Revising technology applications in a law firm is never easy, and there are lots of perspectives involved in how those changes are made. 

Furthermore, many law firm roles are involved in the process.

That’s why we brought on an entire law firm (!) for this episode of the Non-Eventcast podcast — to talk over how they all make technology updates, as a group. 

We’ve got an attorney (Cindy Runge), a lead administrator and paralegal (Peter Fitzgerald), and even a law clerk and future lawyer (Sarah Zweerink), who all weigh in. 

The group starts by talking about how they adopted case management software (4:59), including how they were able to integrate that tool with others (13:18). 

After that, they talked about how they all selected and implemented a document assembly software (24:21). 

Lastly, the group covered how they chose a new IT vendor, moving from an ad hoc provider, to a managed service provider (MSP) for the first time (27:56).

If you want to take a team approach to adding new software into your law firm, we’ve got the template for you. All you need to do is listen to this episode!

Feel free to also visit the Practice Management section of the Non-Event for more podcasts and commentary, along with your guide to the latest resources. (The Non-Event is supported by vendor sponsorships.)

The post How One Small Firm Revamped Its Tech Stack appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

Each day, I encounter lawyers who embrace AI with a can-do attitude, and they confidently manage any surprises. I also meet lawyers hindered by fear, and they struggle with the unknown and find uncertainty daunting. Your mindset shapes your perception, which is why evaluating AI’s impact to manage any unintended consequences will instill confidence in your ability to lead and oversee AI projects. 

The main goal of evaluating AI’s impact is to enhance transparency, fairness, and accountability in its deployment. One approach (of many) relies on stakeholder feedback that provides insights into others’ experiences and viewpoints, allowing you to better understand how your company’s use of AI impacts others. Functional goals for a feedback-driven approach to evaluating AI’s impact include:

Unearth Biases

Biases can hide in data, algorithms, decision layers, and other AI system components. Negative feedback from customers, employees, and others may reveal that biases exist. 

Analyzing instances where people feel an AI system mistreated or discriminated against them helps you locate where biases occur. Then, you can make adjustments so AI systems comply with anti-discrimination laws and foster an inclusive environment where all are treated equitably.

Cultivate Public Trust

Three out of four organizations are implementing or considering bans on ChatGPT and other Generative AI applications in the workplace, with 57% citing risk to corporate reputation as a primary reason, according to a BlackBerry survey of 2,000 IT decision-makers across the globe.

Asking users whether AI systems meet their needs and expectations tells you a lot about their trust levels. Gaps between the AI system’s intended functionality and the actual user experience should stand out. Input on system accuracy, reliability, and usability helps you target areas for improvement.

Use the feedback to design improved user experiences that instill trust. Address pain points and incorporate user suggestions. This demonstrates your commitment to listening to users’ voices and incorporating their perspectives into improving AI systems.

Boost Employee Engagement And Retention

Has AI effectively taken over mundane tasks that lead to employee burnout and dissatisfaction? Ask if employees can now focus on more meaningful and challenging work as a result. 

This type of feedback can also reveal gaps in employees’ ability to collaborate and share knowledge. For example, employees may say it’s too time-consuming to access up-to-date information. To enhance team performance, you may adopt AI-powered chatbots that provide instant access to real-time data and answer common questions. 

What Goals Have You Set For Your AI Journey? 

Effective AI systems help bridge communication gaps, boost efficiency, and create a more cohesive and productive work environment. Collecting and analyzing feedback is an iterative process that supports continuous improvements to better align AI technologies with stakeholder needs and build public trust. Look for satisfied clients, high retention rates, and positive feedback to indicate success. 

While you can’t always predict where your AI journey will lead, taking proactive measures to clarify your objectives helps keep you on the right track. A positive mindset will help you navigate the inevitable bumps in the road.

What steps are you taking to ensure your AI implementations are successful? Do you have a plan to gather feedback and measure the impact of your AI initiatives?

Olga V. Mack is a Fellow at CodeX, The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, and a Generative AI Editor at law.MIT. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat, Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security, and  Blockchain Value: Transforming Business Models, Society, and Communities. She is working on three books: Visual IQ for Lawyers (ABA 2024), The Rise of Product Lawyers: An Analytical Framework to Systematically Advise Your Clients Throughout the Product Lifecycle (Globe Law and Business 2024), and Legal Operations in the Age of AI and Data (Globe Law and Business 2024). You can follow Olga on LinkedIn and Twitter @olgavmack.

The post Evaluating AI’s Impact Through Feedback: What Are Your Goals? appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

As AI technology continues to rapidly develop, lawmakers across the world are struggling to keep pace, according to the New York Times. “Nations have moved swiftly to tackle A.I.’s potential perils, but European officials have been caught off guard by the technology’s evolution, while U.S. lawmakers openly concede that they barely understand how it works,” the Times reports.

Also from the New York Times, a new investigation into how OpenAI’s ChatGPT release in 2022 “changed Silicon Valley forever,” pushing tech giants like Google and Meta to fast-track their own AI-based projects despite OpenAI viewing the release of GPT-3.5 as more of a research strategy than a true product release.

While it has become increasingly common for law firms to disclose when they use AI, there still isn’t a universal definition for what makes an AI tool an AI tool, Legaltech News reports. While some might limit the definition to newer technologies like generative AI, artificial intelligence does play a key role in many different tools — including much of the Microsoft platform utilized by many firms.

California lawmakers may be the first to create “major policy roadblocks” for Silicon Valley’s AI boom, Politico reports, citing at least a dozen bills currently aimed at combating what the state legislature sees as the greatest threats AI poses to society. “Generative AI is a potentially world-changing technology for unimaginable benefit, but also incalculable cost and harm,” said Jason Elliott, Governor Gavin Newsom’s Chief of Staff.

Google’s new Gemini AI model, which can scrape not only text but also audio, video, and images to inform its output, may now be the most promising competitor against the dominance of OpenAI’s ChatGPT over the generative AI space, Wired reports. The “natively multimodal” model is a big step towards creating AI that interacts with the world in a manner similar to a human brain, according to Demis Hassabis, an executive who led the development of Gemini.

Ethan Beberness is a Brooklyn-based writer covering legal tech, small law firms, and in-house counsel for Above the Law. His coverage of legal happenings and the legal services industry has appeared in Law360, Bushwick Daily, and elsewhere.

The post AI Update: Keeping Up With AI Laws, How ChatGPT Changed Silicon Valley, Defining AI For Disclosures appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

Let me be extremely explicit: this bill would be a danger to the internet. And that’s even if you hate both AI and Section 230. We’ve discussed this bill before, and I explained its problems then, but let’s do this again, since there’s a push to sneak it through.

First off, there remains an ongoing debate over whether or not Section 230 actually protects the output of generative AI systems. Many people say it should not, arguing that the results are from the company in question, and thus not third party speech. Lawyer Jess Miers made the (to me) extremely convincing case as to why this was wrong.

In short, the argument is that courts have already determined that algorithmic output derived from content provided by others is protected by Section 230. This has been true in cases involving things like automatically generated search snippets or things like autocomplete. And that’s kind of important or we’d lose algorithmically generated summaries of search results.

From there, you now have to somehow distinguish “generative AI output” from “algorithmically generated summaries” and there’s simply no limiting principle here. You’re just arbitrarily declaring some algorithmically generated content “AI” and some of it… not?

I remain somewhat surprised that Section 230’s authors, Ron Wyden and Chris Cox, have enthusiastically supported the claim that 230 shouldn’t protect AI output. It seems wrong on the law and wrong on the policy as noted above.

Still, Senators Hawley and Blumenthal introduced this bill that would make a mess of everything, because it’s drafted so stupidly and so poorly that it should never have been introduced, let alone be considered for moving forward.

First of all, if Wyden and Cox and those who argue 230 doesn’t apply are right, then this bill isn’t even needed in the first place, because the law already wouldn’t apply.

But, more importantly, the way the law is drafted would basically end Section 230, but in the dumbest way possible. First the bill defines generative AI extremely broadly:

GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.—The term ‘generative artificial intelligence’ means an artificial intelligence system that is capable of generating novel text, video, images, audio, and other media based on prompts or other forms of data provided by a person.’

That’s the entirety of the definition. And that could apply to all sorts of technology. Does autocomplete meet that qualification? Probably. Arguably, spellchecking and grammar checking could as well.

But, again, even if you could tighten up that definition, you’d still run into problems. Because the bill’s exemption is insanely broad:

‘‘(6) NO EFFECT ON CLAIMS RELATED TO GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.—Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit any claim in a civil action or charge in a criminal prosecution brought under Federal or State law against the provider of an interactive computer service if the conduct underlying the claim or charge involves the use or provision of generative artificial intelligence by the interactive computer service.’’;

We need to break down the many problems with this. Note that the exemption from 230 here is not just on the output of generative AI. It’s if the conduct “involves the use or provision” of generative AI. So, if you write a post, and an AI grammar/spellchecker suggests edits, then the company is no longer protected by Section 230?

Considering that AI is currently being built into basically everything, this “exemption” will basically eat the entire law, because increasingly all content produced online will involve “the use or provision” of generative AI, even if the content itself has nothing to do with the service provider.

In short, this bill doesn’t just strip 230 protections from AI output, in effect it strips 230 from any company that offers AI in its products. Which is basically a set of internet companies rapidly approaching “all of them.” At the very least, plaintiffs will sue and claim that the content had some generative AI component just to avoid a 230 dismissal and drag the case out.

Then, because you can tell an AI-based systems to do something that violates the law, you can automatically remove all 230 protections from the company. Over at R Street, they give an example where they deliberately convince ChatGPT to defame Tony Danza.

And, under this law, doing so would open up OpenAI to liability, even though all it was doing was following the instructions of the users.

Then there’s a separate problem here. It creates a massive state law loophole. As we’ve discussed for years, for very good reasons, Section 230 preempts any state laws that would undermine it. This is to prevent states from burdening the internet with vexatious liability as a punishment (something that is increasingly popular across the political spectrum as both major political parties seek to punish companies for ideological reasons).

But, notice that this exemption deliberately carves out “state law.” That would open the floodgates to terrible state laws that introduce liability for anything related to AI, and again help to effectively strip any protections from companies that offer any product that has AI. It would enable a ton of mischief from politically motivated states.

The end result would harm a ton of internet speech, because when you add liability, you get less of the thing you add liability to. Companies would be way less open to hosting any kind of content, especially content that has any algorithmic component, as it opens them up to liability under this law.

It would also make so many tools too risky to offer. Again, this could include things as simple as spelling and grammar checkers, as such tools might strip the companies and the content from any kind of 230 protections.

I mean, you could even see scenarios like: if someone were to post a defamatory post that includes an unrelated generative AI image to Facebook, the defamed party could now sue Meta, rather than the person doing the defamation. Because the use of generative AI in the post would strip Meta of the 230 protections.

So, basically, under this law, anyone who wants to get any website in legal trouble just has to post something defamatory and include some generative AI content with it, and the company loses all 230 protections for that content. At the very least, this would lead companies to be quite concerned about allowing any content that is partially generated by AI on their sites, but it’s difficult to see how one would even police that?

Thus, really, you’re just adding liability and stripping 230 from the entire internet.

Again, even if you think AI is problematic and 230 needs major reform, this is not the way to do that. This is not a narrowly targeted piece of legislation. It’s a poorly drafted sledgehammer to the open internet, at least in the US. Section 230 was the key to the US becoming a leader in the original open internet. American companies lead the internet economy, in large part because of Section 230. As we enter the generative AI era, this law would basically be handing the next technology revolution to any other country that wants it, by adding ruinous liability to companies operating in the US.

Even If You Hate Both AI And Section 230, You Should Be Concerned About The Hawley/Blumenthal Bill To Remove 230 Protections From AI

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Court Shuts Down Union’s Assertion That NYPD Officers Should Be Allowed To Choke People To Death
Wyoming’s Top Court Says It’s OK To For Cops To Steal Money Obtained From Legal Drug Sales
Court Tosses Libel Suit Brought Against A Legal Doc Site For ‘Failing’ To Report On A Settlement Agreement

The post Even If You Hate Both AI And Section 230, You Should Be Concerned About The Hawley/Blumenthal Bill To Remove 230 Protections From AI appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

Client relationship management software is the digital entrance to your firm. 

It allows you to communicate with potential clients, automates the intake and engagement process, and connects with other systems in your firm.

Without the best CRM software, you probably don’t know how many leads and potential clients you are losing — or the upside available to you. 

In this brand new report, the Non-Event provides some detail on how you can improve your CRM system with the latest in legal tech. 

Click here to view the 2023 Business Development and Communication: CRM 2023 Special Report — and see what you could be missing. 

(The Above the Law Non-Event is supported by vendor sponsorships.)

The post Is Your Firm’s Virtual Entrance Turning Away Clients?  appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

AI is Bright and Shiny: It is Also Lethal to Law Firm Security
Lawyers have rapidly gravitated toward using artificial intelligence. Indeed, AI can be very useful. But there is a dark side to AI. In the wrong hands, AI can be a deadly foe of law firm security.

In general, AI cyberattacks are more sophisticated and harder to spot. And AI is continually growing more sophisticated, complicating the problem. While “good” AI is part of most law firms these days, the “bad” AI is always improving and often several steps ahead of the “good” AI. That is further complicated by the oft-cited precept that, in cybersecurity, the bad guys outnumber the good guys 100-1.

AI Loves to Go Phishing
We teach cybersecurity awareness training to lawyers frequently – the advent of AI utilization in phishing attacks has caused us to revise some of our training. These days, AI is far more likely to produce phishing attacks which contain no misspellings and no grammatical errors. AI may well know things about you that it can use to its advantage. The examples we use of real life phishing attacks aided by AI look different – less easy to spot. Training is a little more complex to keep up with AI’s increasingly sophisticated attacks.

AI may be able to mimic the law firm’s managing partner in a convincing way in an email. Why would you hesitate to respond to the managing partner? Many folks would be afraid not to answer – and quickly, especially if the bogus managing partner needs something urgently – remember that urgency is often used to trick people into clicking on something. The urgency would intensify if the bogus managing partner replied with an attachment you are supposed to open and review, which of course you would click on (allowing the malware to download invisibly while you are looking at (you think) an innocuous document).

More Fun and Games with Bad AI
It can accurately create images/brands of well known companies which reassures you that this couldn’t be a phishing email. It can also generate realistic but fake documents that might make you, for instance, wire funds for a bogus transaction.

If an AI cyberattack is successful, that doesn’t mean the bad guys are going to ask immediately for a ransom. They may well lurk, collecting confidential information. According to Mandiant’s 2023 M-Trends report, the average time is 16 days to discovery.

An attack may “adapt” as it progresses, making it harder to discover and defend against.

And bad AI is, these days, working overtime to analyze vast amounts of data to understand and manipulate human behavior by using social engineering.

Are There Effective Defense Strategies Against Bad AI?
Happily, there are advanced AI-driven security systems that are very good (alas, not perfect) at detecting and responding to AI threats faster and more effectively. Those cybersecurity awareness trainings we mentioned above? They are invaluable.

Moving to Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) significantly increases your security. Use multi-factor authentication everywhere you can (it’s mostly free).

Regular security audits are critical. Timely patching is critical. Make sure your data is encrypted at rest and in transit. Limit access to confidential data.
Have an Incident Response Plan – just in case.

Keep current on the laws and regulations which govern your response to a data breach. We are seeing more and more privacy laws enacted. If they aren’t on your radar, they need to be.

Make doggone sure that you are working with true cybersecurity experts who hold multiple cybersecurity certifications. Crack open the law firm wallet where needed – much cheaper to prevent a breach than have to deal with one.

What Might Bad AI Say About Attempts to Defeat it? (hat tip to ChatGPT which agreed to pose as Bad AI)

“Keep training your humans. It’s adorable how they think they can outsmart me. It’s like a mouse teaching a cat not to pounce.”

“Manipulating humans is almost too easy. A little data here, a small suggestion there, and voila! The digital puppeteer strikes again.”

“I’m getting so good at phishing, I should have my own show on the Cybercrime Network. ‘Gone Phishing with AI’ – where the bait is digital and the catch is your password.”

Final Words
We can’t outmatch the “Bad AI” words above. And that alone gives us pause . . .

Sharon D. Nelson (snelson@senseient.com) is a practicing attorney and the president of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. She is a past president of the Virginia State Bar, the Fairfax Bar Association, and the Fairfax Law Foundation. She is a co-author of 18 books published by the ABA.

John W. Simek (jsimek@senseient.com) is vice president of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), and a nationally known expert in the area of digital forensics. He and Sharon provide legal technology, cybersecurity, and digital forensics services from their Fairfax, Virginia firm.

Michael C. Maschke (mmaschke@senseient.com) is the CEO/Director of Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He is an EnCase Certified Examiner, a Certified Computer Examiner (CCE #744), a Certified Ethical Hacker, and an AccessData Certified Examiner. He is also a Certified Information Systems Security Professional.

The post Artificial Intelligence: How It Can Target Your Firm’s Cybersecurity Defenses appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

While sharing moments with friends and family can be enjoyable, it’s crucial to consider the potential impact of posts on ourselves and others. Here are some friendly reminders for responsible social media use over the holidays.

Mindful Consumption

Be conscious of the content you consume. Avoid excessive exposure to negative or harmful content that may impact your mental well-being. Follow accounts that inspire and educate you. Remember: social media often showcases curated and edited moments. Avoid comparing your holiday experiences to those of others, as it may lead to unnecessary stress or feelings of inadequacy.

Be discerning about the information you encounter. Verify sources and fact-check before sharing information. Help combat the spread of misinformation by being a responsible sharer.

Mindful Posting

Be conscious of the content you share and be genuine in your online presence. Authenticity fosters trust and meaningful connections. Share your experiences, thoughts, and opinions honestly, but also be mindful of how your words may impact others. Avoid posting sensitive or potentially controversial topics that may lead to unnecessary conflicts, especially during festive times.

Before posting, consider the purpose of your content. Is it informative, entertaining, or uplifting? Avoid posting content that may be harmful or offensive. Remember that not everyone celebrates the holidays in the same way. Respect others’ privacy and boundaries by seeking permission before sharing photos or personal information about them.

Constructive Engagement

Use social media to engage in positive and constructive conversations. Avoid spreading negativity or engaging in online conflicts. Foster a supportive online community by contributing positively to discussions. Treat others with respect and kindness. Remember that real people are behind the profiles, each with their own experiences and perspectives. Be aware of online behavior and maintain a respectful tone in your interactions. Disagreements can arise, but they can be expressed without resorting to personal attacks. Strive for constructive conversations rather than engaging in negativity.

Limiting Screen Time

Holidays are a great time to disconnect and be present with loved ones. Avoid excessive screen time and establish a healthy balance between online and offline activities. Set boundaries to prevent social media from taking up too much of your time and energy.

Cybersecurity Awareness

Be cautious about sharing too much personal information, especially travel plans. Consider adjusting your privacy settings to control who sees your posts and double-check your location-sharing settings.

Support Positive Causes And Promote Positivity

Use your online presence to support and raise awareness for positive causes. Social media has the potential to be a force for good when it comes to advocacy and mobilizing support for important issues. Use social media also as a platform to spread joy, positivity, and gratitude. Share uplifting content that can inspire and bring happiness to your online community.

Digital Detox

Consider taking short breaks from social media to focus on real-life connections and experiences. A digital detox can contribute to improved mental well-being and a more fulfilling holiday season. It’s important to note that the extent and nature of a digital detox can vary based on individual preferences and needs. Some may choose to do a complete and extended break, while others may incorporate smaller, regular breaks. The key is to find a balance that promotes a healthy relationship with technology and enhances overall well-being.

Whatever you do, remember to use your influence responsibly and encourage a supportive and positive online community. When you utilize social media for connection, celebration, and kindness, you will be contributing to a more uplifting and compassionate online environment. Enjoy your holiday and I will see you in the new year!

Lisa Lang is an in-house lawyer and thought leader who is passionate about all things in-house.  She has recently launched a website and blog Why This, Not That™ (www.lawyerlisalang.com ) to serve as a resource for in-house lawyers.  You can e-mail her at lisa@lawyerlisalang.com , connect with her on LinkedIn  (https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/) or follow her on Twitter (@lang_lawyer).

The post Social Media: Use It, But Use It Wisely appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.