Sui Generis--a New York law blog

10 Practical Ways for Legal Professionals to Start Using Generative AI Today

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

10 Practical Ways for Legal Professionals to Start Using Generative AI Today

Last week, I was in Chicago for the ABA Techshow. This was my 16th year attending, and while there, I presented a number of times, including “Top 60 AI Use Cases in 60 Minutes.” During this session, Greg Siskind and I offered a rapid-fire roundup of six different ways that legal professionals could use generative artificial intelligence (AI) to streamline workflows and law firm operations.

During our talk, we discussed specific, hands-on ways lawyers can start using generative AI in their firms to improve legal and business process workflows. In many cases, consumer-generative AI software like ChatGPT can be used; in others, legal-specific tools are needed to protect confidentiality and appropriately analyze and leverage law firm data.

Below, I’ll share ten of the tips that I covered that can be accomplished using generally available tools like ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude. You can find a complete list of the sixty tips, which includes suggested prompts for each one, here.

The first tip is to use generative AI to assist you in writing better prompts for AI tools. A clear prompt leads to better results, which saves time and reduces frustration. This makes it easier to get meaningful and useful output.

Next, save time by using generative AI to assist in drafting law firm newsletters. Keeping clients updated on firm news and legal developments takes time. Generative AI can streamline newsletter creation, making it easier to stay in touch with clients, freeing up more time for billable work.

AI is also useful for brainstorming social media post ideas. Posting engaging content regularly is no easy task. Generative AI can reduce the lift by providing a steady flow of post ideas, ensuring a more consistent and effective online presence.

Another area where generative AI can assist is writing website content. Your firm’s website must clearly and accurately describe your firm and its practice areas. Generative AI can quickly draft relevant content that reflects your firm’s tone and values, making it easier to keep the site up-to-date and client-focused.

Performance reviews are another area where generative AI is useful. It can help set clear expectations within your firm by creating performance review criteria, supporting fair evaluations, and ensuring that everyone in your firm fully understands how their efforts are being measured.

AI can also improve client intake forms and reduce the time required to create them. By drafting intake forms that ensure consistent collection of necessary information for each case, onboarding is streamlined, reducing unnecessary back-and-forth with clients.

Generative AI is also helpful for reviewing internal workflows. It effectively can serve as a law firm consultant, reviewing how firm processes occur and offering tips to increase efficiency. Use it to establish step-by-step workflows that reduce wasted time and streamline firm operations.

Next up is language translation. Clear communication with clients is essential, especially when there’s a language barrier. By using generative AI during client consultations, you can quickly and easily translate conversations in real-time, helping you understand clients on the fly and making legal services more accessible.

The tone of communication matters, too. AI can revise emails or documents so that they are more empathetic, more formal, or more direct—depending on your needs. Oftentimes you’ll find this functionality will be built into tools you already use, like law practice management software. Lawyers are good at solving client problems but aren’t always effective at communicating outcomes empathetically. This use case solves that problem and increases the effectiveness of client communication.

Finally, jury selection is another area where AI can help. It can be used to brainstorm voir dire questions tailored to the case to uncover bias or a lack of receptiveness to your client’s position. Honing in on a specific issue and seeking ideas for ways to address it can often provide you with creative and effective approaches for voir dire.

Those are just a sampling of the use cases covered in our presentation. Make sure to check out the full list for all sixty tips. You’re sure to discover a few ideas that will increase efficiency and productivity both personally and firmwide.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Be curious and adapt–or be left behind

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

Be curious and adapt–or be left behind

It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able to adapt to and to adjust best to the changing environment in which it finds itself.

–Leon C. Megginson

For many years, legal professionals had the relative luxury of disregarding technology even as it advanced at unprecedented rates. Ignoring it was unwise and arguably a failure of ethical obligations of competence, but it was nevertheless possible. You could remain oblivious without serious ramifications.

In 2012, avoiding technology became a professional liability when the duty of technology competence was added to Comment 8 of ABA Model Rule 1.1 by the ABA House of Delegates. Revised Comment 8 now states: “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.”

Since that time, at least 40 U.S. states, including New York, have formally adopted the duty of technology competence in their versions of Rule 1.1.

Right around that time, the pace of technological advancement began to accelerate. Before 2012, Moore’s Law—which predicted computing power would double roughly every two years—held true. This steady, predictable level of change made it easy to overlook technological progress. However, that period of gradual evolution ended just as Rule 1.1 was updated, ushering in an era of rapid innovation.

At the same time, the demand for computing power to support artificial intelligence (AI) skyrocketed, doubling approximately every 3-4 months—far outpacing Moore’s Law. By 2019-2020, breakthroughs like OpenAI’s GPT-3 pushed AI beyond narrow applications, enabling automation and decision-making at a never-before-seen scale.

Then came 2022. With the launch of ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools, AI became not only more powerful but widely accessible. The rate of change continued to accelerate at a breakneck pace.

The end result is that today, lawyers no longer have the luxury of gradual adaptation. Falling behind means losing ground to those who embrace technology. Or, as is oft-repeated in legal technology circles, “Lawyers won’t be replaced by AI; lawyers who use AI will replace lawyers who don’t.” In other words, failing to adopt AI into your firm will ensure the loss of your competitive advantage.

Why? Because clients expect efficiency. Courts are digitizing. And, AI is impacting law firm workflows, from business processes and law firm management to legal research and contract review. Firms relying on AI tools will significantly increase productivity and reduce the number of new hires, ultimately increasing profitability. 

AI-driven efficiency gains will enable firms to price legal services more competitively. In lieu of the billable hour, alternative fee models can be more easily implemented. Generative AI integrated into legal billing or practice management platforms can analyze law firm data and assist in determining competitive, profitable flat fees for matters, offering legal clients the cost predictability they prefer.

The bottom line: the days of gradual technological advancements are long gone. The pace of change won’t slow down, and neither can you. Firmwide technology education and adoption must be a priority, and innovative client service must take precedence.

In 2025, keeping up with technology is no longer optional—it’s a professional survival skill. The question isn’t whether AI will impact your practice but when and whether you’ll be ready when it does.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

 

The Legal Tech Divide: How Firm Size Determines Work and Innovation Trends

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

The Legal Tech Divide: How Firm Size Determines Work and Innovation Trends

How does your firm compare when it comes to AI implementation, hybrid work, and finance management software adoption? Not sure? Then check out the 2025 AffiniPay Legal Industry Report, which was released earlier this week. This report is based on responses from over 2,800 legal professionals, and the data highlights notable differences in how firms of various sizes are approaching technology adoption and workplace flexibility. 

The data shows that while large firms and solo practitioners are embracing AI and hybrid work, smaller and mid-sized firms are sticking with more traditional in-office approaches and slower tech adoption. These differences reflect the practical realities of running a law firm in 2024, with firm size impacting a range of issues from remote work policies to software implementation.

First, let’s take a look at work arrangements. This data is a good example of this divide, showing that while only 28% of firms overall require full-time in-office work, smaller firms are the most likely to enforce it. 36% of firms with 2 to 5 lawyers mandate in-office attendance for all employees, the highest of any group. 

In comparison, solo practitioners prefer remote work, with 31% operating virtually—a number far above the overall average of 19%. For solos, remote work isn’t just about flexibility; it’s often a cost-saving measure that eliminates the need for expensive office space.

Mid-sized and large firms are also embracing hybrid models. Firms with 6 to 20 lawyers show a strong preference for hybrid schedules, with 32% implementing them for some employees—nearly double the overall average. Firms with 21 to 50 lawyers follow suit, with 36% offering hybrid work for some staff and 28% extending it to everyone. 

The data shows that the largest shift, however, is occurring at large firms. Only a small number of respondents worked in firms with 51 or more lawyers, but of that subset, 61% of those firms offered hybrid schedules for all employees, nearly three times the overall average. However, fully remote and fully in-office arrangements are rare in this group, with only 6% of firms choosing either extreme. 

Technology adoption follows a similar pattern. Large firms are moving faster when it comes to legal-specific generative AI tools. According to the survey data, 39% of firms with 51 or more lawyers report using legal-specific generative AI, compared to approximately 20% with 50 or fewer lawyers, regardless of firm size. One reason for this large gap is likely because large firms already have costly major legal research platforms in place, most of which are rapidly integrating AI features.

Payroll software adoption rates are also impacted by firm size. While one-third of all legal professionals surveyed use payroll software, its adoption proves to be far more common in larger firms. According to the data, only 23% of solo practitioners use payroll software, likely because they have few, if any, employees. But at firms with 51 or more lawyers, 50% use payroll software, likely due to the increased administrative complexity inherent in larger firms. 

No matter how you look at it, the survey data makes one thing clear: firm size isn’t just about headcount. It impacts workflows, software choices, and office footprints. Large firms are leading the way in AI and hybrid work, while smaller and mid-size firms continue to favor in-office setups and take a more cautious approach to new technology. Solo practitioners fall somewhere in between. Whether it’s flexibility, automation, or AI-driven efficiency, firms of all sizes are making choices that reflect their unique needs. 

Where does your firm fit in? To obtain even more benchmark data, including insights by practice area, check out the full report for statistics on issues ranging from time tracking and billing software implementation to preferences about virtual court proceedings.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Top 5 Ways to Improve Client Service with Technology

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

Top 5 Ways to Improve Client Service with Technology

Next month, I’m looking forward to attending and speaking at the ABA TECHSHOW. One of the sessions will focus on using technology to provide client-friendly legal representation. The expectations of legal consumers are changing and embracing technology is essential in today’s increasingly competitive environment. 

In 2025, providing exceptional service involves more than successful outcomes. 21st-century clients require both a successful outcome and a seamless, transparent, and stress-free experience from start to finish. They expect the same level of convenience they receive from their banks, healthcare providers, and online retailers. This includes real-time access to case information, convenient communication methods, and straightforward billing and payment options. Fortunately, as I discuss below, modern legal technology makes it easier than ever to meet these expectations.

First, if you haven’t transitioned to cloud-based software, now is the time. Many clients expect 24/7 access to online collaboration tools. Using secure cloud-based legal software, clients can, on their own schedule, upload files, ask questions, and receive timely responses without the hassle of long email chains. Even better, online legal platforms centralize case-related discussions and documents, allowing them to self-help and obtain documents, information about court dates, and more without taxing your firm’s administrative resources.

Secure client communication portals are another way to improve the client experience. At any time day or night, instead of calling the office or waiting for an email response, clients can log in and send messages. Portals provide a more secure way to communicate, reducing reliance on unencrypted email and ensuring that sensitive information is protected. By offering greater transparency and reducing unnecessary back-and-forth communication, client portals create a more efficient and satisfying client experience.

Another way to improve client service is by streamlining document execution with eSignature technology. Traditional signing methods—printing, scanning, and emailing—are time-consuming, inconvenient, and interrupt clients' workdays. With eSignatures, clients can review and sign documents digitally from any internet-enabled device, allowing cases to move forward without unnecessary delays. Whether it’s a retainer agreement, settlement document, or contract, the ability to sign electronically, when permissible, makes legal services more accessible and efficient, benefiting both the client and the firm.

Billing is another area where technology can reduce friction and lead to happier clients. Using legal billing software, you can generate itemized invoices that outline services in plain language, resulting in fewer misunderstandings and making it easier for clients to see the value of the work performed on their behalf. Systems that include built-in portals ensure clients can easily view their billing history and outstanding balances in one place, further enhancing accessibility. 

Finally, offer flexible payment options. Many legal consumers expect to pay bills online with a credit card or ACH transfer. Some may need the option to pay in installments or take advantage of legal fee loans offered by third-party lenders. Automated invoice reminders can further streamline the process, ensuring more consistent and timely payments. By offering your clients access to multiple payment methods, you not only increase access to justice, you make it easier for them to manage and pay for legal expenses. 

The world is changing, as are client expectations. Stand out in the competitive legal marketplace by using modern software that increases accessibility, efficiency, and transparency. By investing in technology like secure collaboration tools, client portals, eSignature tools, streamlined billing, and flexible payment options, you can successfully meet client expectations. 

An intuitive, seamless, technology-enabled client experience will lead to happy clients at the end of a matter who will very likely send referrals your way. What more could you ask for?

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

 

 

The Legal Profession’s Shift to LinkedIn: What You Need to Know

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

The Legal Profession’s Shift to LinkedIn: What You Need to Know

A decade ago, LinkedIn was little more than a digital resume. Today, it’s the primary networking platform for legal professionals. It’s come a long way since the book I co-authored about social media for lawyers was published by the American Bar Association in 2010. Back then, LinkedIn barely merited a mention. Interaction on the platform was minimal, and its primary benefit was assisting with job searches.

At the time, Twitter and Facebook were the top social networks for legal professionals, and Instagram was in its infancy. If you’d suggested to me that one day LinkedIn would be my primary social media outlet, I’d have called you crazy.

Yet here we are—I’ve abandoned Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram. I’ve found that many people in my professional circles were less active on those networks, and even if they did interact, their posts showed up less and less. 

As social media platforms chased engagement at all costs, my feeds became cluttered with irrelevant content. Instead of updates from colleagues, I saw rage bait and viral nonsense. Instead of updates from colleagues, friends, and family members, I was seeing unwanted, irrelevant content from strangers. LinkedIn, by contrast, still delivers professional conversations that matter.

Those algorithm changes were the primary reason I abandoned those networks. Enter LinkedIn, the last network standing that isn’t (yet) powered by profit-driving algorithms, and still prioritizes professional content over viral engagement. 

Historically, studies have shown that LinkedIn has always had the highest number of legal professionals on it. It’s the professional network so that only makes sense.

Since the pandemic, however, LinkedIn engagement in legal circles has increased dramatically. People aren’t just setting up accounts, they’re actively sharing updates and news with their connections. Typically, professional topics are discussed but not always. Some people post about hobbies like cooking, and others focus on how they’ve overcome personal challenges.

There are many recent feature updates that make the platform more engaging, such as newsletters, videos, and even daily puzzles. If you haven’t checked out LinkedIn in a while, it’s worth revisiting it. You’ll undoubtedly find notable updates from colleagues and will see some using it very creatively to highlight their law firms’ successes.

If you decide to give LinkedIn a second chance, make sure your profile is up to date. Complete all of the sections, draft a compelling “About” section, and draft a succinct and accurate headline that showcases your professional areas of focus. When you comment on other's posts, the first line of the headline appears after your name. Clarity and simplicity will go a long way, ensuring that everyone knows exactly who you are and what you do.

Next, determine your goals. What do you hope to gain from interacting on LinkedIn? Do you want to stay connected with your professional network, promote your law practice, or reach new clients? Are you seeking to stay up to date on changes in your areas of practice, learn about new technologies, or explore new career options? Perhaps it’s a combination of a few of those objectives. 

Understanding your “why” necessarily impacts your “how.” Once you’ve identified what you’d like to accomplish, the next step is to set about getting it done. 

Come up with a plan by first identifying a few key topics that you’ll focus on to advance your goals. Avoid posting only promotional content and include educational information as well. Consider using a generative artificial tool like ChatGPT to assist with brainstorming ideas for, and drafts of, LinkedIn posts. 

Determine how often you’ll post and stick to it. Make sure to interact with others on the platform. Respond to comments left on your posts and comment on, “like” and re-share your connections’ content when appropriate. 

Finally, carefully review your jurisdictions’ ethics rules regarding social media usage and ensure that your LinkedIn profile and interactions are compliant. There is an abundance of ethical guidance available, and there’s no reason to unnecessarily put your law license at risk.

LinkedIn has become a valuable space for legal professionals seeking to stay informed, connect with colleagues, and engage in meaningful discussions. With a thoughtful approach—keeping your profile current, setting clear objectives, and participating actively—you can use the platform to strengthen professional relationships and stay involved in key conversations. If you haven’t explored LinkedIn in a while, there’s no better time than now to give it another look.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

 

 

From Resistance to Reality: Lawyers Can No Longer Ignore AI

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

From Resistance to Reality: Lawyers Can No Longer Ignore AI

Historically, our profession’s response to emerging technologies has been lukewarm at best, sometimes peppered with contempt. For many lawyers, technology was viewed as an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion into their purposefully analog world. 

However, as the pace of innovation accelerated, attitudes necessarily changed, with technology resistance proving futile and counterproductive. These shifts in perspective were often reinforced by timely ethics guidance, which helped clear the path for compliant technology adoption.

With the advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI), advancements have unfolded faster than ever before. During that time, I tracked the emergence of generative (AI) and the corresponding ethics opinions handed down by bar associations across the country. If you follow my column, you know that the rapidity of the response and the depth of the advice provided has been unprecedented and much-needed.

Jurisdictions have taken many approaches, with some providing general guidance, others drafting reports, and still others issuing ethics opinions. Texas, however, has taken a dual-pronged approach, releasing both a report and an ethics opinion. 

In July of last year, I wrote about the “Interim Report to the State Bar of Texas Board of Directors,” authored by the Texas Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law, which addressed the benefits and risks of AI and included recommendations for the ethical adoption of these tools. 

Then, earlier this month, the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas released Opinion 705. In it, the Committee addressed the ethical issues raised under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct when lawyers use generative artificial intelligence in the practice of law.

Notably, the Committee acknowledged that generative AI and technology, generally, are ever-changing. As a result, its guidance is “intended only to provide a snapshot of potential ethical concerns at the moment and a restatement of certain ethical principles for lawyers to use as a guide regardless of where the technology goes.”

The Committee’s roadmap for generative AI adoption did not differ significantly from that issued in other jurisdictions. Even so, it provided helpful steps for lawyers to take when choosing and adopting AI into their firms.

At the outset, technology competence, a necessary foundation for ethical AI implementation, was addressed. The Committee encouraged lawyers to be open-minded about technology that could reduce inefficiencies. AI clearly falls under that category but requires careful vetting prior to its adoption. Accordingly, lawyers intending to use AI in their firms “must have a reasonable and current understanding of the technology—because only then can the lawyer evaluate the associated risks of hallucinations or inaccurate answers, the limitations that may be imposed by the model’s use of incomplete or inaccurate data, and the potential for exposing client confidential information.”

The Committee provided a roadmap for implementation, offering suggested steps to take to ensure compliant AI adoption that preserves client confidentiality: 1) Acquire a foundational understanding of how the technology functions;  2) Review and, if necessary, renegotiate the terms of service the lawyer agrees to when using the generative AI tool; 3) Assess the generative AI tool’s data security measures, recognizing that even if user inputs aren’t intentionally shared, stored information may be vulnerable to hacking; and 4) Train lawyers and staff on the proper use of generative AI tools to safeguard client confidentiality.

The Committee cautioned lawyers about permitting AI tools to train on inputted data, highlighting the importance of understanding how a specific tool works, and suggested that in some cases, it may be advisable to obtain client consent before submitting confidential information as part of a query. The need to verify the accuracy of information provided by generative AI tools was also emphasized. 

Finally, the Committee determined that generative AI fees can be passed onto clients as long as they’ve consented. Furthermore, lawyers can only charge for the time spent on a client’s matter and cannot charge for time saved due to the efficiency gains offered by generative AI software.

With ethical guidance widely available, nothing stands in the way of AI adoption. Bar associations nationwide have provided clear ethics guidance outlining how to choose and use generative AI responsibly. The roadmap is there—understand the technology, assess risks, protect client data, and ensure compliance. The time for skepticism has passed; now, the focus is on responsible, informed implementation. Moving forward, the choice isn’t whether to engage with AI but how to do so ethically and effectively.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

AI in Law Firms: Ethics Committees Are Clearing the Path Forward

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

AI in Law Firms: Ethics Committees Are Clearing the Path Forward

Whenever new technologies become available to lawyers, ethical concerns initially pose a significant hurdle to adoption. This friction is understandable. Legal professionals are necessarily cautious about tinkering with trusted legal workflows and processes, sometimes resulting in a reluctance to embrace new and innovative ways of working. Our clients trust us with highly sensitive information, and we have an obligation to ensure that confidentiality is not compromised when implementing new software.

We rely on ethics opinions to assist with technology transitions, but their arrival isn’t always as timely as we’d like. Historically, ethics committees have taken years to weigh in on issues like lawyers' use of social media or cloud computing. That delay in issuing guidance often slows down or even prevents industry-wide technology adoption.

With the arrival of generative artificial intelligence (AI), a roadmap to ethical adoption was needed, and quickly, given the unprecedented rate of advancement. Fortunately, bar associations nationwide rose to the occasion, issuing timely and in-depth guidance in months, not years. Since the spring of 2023, many jurisdictions released guidance or opinions on the ethics of using AI in law firms: California, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, the American Bar Association, Virginia, D.C., and New Mexico. 

Most recently, North Carolina joined their ranks in November, handing down 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1. In the opinion, the Ethics Committee addressed six inquiries about ethical AI adoption.  

First, the Committee concluded that lawyers may integrate AI into their practice as long as they do so competently, protect client confidentiality, and properly supervise AI-generated work. This aligns with existing ethical obligations requiring attorneys to maintain competence, safeguard client information, and oversee nonlawyer assistants.

Second, the opinion addressed whether attorneys can share client information with third-party AI programs. According to the Committee, lawyers may use these tools only after they have fully vetted the provider and verified that adequate security measures are in place to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure, thus ensuring compliance with confidentiality rules.

Third, the Committee reviewed ethical obligations when using in-house AI systems, opining that doing so does not exempt lawyers from their ethical responsibilities. Attorneys must implement strong security measures and remain vigilant against potential vulnerabilities, maintaining the same diligence level as third-party AI services.

Fourth, the opinion emphasized that lawyers remain fully responsible for the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated pleadings submitted to the court. Attorneys must carefully review all AI outputs to ensure legal and factual accuracy, just as they would any other work product.

Fifth, the Committee considered whether AI use must be disclosed to clients. The Committee explained that attorneys do not need to inform clients if AI is used for routine tasks like legal research. However, consent is required if AI is employed for “substantive tasks in furtherance of the representation.” That scenario is the same as work performed by a nonlawyer or third-party service, both of which require client consent.

Finally, the issue of billing practices was addressed. The Committee determined that lawyers must bill clients only for the time spent performing the work, and cannot bill for time saved as a result of using AI. However, attorneys may charge clients for reasonable AI-related expenses, provided those costs are disclosed upfront. Notably, the Committee suggested that lawyers consider flat fee payment structures when drafting documents with AI.

Like the guidance that preceded it, this opinion provides North Carolina lawyers with a clear roadmap to AI adoption. The Committee reinforces AI’s benefits and offers practical steps to ensure compliance with ethical duties. With abundant ethics guidance available, there’s no excuse to fall behind. Now is the time to embrace AI and take full advantage of all it offers.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

NY Ethics Opinion Addresses Lawyer Imposter Accounts

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

NY Ethics Opinion Addresses Lawyer Imposter Accounts

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery—or is it? What if the mimicry in question harms your professional reputation? Even worse, what if your reaction to it, or lack thereof, could negatively impact your license to practice law?

Recently, a New York immigration attorney grappled with those very questions and sought answers from the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics in Ethics Opinion 1276 (online: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1276-fake-social-media-accounts-offering-legal-services/).

In this case, the inquiring attorney had a very successful online presence. He posted videos to a popular social media platform explaining immigration information and procedural processes to the general public. Eventually, he discovered that someone had been using his name, photo, and immigration videos to create fake accounts on the same social networking site. 

Fearing that legal consumers would be scammed into contacting and possibly trying to hire the unknown imposter, he reported the accounts and requested their removal, to no avail. He also posted videos using his social media account warning his followers about the issue.

After doing so, he was concerned that he could be ethically required to take further action, so he submitted this query to the Committee: “Does a lawyer have any ethical obligations with regard to fake social media accounts in which scammers use the lawyer’s social media videos to attract clients?”

In reaching its determination, the Committee first considered whether any affirmative misconduct on the inquirer’s part had occurred. The Committee answered in the negative, explaining that instead, “he is the victim of misconduct by others (who may not even be lawyers), and those others – over Inquirer’s objection – are engaging in improper conduct. Far from assisting or inducing the scammers to engage in this conduct, Inquirer is trying to impede or stop the scammers and to warn the public about He therefore is not violating Rule 8.4(a)-(c).”

The next issue addressed was whether he acted unethically by failing to respond more assertively to the fake accounts. According to the Committee, three Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to report certain types of misconduct. Two of those rules (Rules 3.3(a)(3) and 3.3(b)) were deemed inapplicable since they require lawyers to report behavior occurring “before a tribunal” or “during a proceeding,” respectively. Because the conduct was occurring online and had nothing to do with a pending case, there was no obligation under the rules to report the conduct.

The Committee then examined the third situation outlined in Rule 8.3(a) and concluded that it, too, did not apply to the case at hand: “Rule 8.3(a) provides that a lawyer who “knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation." This provision does not apply here because the Inquirer does not know whether any person creating fake social media accounts is a lawyer.

Based on its analysis, the Committee concluded that the inquiring attorney had no duty under the Rules to report or otherwise combat the fake accounts. 

While the fake accounts are undoubtedly frustrating, the good news is the lawyer doesn’t have to worry about any ethical fallout. The Committee made it clear—being impersonated online isn’t something the Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to address proactively.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

---

 

. 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Florida Bar Releases Handy Generative AI Guide for Lawyers

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

Florida Bar Releases Handy Generative AI Guide for Lawyers

One of the most common questions I hear from lawyers about generative artificial intelligence (AI) is “Where do I start?” The pace of change since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022 has been dramatic—so much so that tracking the latest GAI developments can feel like a full-time job. 

If you haven’t prioritized AI education, then getting up to speed can be a challenge. And even then, once you wrap your head around the basic concepts, there’s still a long way to go. You’ll need to determine your firm’s needs, learn about the different types of tools available, and understand ethical compliance issues.

Armed with that knowledge, the next steps are to research and vet providers–including the tools your firm is already using that may have embedded GAI–and then choose and implement the tools that will work best for your firm. After that, firmwide education and training should follow.

It’s a lot to think about, isn’t it? No wonder so many lawyers feel overwhelmed.

Fortunately, bar associations have risen to the occasion, regularly issuing ethics opinions and AI guidance over the past two years. A notable and very recent example is the “Florida Bar Guide to Getting Started with AI.” It provides a user-friendly,  broad overview of AI and generative AI and includes definitions, explanations of the technologies, an analysis of ethical issues, implementation advice, practical resources, and much more.

Notably, the authors emphasize the importance of technology competence and making educated decisions about adopting legal technology, including AI: “Each lawyer should explore and make the decision whether to use AI or not based on their individual practices and circumstances, being mindful of applicable ethical rules as well as any unique risks from using particular AI models.”

The authors also highlight the differences between different AI tools and explain how legal-specific AI tools reduce errors in output by training on highly relevant legal data: “There are general and law-specific AI models. General models are trained on large sets of human-created data, while legal models take a general model and fine-tune it using law-specific data, such as court opinions, law review articles and example documents. Legal models usually have constraints on the sources of information they use in creating their responses, which are intended to reduce hallucination risk.”

As with any technology, carefully vetting the vendor and its product is essential when choosing an AI provider: “When you find a general AI vendor you like, check its security reputation, hallucination risk, various AI model features, and paid plan options for individuals or businesses.”

An important takeaway from the guide is that the current state of technology requires that all responses be carefully reviewed to identify any errors:  “(A)lways verify AI-generated outputs yourself to ensure accuracy and reliability, as AI should assist, not replace, human judgment.”

Supervisory responsibilities are also called out, with an emphasis on the need to ensure internal firm guidance and procedures are in place before implementing AI tools: “(I)f associates or nonlawyers will be using AI in your firm, consider a user training program and written guidelines for proper AI usage for client matters.”

Finally, examples of use cases for both general and legal-specific AI are provided. The authors explain that general AI software could be used to draft administrative letters or marketing articles, generate summaries of non-legal documents, and customize presentations. Work that can be completed using task-appropriate legal AI tools includes legal research, document review, document drafting, case preparation, and electronic discovery.

If you’re one of those lawyers who isn’t sure how to get started with GAI, the Florida Bar’s guide is an ideal resource. It breaks down the basics, explains key ethical considerations, and offers practical advice for choosing and implementing AI tools. Staying informed and proactive is essential, and this guide gives you the knowledge and tools you need to approach AI confidently and responsibly.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy Offers Caution With a Side of Clarity

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy Offers Caution With a Side of Clarity

The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by litigants hasn’t exactly been embraced by courts nationwide. Instead, sensational headlines about hallucinated case citations have led to knee-jerk rejections of the technology by many judges, even when the root cause of those mistakes was attorney competency issues. This pattern of restrictive responses highlights the broader challenge faced when balancing innovation with accountability in the legal profession. 

Like many of the emerging technologies that preceded it, AI was not embraced with open arms by our judiciary. Instead, it was met with suspicion and trepidation. Many judges banned its use by litigants, and others require full disclosure of all AI tools used in the preparation of court filings. 

The problem with these extreme responses is that they establish unrealistic standards that won’t withstand the test of time. AI is advancing exponentially and is already embedded in many popular legal software programs, ranging from legal research and law practice management tools to document management and legal billing platforms. As a result, legal professionals are already producing legal work using GAI and may not even realize it. Accordingly, penalizing them for doing so is counterintuitive, at best, and unfairly punitive, at worst.

Fortunately, the tide seems to be turning with the issuance of a new, progressive court AI policy by the Illinois Supreme Court. The policy went into effect on January 1st and provides a judicious approach to the incorporation of GAI tools into the workflows of legal professionals, including court personnel. 

In the policy, the Court wisely acknowledges the inevitability and unprecedented speed of AI adoption, along with the benefits and challenges it presents: “The integration of AI with the courts is increasingly pervasive, offering potential efficiencies and improved access to justice. However, it also raises critical concerns about authenticity, accuracy, bias, and the integrity of court filings, proceedings, evidence, and decisions. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI technology is essential for the Illinois Judicial Branch.”

Importantly, the Court advises that judges take an open-minded approach to AI and its “use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges, judicial clerks, research attorneys” and should not require disclosure when implemented: “The use of AI…should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading.”

The Court also cautions that it’s essential to fully understand any technology, including AI, prior to adopting it and that all AI-created output should be carefully reviewed “before submitting it in any court proceeding to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal and ethical obligations.”

Finally, judges were reminded that they “remain ultimately responsible for their decisions, irrespective of technological advancements.” To assist in their efforts to stay apprised of technological advancements, the Court provided additional resources for judges, including a judicial reference sheet on AI.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s new AI policy offers a thoughtful, balanced approach to AI adoption in our profession. The Court wisely rejects outright bans and unnecessary disclosure mandates, while acknowledging the inevitability of AI adoption. 

 

By highlighting AI’s potential benefits while addressing risks like accuracy, bias, and ethical compliance, it successfully establishes a framework that ensures the ethical and practical adoption of AI without compromising the justice system’s integrity. In doing so, it sets an example for other courts to follow by providing a flexible, forward-thinking roadmap for responsible AI usage in our profession

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

---

 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

The Year Ahead in Legal Tech: AI, Innovation, and Opportunity

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

The Year Ahead in Legal Tech: AI, Innovation, and Opportunity

Looking back on 2024, this Grateful Dead lyric comes to mind: “What a long, strange trip it’s been.” It perfectly captures the upheaval of the last four years, which were nothing if not unpredictable and tumultuous. A worldwide pandemic closed our borders—and our offices—but we never stopped working. Business carried on as usual even as we struggled to wrap our minds around the realities of living in the midst of a deadly, highly contagious virus.  

Technology saved the day. Without it, our world would have come to a grinding halt. Instead, it ushered in a newfound receptivity to cloud and remote working software, priming us for what came next: the generative AI era. 

In late 2022, just as normalcy seemed to return, generative AI became a catalyst for unprecedented change with the release of GPT 3.5. Its release marked a turning point. From there, technological advancement occurred at a rapid clip, with 2024 seeing the continued integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into the tools legal professionals rely on. 

The pace of AI development over the past year, however, was slower than many had predicted. Nevertheless, the impact on the practice of law overall was significant. Legal professionals continued to learn about and experiment with generative AI for many tasks, including legal research, document drafting and editing, brainstorming, and more. 

In fact, according to the 2025 AffiniPay Legal Industry Report, which will be published in the spring, one-fifth of firms have already adopted legal-specific generative AI tools. Personal adoption was even more significant. For example, 47% of immigration practitioners reported personally using generative AI for work-related purposes.

In the coming year, you can expect to see a heightened pace of AI development with generative AI appearing as the interface in all the tools you regularly use in your law firm. From legal research and practice management to legal billing and knowledge management, generative AI conversational interactions will increasingly be the mechanism through which you access all of the information you need to effectively represent your clients’ interests.

You’ll also notice that generative AI will be more deeply embedded into your firm’s IT stack, enabling in-depth analysis of your office's data, including client matters, documents, finances, billable hours, employee productivity, and more. This ability to easily access the metrics needed to run a productive, efficient, and profitable practice will make all the difference and will enable firms to scale and compete more easily in an increasingly competitive, AI-driven legal marketplace. 

Additionally, as generative AI becomes seamlessly embedded into everyday tools, you might not even realize you’re using it. One immediate effect of this deeper-level integration will be that court rules banning AI-generated documents will quickly become outdated and impractical, in part because they could effectively prohibit lawyers from using essential technology altogether. 

Another notable trend in 2025 will be continued regulatory changes and further ethics guidance. Bar associations will issue additional ethics opinions and guidelines that provide roadmaps for compliant AI implementation, effectively removing the remaining barriers that stand in the way of broad-scale adoption. 

Similarly, regulatory changes impacting bar exam and licensure requirements highlight a broader effort to make legal services more accessible. As states revisit licensure rules and AI ethics frameworks evolve, the legal landscape will continue to shift in the face of these efforts to balance innovation with the profession’s core principles.

In other words, if you thought the last few years brought unwelcome upheaval, brace yourself—there’s more to come. Rest assured, our profession won’t be immune from the changes and will likely be impacted far more than others. 

So get ready. Dive in and ensure you’re maintaining technology competence. Sign up for tech-related CLEs, experiment with generative AI, and learn as much as you can about emerging and innovative technologies. 2025 is sure to be a year for the record books, and now is the time to prepare yourselves for what will come. 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Top Picks for 2024: Last-Minute Holiday Gift-Giving

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

Top Picks for 2024: Last-Minute Holiday Gift-Giving

The winter holidays are just around the corner, and you know what that means—it’s the perfect time to tackle your gift shopping. But don’t wait too long—time is running out! Have you finished your holiday shopping yet? Struggling to find the perfect gift for that hard-to-please person in your life? If so, don’t worry! I’ve rounded up a few ideas that might be just what you’re looking for, including a few technology-related options.

Looking for the ideal present for a frequent traveler? I’ve got you covered! Now that most airplanes are equipped with seatback video monitors, compatible headphones are a must-have. Corded headphones are always a reliable fallback, and you can usually get a free pair on board. However, a wireless Bluetooth adapter is the perfect solution for those who prefer cordless headphones. This handy device plugs into the plane’s audio jack, allowing users to connect their Bluetooth headphones seamlessly and enjoy their entertainment wire-free. The Twelve South AirFly Pro Audio Streaming device, which currently costs $54.99 on Amazon, is one good option, but there are plenty of others that do the trick as well.

Another great investment is a ChatGPT Plus subscription, as staying up-to-date with the latest technology is essential for maintaining tech competence. While basic ChatGPT is free, the paid plan, priced at $19.99 per month, offers enhanced control over data and features. With a subscription, users can disable data training to prevent OpenAI from using their input for system training. Additionally, the paid version provides exclusive access to the newest features and the ability to explore or even create GPTs—specialized generative AI agents designed for specific use cases. It’s a thoughtful gift for anyone looking to stay ahead in the tech world!

A walking desk is a fantastic gift idea for the recipient who spends long hours at their desk. Compact walking pads don’t take up much space and often come with an attached desk, allowing users to work comfortably while walking at a steady pace. For example, the HccSport 3-in-1 Under Desk Treadmill Walking Pad with Removable Desk Workstation is available on Amazon for $369.99. This setup is easy to use—just place it under the desk and set the pace—and it’s a worthwhile investment in both the physical health and mental well-being of the sedentary workaholic on your gift list.

If you’re shopping for an oenophile, this idea is sure to be a hit: a subscription to SOMM TV. For just $6.99 monthly or $59.99 annually, the wine lover on your list will gain unlimited access to a treasure trove of wine-focused programming. From iconic films like SOMM and Bottle Shock to exclusive series exploring blind tastings, global wine regions, and specific grapes, there’s always something new to watch. It’s a thoughtful gift that will keep them entertained and informed all year long!

Finally, consider a Coravin for the wine enthusiast on your list. This popular device, favored by sommeliers, is ideal for those who enjoy exploring higher-end wines. Instead of removing the cork, the Coravin uses a fine needle to pierce it, injecting argon gas as you pour a glass, preserving the remaining wine. The Coravin Timeless Three Plus Wine Preservation System, which includes two argon gas capsules, is currently available on Amazon for the special holiday price of $186.75. 

So whether you’re seeking gifts for a technophile, an office warrior, or a wine connoisseur, this year’s gift list has you covered! There's something for everyone, from low-cost subscriptions to practical gadgets and high-end indulgences. With these thoughtful ideas, you can find the perfect present and bring a little extra joy to your loved ones this holiday season. Happy gifting!

 Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

The Risks of Using Dropbox for Client Files

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

The Risks of Using Dropbox for Client Files

Years ago, after the American Bar Association published my “Cloud Computing for Lawyers” book, I was often asked to speak to lawyers about the benefits and risks of implementing cloud computing in law offices. At the time, most lawyers weren’t sure what cloud computing was but were nevertheless confident that they didn’t trust it and didn’t want to adopt it into their firms. 

Conversely, most of them were already using it and just didn’t realize it.

I know this because I would often begin my talks by asking how many people in the room used cloud computing tools. Inevitably only a few attendees would respond affirmatively. Then, I would ask how many in the audience had shared files using Dropbox, and at least half of the people in the room would raise their hands. In other words, most lawyers were using cloud computing, whether it was Dropbox, Box, or Gmail, and simply didn’t realize it.

Fast-forward to the present day, and how times have changed! According to data from the 2022 MyCase Legal Industry Report, the vast majority (80%) of legal professionals surveyed reported that their firms had cloud computing tools in place in their workplaces post-pandemic. Before the pandemic, most survey data showed that cloud computing adoption in the legal profession had remained stable for a number of years at just under 40%.

Despite the increased adoption, the risks associated with cloud computing haven’t changed. As part of your duty of technology competence, it’s essential to carefully vet cloud providers to ensure that your firm’s confidential data is securely stored and encrypted. Whenever you entrust your law firm’s data to a third party you must ensure that you fully understand the procedures and protections in place. This duty includes obtaining information as to how the data will be handled by that company, where the servers on which the data will be stored are located, who will have access to the data, and how often and when it will be backed up, among other things.

Also important is ensuring that the software you choose has features that will protect your client data and that you and your employees receive the necessary training and are familiar with the program's features. The failure to provide proper training and choose a secure platform designed for law firms that includes the features needed to protect confidential data can have unintended consequences.

Case in point: a recent disciplinary reprimand issued by the Indiana Supreme Court. At issue in Matter of James H. Lockwood, Supreme Court Case No. 24S-DI-319, was the respondent’s failure to secure client files stored in Dropbox. 

Specifically, Lockwood had represented a client in a protective order case, and that same client had also worked at Lockwood’s firm for several months as an unpaid non-attorney assistant. During that timeframe, Lockwood provided the client with a Dropbox cloud storage link that provided access to firm materials and client files. The client stopped working for the firm in January 2023, but Lockwood failed to secure or deactivate the Dropbox link, which remained active and unsecured at least through May 2024.

Based on that conduct, the Court concluded that he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.6, which prohibited “revealing information relating to representation of a client without the client’s informed consent.”

This mishap could have been prevented by using software specifically designed for legal professionals. Legal-specific tools address lawyers’ ethical obligations and ensure compliance with confidentiality and data security requirements. These cloud tools often include features like encryption, controlled permissions and access, and activity tracking to ensure client information stays protected.

The lesson to be learned: if your firm still relies on general-use software like Dropbox, it’s time to reconsider your choices and transition to tools designed specifically for legal professionals. Legal-specific platforms address the unique needs of law firms, offering the security and compliance features needed to protect client data and conform to professional standards. Now is the time to make this change to protect client data —- — and your law license — from unnecessary and preventable risk.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

GenAI, Talent, and Remote Work: Legal Industry Trends from the 2024 Wolters Kluwer Survey

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

GenAI, Talent, and Remote Work: Legal Industry Trends from the 2024 Wolters Kluwer Survey

The 2024 Wolters Kluwer Future Ready Lawyer Report was released last month and highlights key trends impacting the legal profession. The survey findings from legal professionals across the U.S. and Europe reveal how organizations are addressing efficiency, regulatory pressures, and evolving client needs to stay competitive in a rapidly changing environment. Topics covered include the integration of generative AI (GenAI) into legal workflows, changing remote work expectations, and the value of work-life balance for talent recruitment and retention.

First, let’s examine the GenAI data. The survey results showed that at least 76% of legal professionals in corporate legal departments and 68% in law firms use GenAI weekly, with 35% and 33%, respectively, using it daily. There are implementation challenges, however, and (37%) of law firm employees and 42% of their corporate counterparts report issues integrating GenAI with their organization’s existing legal systems and processes.

Another notable set of statistics revolved around GenAI’s potential effect on, and potential to disrupt, the almighty billable hour. A surprising 60% of those surveyed expect AI-driven efficiencies to reduce the prevalence of the billable hour moving forward, and 20% predict it will have a significant impact. Fortunately, more than half of the legal professionals surveyed (56%) feel well-prepared to adapt their business practices, service offerings, workflows, and pricing models in response to AI’s potential impact on the traditional billable hour business model.

Additionally, 65% of legal professionals anticipated increased organizational investment in AI technology over the next three years, with 71% anticipating that GenAI’s rapid development will continue impacting firms and corporate legal departments during that same timeframe. 31% believe it will have a significant effect, with 69% feeling generally prepared to manage this impact. Only 26% consider themselves “very prepared.”These findings are evidence of the significant interest in this GenAI, driven by its time-saving benefits. However, trepidation exists regarding the pace of change, implementation challenges, and the levels of investment and training needed to keep up with a rapidly changing technology landscape.

In addition to GenAI trends, perspectives on changing talent acquisition and retention trends were also explored. One positive finding was that 80% of respondents believe their workplaces are equipped to address the need for talent attraction. Key factors cited as legal talent draws included an acceptable work-life balance (81%), competitive compensation packages (79%), and opportunities for professional development and training (79%).

Interestingly, employees surveyed reported that work culture is particularly important in attracting legal talent. Nearly 72% of respondents shared that they valued diverse and inclusive workplaces, and 75% believed their organizations fostered such environments.

Finally, remote work trends were also addressed. The survey results revealed a global trend toward returning to the office, despite the employee push-back often reported in the media. Most respondents (73%) reported that staff are required to work in the office four or more days per week, with this figure higher in corporate legal departments (77%) compared to law firms (69%).

This year’s survey results highlight the legal industry’s efforts to balance the adoption of cutting-edge technologies like GenAI with ethical and implementation challenges. Furthermore, issues like workforce retention remain significant, with the data showing that organizations must prioritize innovation, adaptability, and strategic investments in training and technology. In the midst of rapid technological and societal change, the importance of proactive planning and technology adoption cannot be overstated for organizations seeking to remain competitive and positioned for success in the years to come.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Closing the Justice Gap: How Courts Are Leveraging GenAI for Greater Accessibility

Closing the Justice Gap: How Courts Are Leveraging GenAI for Greater Accessibility

Last week, I wrote about the release of recent judicial guidance for judges and court personnel seeking to use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to assist with the administration of justice. The guidance provided a roadmap for the ethical implementation of GenAI into the judiciary's workflows. 

This week, let’s discuss another relevant use case for GenAI in the courts: expanding access to justice by making the court system more accessible.

For years, courts have grappled with high caseloads and limited resources. More recently, the number of self-represented litigants has increased due to reduced federal support for legal aid organizations. With this influx of pro se litigants comes an increased demand for legal and procedural information. In the past, court websites and directories provided some assistance but were often difficult to navigate. Obtaining relevant information about court processes continued to be challenging.

Enter GenAI, which has emerged as a powerful tool with the potential to help bridge the access-to-justice gap. One of the most notable benefits of GenAi when applied to a database of information, such as court documents and data, is that it provides a user-friendly interface in the form of a responsive, knowledgeable chatbot. What was once challenging to unearth becomes quick and easy to access.

These GenAI interfaces can make all the difference to our overloaded court systems. Once deployed, they simplify and streamline complex court instructions and processes, from translating complex legal language and providing easy access to templates and court forms to enhancing public understanding of the court system. 

With GenAI, courts can eliminate procedural barriers and provide much-needed information, reduce administrative burdens, and empower pro se individuals with the tools needed to navigate our judicial system. For courts willing to embrace change and take advantage of all these tools, the benefits can be significant.

A few courts have already deployed GenAI-powered chatbots. For example, Nevada courts recently introduced a generative AI-powered chatbot designed to deliver plain-language legal guidance in multiple languages. Developed by CiviLaw.Tech for the Nevada Supreme Court, this generative AI-powered chatbot provides clear, concise, and personalized responses to common legal questions, helping individuals understand their options and the procedural steps they need to take. 

Similarly, Lemma Legal recently developed Missouri Tenant Help, an online resource for Missouri tenants seeking legal support. The platform includes an intake screening tool that incorporates the advanced GenAI language processing of GPT-4. This approach helps users determine their eligibility for assistance before speaking with program staff. Adding genAI to the intake process has removed a key barrier for tenants needing legal help, allowing them to understand their options quickly and easily.

These early court adopters of GenAI are finding that, with careful oversight, generative AI can not only make legal resources more accessible but also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of courts as a whole. While challenges remain—especially around ethical implications, data privacy, and accuracy—GenAI interfaces present unique opportunities to democratize access to justice. 

As courts continue to experiment with and refine these tools, the hope is that legal services will become more readily available and tailored to the needs of all individuals, regardless of their background or resources. Will this actually happen, or is it a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream? I tend toward cynicism, but every effort counts and moves us one step closer to a more equitable and accessible judicial system. Only time will tell if GenAi will truly help bridge the access to justice gap.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].