehensive MDM strategies protect client confidentiality, meet professional obligations, and maintain competitive advantage in an increasingly mobile legal marketplace.

Keep Your Practice Safe - Stay Tech Savvy!!!

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

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!

Word of the Week: Synthetic Data 🧑‍💻⚖️

What Is Synthetic Data?

Synthetic data is information that is generated by algorithms to mimic the statistical properties of real-world data, but it contains no actual client or case details. For lawyers, this means you can test software, train AI models, or simulate legal scenarios without risking confidential information or breaching privacy regulations. Synthetic data is not “fake” in the sense of being random or useless—it is engineered to be realistic and valuable for analysis.

How Synthetic Data Applies to Lawyers

• Privacy Protection: Synthetic data allows law firms to comply with strict privacy laws like GDPR and CCPA by removing any real personal identifiers from the datasets used in legal tech projects.

• AI Training: Legal AI tools need large, high-quality datasets to learn and improve. Synthetic data fills gaps when real data is scarce, sensitive, or restricted by regulation.

• Software Testing: When developing or testing new legal software, synthetic data lets you simulate real-world scenarios without exposing client secrets or sensitive case details.

• Cost and Efficiency: It is often faster and less expensive to generate synthetic data than to collect, clean, and anonymize real legal data.

Lawyers know your data source; your license could depend on it!

📢

Lawyers know your data source; your license could depend on it! 📢

Synthetic Data vs. Hallucinations

• Synthetic Data: Created on purpose, following strict rules to reflect real-world patterns. Used for training, testing, and developing legal tech tools. It is transparent and traceable; you know how and why it was generated.

• AI Hallucinations: Occur when an AI system generates information that appears plausible but is factually incorrect or entirely fabricated. In law, this can mean made-up case citations, statutes, or legal arguments. Hallucinations are unpredictable and can lead to serious professional risks if not caught.

Key Difference: Synthetic data is intentionally crafted for safe, ethical, and lawful use. Hallucinations are unintentional errors that can mislead and cause harm.

Why Lawyers Should Care

• Compliance: Using synthetic data helps you stay on the right side of privacy and data protection laws.

• Risk Management: It reduces the risk of data breaches and regulatory penalties.

• Innovation: Enables law firms to innovate and improve processes without risking client trust or confidentiality.

• Professional Responsibility: Helps lawyers avoid the dangers of relying on unverified AI outputs, which can lead to sanctions or reputational damage.

Lawyers know your data source; your license could depend on it!

Samsung's Galaxy Z Series Redefines Mobile Legal Practice: The Ultimate July 2025 Review 📱⚖️

are the new samsung galaxy z mobile phones the next innovation in smart phones for lawyers?

Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold7 and Z Flip7 represent the most transformative mobile devices for legal professionals in 2025, delivering unprecedented productivity enhancements while finally achieving the durability and refinement necessary for serious law practice deployment.

Revolutionary Design: Function Meets Form

Galaxy Z Fold7: The Legal Powerhouse

The Galaxy Z Fold7 achieves what previous foldable generations promised but couldn't deliver—genuine laptop-like productivity in a pocket-sized device. At just 8.9mm folded and an impossibly thin 4.2mm unfolded, it's lighter than most traditional flagships at 215 grams while providing dual-screen functionality. Legal professionals finally have access to a device that feels like a conventional smartphone when closed but transforms into a 7.6-inch tablet workstation when opened.  (Editor’s note: I have to admit that when I held and played with a Fold that I was so impressed it became my new blog/podcast phone!)

The 6.5-inch cover screen with improved 21:9 aspect ratio eliminates the narrow, cramped experience of previous generations, making email management, calendar review, and client communications genuinely usable without unfolding. This addresses a critical pain point for attorneys who need quick access to information between court sessions or client meetings.

Galaxy Z Flip7: Compact Professional Excellence

The Galaxy Z Flip7 transforms the traditional smartphone experience with its 4.1-inch edge-to-edge FlexWindow—now a legitimate secondary interface rather than a glorified notification panel. At 188 grams, it's lighter than most flagship phones while offering a 6.9-inch main display that rivals the Galaxy S25 Ultra when unfolded.

For legal professionals who prioritize portability, the Z Flip7's ability to fold to just 13.7mm thick while maintaining flagship performance represents a paradigm shift in mobile form factors.

Productivity Revolution for Legal Practice

Multitasking Mastery

The Galaxy Z Fold7's Multi-Active Windows capability allows attorneys to run three apps simultaneously—a game-changer for legal workflows. Imagine reviewing case documents in one window, conducting legal research in another, and managing client communications in a third, all on a single device. This level of multitasking was previously impossible on mobile devices and rivals desktop productivity.

Real-world legal applications include:

• Simultaneous document review and note-taking during depositions

• Side-by-side contract comparison and analysis

• Multi-app case management during court proceedings

• Instant legal research while drafting briefs or motions

Scrool to the bottom for a comprehensive comparison table for the Samsung Zs, the iPhone, and the Pixel!

📱

Scrool to the bottom for a comprehensive comparison table for the Samsung Zs, the iPhone, and the Pixel! 📱

Document Management Excellence

Both devices excel at PDF annotation, form completion, and document scanning—core legal tasks that previously required desktop computers or specialized equipment. The 200MP camera system on the Z Fold7 ensures crystal-clear document capture even in challenging lighting conditions, while the large screen makes detailed document review practical on mobile devices.

Legal professionals report dramatically reduced processing times for routine document tasks—what once required printing, manual completion, scanning, and emailing can now be accomplished entirely on the device in under five minutes.

Enterprise Security Meets Legal Compliance

Samsung Knox: Defense-Grade Protection

Samsung Knox provides chip-to-cloud security architecture specifically designed for sensitive professional environments. For legal practices handling confidential client information, Knox's container technology creates separate, encrypted workspaces that isolate professional data from personal applications.

Key security features for legal professionals:

There are noticeable improvements to these devices that may rival apple’s iphone line.

• Hardware-level encryption protecting client confidentiality

• Secure folders for case-sensitive documents and communications

• Enterprise management compatibility with law firm IT policies

• Regular security updates for seven years—crucial for compliance requirements

• AI-Powered Productivity with Privacy Controls

Galaxy AI integration enhances legal workflows without compromising data privacy. Note Assist automatically organizes meeting notes into actionable items, while Interpreter in FlexMode facilitates hands-free client communications. Importantly, many AI features process data on-device, addressing legal industry privacy concerns. (Editor’s note - always check the terms of service and other reliable sources to confirm your client’s PII is protected before using any AI service.)

Competitive Analysis: Leading the Professional Mobile Market

Performance Leadership

The Snapdragon 8 Elite processor in the Z Fold7 delivers flagship-level performance with up to 16GB RAM and 1TB storage—specifications that rival desktop computers from just a few years ago. This computational power enables smooth operation of multiple legal applications simultaneously, from case management software to video conferencing platforms.

Camera Systems: Evidence Documentation Excellence

The Z Fold7's 200MP main camera represents a significant upgrade for legal documentation needs. Whether capturing whiteboard notes during strategy sessions, photographing evidence at accident scenes, or documenting contract details, the camera system delivers professional-grade results.

The 10MP telephoto with 3x optical zoom proves particularly valuable for detailed text capture—essential when photographing contracts, court documents, or exhibit materials.

Battery Life: All-Day Professional Use

Both devices feature 4,300-4,400mAh batteries designed to support intensive legal workflows throughout extended court sessions or client meetings. 25W fast charging minimizes downtime between professional engagements.

Market Impact: Reshaping Legal Technology Adoption

Is there a galaxy z in your firm’s future?

Industry Momentum Building

Samsung's foldable preorders increased 25% year-over-year in July 2025, with 38% surge in US shipments indicating growing professional adoption. Legal professionals represent a significant portion of this growth, driven by the productivity benefits and enterprise security features.

Competitive Response

With Apple yet to enter the foldable market and Google's Pixel Fold lacking the productivity optimizations of Samsung's devices, the Galaxy Z series maintains a unique position in professional mobile computing. This market leadership provides legal practices with proven, mature foldable technology rather than experimental alternatives.

Limitations and Considerations

Investment Analysis - Are they worth the price?

Pricing remains a significant consideration—the Z Fold7 starts at $1,999, while the Z Flip7 begins at $1,099. However, for attorneys who can leverage the productivity benefits, the devices may justify their premium pricing through improved billable hour efficiency and reduced need for multiple devices.

Learning Curve Management

Staff training requirements should be considered for firm-wide deployments. The unique interface and multitasking capabilities require adjustment from traditional smartphone usage patterns.

Durability in Professional Environments

While both devices are tested for 200,000 folds (approximately 10 years of use) and feature IP48 water resistance, legal professionals working in challenging environments may need additional protection. The removal of S Pen support from the Z Fold7 eliminates handwritten note-taking capabilities that some attorneys preferred.

Final Thoughts: Verdict for the Galaxy Z phone series - Transformative Technology for Modern Legal Practice

The Galaxy Z Fold7 and Z Flip7 represent the first foldable devices mature enough for serious legal practice adoption. The combination of flagship performance, enterprise security, productivity optimization, and refined design creates compelling value propositions for different attorney needs.

For litigation attorneys and corporate lawyers who require maximum screen real estate and multitasking capability, the Z Fold7 delivers unprecedented mobile productivity that approaches desktop-level functionality. For attorneys prioritizing portability and quick access to communications, the Z Flip7 offers flagship performance in an exceptionally compact form factor.

I don’t know if my excitement to use the Fold justifies a switch in my legal work device (and move from my iPhone to the Fold), but the significant hardware improvements, including thinner profiles, better displays, enhanced cameras, and robust security features, position the Flip and the Fold as legitimate professional tools rather than technological novelties. With seven years of security updates and Samsung's enterprise support infrastructure, these devices meet the long-term stability requirements of legal practice.

Samsung has successfully transformed foldable phones from experimental curiosities into practical productivity tools that can genuinely enhance legal workflows and professional efficiency. For law practices ready to embrace next-generation mobile technology, the Galaxy Z series delivers the durability, functionality, and enterprise features necessary for professional legal work.

Compare the specs for the Zs, the iphone and the iphone.

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. 🚀