Sui Generis--a New York law blog

The Pros and Cons of the Apple Vision Pro for Lawyers

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

*****

The Pros and Cons of the Apple Vision Pro for Lawyers

As a self-professed technology geek, I’m often first in line to buy the latest and greatest new gadgets, especially if they’re in the Apple ecosystem. Even so, when the Apple Vision Pro was released last month, I balked at the price: a whopping $3,500. 

For that reason alone, I was determined to wait until the second-generation headset was released before investing in one. I held steadfast in my determination for all of four days. Then, after reading a few reviews and seeing videos of it in action, I gave in and headed to the Apple Store.

I’m now the proud owner of an Apple Vision Pro. I don’t regret my purchase, but after conducting a deep dive into Apple’s version of mixed reality (a combination of augmented and virtual reality) for the past few weeks, I would not recommend that most lawyers consider buying it at this early stage. Here’s why.

The app ecosystem is limited. As a result, like the iPhone when it was first released, the Apple Vision Pro has lots of potential, but much of it remains unrealized at this early stage. There are only a handful of practical apps designed for business use, but the ones available are very impressive. 

For example, Zoom. The video conference occurs in a virtual environment using my “persona,” a realistic spatial representation of my likeness, and it’s a very interesting, immersive experience. Over time I can envision how improvements to the interface will provide for a more realistic, interactive virtual meeting experience.

Another great business use case is the ability to display your Mac computer screen in front of you while wearing the headset. The virtual display is fully responsive and you can interact with it using your Mac’s keyboard and trackpad. Viewing a large computer screen in front of you is a very intuitive and immersive way to work and feels somewhat “next level.” 

That being said, another drawback is the eye, neck, and other discomfort caused by the weight of the headset and the virtual environment itself. Although the headset is very advanced, and far superior to most of its predecessors in the virtual reality space, it’s still fairly heavy. The weight of the headset can cause neck and face strain in many people, which will limit the amount of time you’re able to tolerate wearing it. Still others find the virtual environment causes them to feel nauseous. However, as the technology improves, many of these issues will disappear and make long-term use throughout the workday more palatable.

Cost is another major deterrent for most people. $3,500 is a lot of money for a headset that is first generation and a work in progress. Unless you’re a diehard early adopter like myself, it almost certainly isn’t worth the hefty price tag.

Even so, it’s an incredibly impressive piece of technology. The cutting-edge gestural interface is next to none, and allows you to interact with the digital content in three-dimensional space by tracking your eyes and hand movements, much like the scene from the movie “Minority Report.” 

The virtual environment itself is incredibly realistic and immersive. Right now, my favorite thing to do is watch movies and shows using the headset. You truly feel like you’re in a movie theater with a large screen, fantastic image quality, and incredible surround sound. The experience simply can’t be beat.

As the technology improves, more apps are released, and the price comes down, you’ll find that you’ll hear about it a lot more, especially for business use cases. Because you can have multiple apps open at once, pinned to different locations in your house, or your workspace, it will become the ultimate way to quickly and effortlessly interact with your data, documents, and colleagues. 

For most lawyers, it’s too early to invest in this technology, but in the near future - likely sooner than you might think - you’ll want to learn more about the potential offered by this technology, and might even be convinced to take a leap and explore all that it has to offer.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Head of SME and External Education at MyCase legal practice management software, an AffiniPay company. 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].

 

North Carolina Adds to Growing Body of AI Ethics Guidance for Lawyers

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

*****

North Carolina Adds to Growing Body of AI Ethics Guidance for Lawyers

As generative AI (GAI) technology proliferates and legal software companies focus on rolling this new functionality into their platforms, ethics committees across the country are recognizing and responding to the implementation challenges that lawyers face. GAI providers promise streamlined workflows and increased efficiencies, but with these benefits come concerns about ensuring accuracy in the results, adequate supervision, confidentiality preservation, and compliant billing processes. 

Because of the many hurdles faced when using GAI in its current state, several jurisdictions have issued ethics guidance over the past few months, which I’ve covered in earlier columns. The State Bar of California was first when it released guidance in November 2023. This was followed by Florida, which issued Ethics Opinion 24-1 on January 19th, and the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts preliminary guidelines handed down on January 24th.

On January 19th, the North Carolina State Bar Council jumped into the fray with proposed guidance, 2023 Formal Ethics Opinion 4 (online: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/proposed-opinions/), which is open for comments through March 30th.

This proposed opinion offers a thorough analysis of the many issues lawyers encounter when using GAI tools, along with commonsense and clear-cut guidance on the ins and outs of adopting GAI in an ethically compliant manner. 

Many of the Council’s conclusions mirror those reached by other ethics committees. For example, the Council concluded that lawyers may use GAI, but the duty of competence means they are responsible for “reviewing, evaluating, and ultimately relying upon the work produced by someone—or something—other than the lawyer,” which includes GAI output. Furthermore, the duty of technology competence requires lawyers to learn bout GAI so that they can responsibly “exercise independent professional judgment in determining how (or if)” using GAI is appropriate.

The Council opined that lawyers must carefully vet GAI providers to ensure confidential client information is protected, just as they are required to do when “providing confidential information to a third-party software program (practice management, cloud storage, etc.)” The Committee cautioned that when lawyers use consumer-grade GAI software, they should avoid “inputting client-specific information into publicly available AI resources” to prevent confidential data from being used to train the AI system.”

Importantly, the Committee clarified that when lawyers use GAI to help draft pleadings and adopt the output as their own, signing the pleading certifies their “good faith belief as to the factual and legal assertions therein,” a practice that necessarily applies to all pleadings submitted to the court, regardless of their origination source.

Client consent was also addressed. The Committee determined that when GAI is used for ordinary tasks like “conducting legal research or generic case/practice management,” client consent is unnecessary, whereas it would be required in advance for any substantive tasks that are “akin to outsourcing legal work to a nonlawyer.”

Finally, the Committee addressed legal billing issues and clarified that for hourly billing, lawyers may only bill clients for time actually spent using GAI and may not bill for the time saved through the use of this tool. However, the Committee suggested that due to the arguable reduction in billable hours that can be achieved through the use of GAI, lawyers might want to consider transitioning to flat fee billing “for the drafting of documents—even when using AI to assist in drafting—provided the flat fee charged is not clearly excessive and the client consents to the billing structure.”

As for expensing the cost of using a GAI tool, doing so is only permissible when the fee charged is “for actual expenses incurred when employing AI in the furtherance of a client’s legal services, provided the expenses charged are accurate, not clearly excessive, and the client consents to the charge, preferably in writing.” In comparison, charging a general administrative fee to clients to cover the cost of AI tools embedded in software generally used by the firm is unacceptable.

North Carolina's addition to the growing body of AI ethics guidance for lawyers highlights the important balance required to leverage AI's benefits while adhering to ethical standards. The conclusions in the opinion align with those of other jurisdictions, and emphasize the core principles of legal ethics remain unchanged even as technology advances at a rapid pace. As we continue to witness the integration of AI into various aspects of legal work, guidance like North Carolina's becomes invaluable for lawyers striving to maintain the highest standards of professionalism in the digital age.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Head of SME and External Education at MyCase legal practice management software, an AffiniPay company. 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].

 

New Jersey Preliminary AI Guidelines Released

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

*****

New Jersey Preliminary AI Guidelines Released 

If you’re hesitant to test drive generative artificial intelligence technology (GAI), rest assured, you’re not alone. According to the results of the newly released LawPay and MyCase 2024 Legal Technology Report (online: https://www.lawpay.com/support/resources/reports/2024-legal-industry-report/), only 24% of law firms had implemented GAI tools as of September of 2023. Respondents cited many blockers to adoption including a lack of sufficient knowledge about GAI and how to use it (61%) and ethical concerns (53%). 

Fortunately, for those holding out due to lack of ethics guidance, help has arrived. Legal ethics committees across the country are responding to the demand for assistance and are rapidly handing down guidance. The State Bar of California’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct was the first to step up and release a thorough roadmap for ethical generative AI adoption in law firms in November 2023. This guidance was extensive and addressed many different issues including technology competence, confidentiality, and the requirement of candor about AI usage with legal clients and courts.

More recently, both Florida and New Jersey released guidance. Florida issued Ethics Opinion 24-1 on January 19th, which I covered in last week’s column. Then, the  New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts handed down preliminary guidelines on January 24th (online: https://njsba.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Preliminary-Guidelines-on-the-Use-of-AI-by-NJ-Lawyers.pdf), discussed below.

At the outset, the committee cautioned that its guidelines were preliminary and did not address all issues triggered by GAI usage, including advertising and legal billing. The Committee explained that additional guidance may be issued as warranted as new concerns about GAI usage arise.

Next, the Committee acknowledged the inevitability of GAI use in the practice of law: “[t]he ongoing integration of AI into other technologies suggests that its use soon will be unavoidable, including for lawyers.” Like other jurisdictions, the Committee also emphasized the need for lawyers to ensure adequate oversight of all AI usage “by other lawyers and non-lawyer staff” due to the infancy of these tools.  

Confidentiality was also addressed, with the Committee highlighting the need to carefully vet GAI providers, and acknowledging the rapid growth in the number of legal-specific GAI tools now available to lawyers: “Today, the market is replete with an array of Al tools, including some specifically designed for lawyers, as well as others in development for use by law firms. A lawyer is responsible for ensuring the security of an Al system before entering any non-public client information.”

One notable conclusion reached was that, in contrast to the Florida committee’s conclusion to the contrary, the New Jersey committee determined that the rules “do not impose an affirmative obligation on lawyers to tell clients every time that they use AI,” but there are some situations that might require it.

Finally, the Committee reminded lawyers of the importance of maintaining technology competence in light of the rapid pace of GAI advancement: “In this complex and evolving landscape, lawyers must decide whether and to what extent AI can be used so as to maintain compliance with ethical standards without falling behind their colleagues.”

In conclusion, the recent release of preliminary AI guidelines by legal ethics committees in California, Florida, and New Jersey, provides valuable insight for lawyers seeking to adopt GAI into their firms. However, as highlighted by the Louisiana Supreme Court's recent letter (online: https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf), while this guidance is helpful, it may be unnecessary. According to the Supreme Court, the existing ethical and professional rules and opinions issued that govern the bench and the Bar are sufficient since “ the ethical and professional rules governing the bench and the Bar are robust and broad enough to cover the landscape of issues presented by AI in its current forms.”

In other words, even without specific ethics guidance, GAI adoption is no different than the adoption of other types of technology, so there’s nothing holding you back from learning about GAI and making educated, informed decisions about whether and how to use it in your law firm.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Head of SME and External Education at MyCase legal practice management software, an AffiniPay company. 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].