Aimed at non-developers, low-code tools can allow “non-technical users to build logic that touches critical systems and sensitive customer and internal data,”

“But this empowerment can come at a cost with respect to security, drastically increasing the risk of misconfigurations by customers,” Costello noted. “This combination of flexibility and implicit trust means that a customer misconfiguring one component, or overlooking one setting, can lead to system-wide data exposure.”

Better watch out!

First published at https://www.vogelitlaw.com/blog/watch-out-the-salesforce-industry-cloud-may-be-putting-many-businesses-at-risk

The Senate has voted 53-45 to confirm Commissioner-designate Olivia Trusty to a full, five-year term, which begins July 1. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) was the only Democrat to vote for Trusty, as he was on June 17 when the Senate confirmed Trusty to complete former FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s term, which expires June 30. Once she is sworn in, Trusty will shift the FCC to a 2-1 Republican majority and will restore the FCC’s quorum.

On June 17, the Lowering Broadband Costs for Consumers Act was introduced in the House by Representatives Randy Feenstra (R-IA) and Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM).  The legislation would require edge providers such as Amazon.com, Inc., Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Facebook, Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., and Netflix, Inc. to contribute to the Universal Service Fund.  The House bill mirrors the Lowering Broadband Costs for Consumers Act of 2025 (S. 1651), which was introduced by Senators Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) in May.

An app doesn’t show that you care, and if you don’t care, you have no culture. 

The post Worth Reading – Your ‘Culture’ is a Lie Until You Fund Mental Health appeared first on Mike McBride Online. If you want to see more like this, consider subscribing to the RSS Feed.

Built to save you time and eliminate the guesswork of figuring out how to use practice management features, Scout gives you instant access to the answers and support you need—right when you need it. 

What is Scout? 

Scout is your intelligent assistant for all things Actionstep Practice Management. Whether you’re looking for how-to guidance, troubleshooting support, or help understanding a feature, Scout is available to help 24/7. 

Powered by the same OpenAI technology behind ChatGPT, Scout is customized specifically for Actionstep users. It’s fully separate from ChatGPT and only uses content from the Actionstep Practice Management Help Center. That means: 

• No external data sources 
• No sharing of your firm’s data with OpenAI 
• Just Actionstep answers, powered by Actionstep expertise 

Why we built Scout 

We know your time is valuable. When you’re juggling client work, firm operations, and daily to-dos, digging through support articles can slow you down. Scout changes that. 

Scout quickly delivers clear, concise answers to your questions, and when you want to learn more, it provides links to the full help articles so you can go as deep as you need. 

What can Scout help with? 

Scout is your go-to for: 

Quick support answers

Ask Scout a question, and it searches across Actionstep’s Practice Management Help Center to find the most relevant, accurate response in seconds. 

Smart summaries 

Scout pulls insights from multiple articles and combines them into one easy-to-understand response, so you don’t have to piece things together. 

Step-by-step instructions 

Need help completing a task in Actionstep Practice Management? Scout can walk you through the process, one step at a time. 

Troubleshooting tips 

Having trouble with a feature or seeing an error? Scout can offer guidance on how to fix it or point you to the right resources. 

Where to find Scout 

You’ll find Scout directly in the Actionstep Practice Management Help Center. Click the “Ask Scout!” button, then just type your question into the chat window and let Scout do the rest. 

Ready to use Scout? 

Scout is live and ready to help! Try it out today and experience a faster, smarter way to get the support you need from Actionstep Practice Management. 

Visit the Help Center and start using Scout now. 

Scout is just one of the many ways we’re continuing to enhance your experience with Actionstep. Stay tuned for more updates soon! 

The post Meet Scout: Your New AI Support Assistant for Actionstep Practice Management  appeared first on Actionstep.

Yet, while CLE is mandatory and critical for maintaining professional standards, lawyers often struggle to fit in their CLE hours into their highly stressful and demanding workloads. That’s where the best online resources for continuing legal education come in—offering convenient, flexible options to meet your requirements without adding unnecessary stress.

Fortunately, online courses for CLE are more accessible than ever. These modern digital options can bring increased flexibility, broader access, and multi-jurisdiction support, making it easier to meet CLE requirements without disrupting your workflow.

In this guide, we’ll break down what to look for in a quality online CLE provider and highlight top online platforms that make it easy to earn continuing legal education credits without sacrificing quality or overloading your already-packed schedule.

What to look for in a quality online CLE provider

When it comes to CLE providers, the right fit will depend on your specific needs, such as your practice area, jurisdiction, preferred learning style, and budget. But not all online CLE platforms are created equal. With so many options available, it’s important to know what sets a great provider apart from one that wastes your time or misses the mark on quality content.

Your online CLE provider evaluation guide

• Is it accredited in your jurisdiction? Some providers are only accredited in select states. Ensure that any courses you’re considering are approved by your state bar to ensure it will count towards your CLE credit requirements.  
• Is there a variety of courses and topics? A strong CLE provider should offer a robust course library that covers everything from required ethics credits to practice-specific topics relevant to your area of law.
• Is the content relevant and current? Look for content that reflects current legal issues and trends. For example, courses covering ethics updates, emerging practice areas, and timely topics (e.g. the role of AI in the legal industry) can help you stay ahead.
• Is the platform user-friendly? The best online CLE platforms are intuitive, mobile-friendly, and easy to navigate. Features like progress tracking and downloadable completion certificates can significantly improve your user experience.
• Can you access courses on demand? Flexibility is one of the biggest benefits of online CLE. Make sure the platform offers on-demand access so you can complete courses anytime and from anywhere.
• How are the provider’s reputation and reviews? Just like your clients check your reputation, it’s smart to review what other lawyers say about a CLE provider. Look for trusted names in the legal space with strong reviews and positive lawyer testimonials.
• Is the pricing fair and within your budget? Whether free, pay-per-course, or subscription-based, CLE pricing should be transparent and aligned with your budget.

Top 7 online platforms for CLE credits

Here are some of the best online platforms where lawyers can find accredited CLE courses to meet their ongoing education requirements.

Clio’s online CLE courses

Clio’s hub of online CLE courses offers a free and accessible way to meet CLE requirements, with new webinars hosted every month. Delivered online and open to all (not just Clio users), these CLE-eligible sessions feature experts discussing emerging legal topics, best practices for running a law firm, and advances in legal technology. 

See Clio’s upcoming CLE-eligible events and see which states have accepted credits from Clio’s free CLE events.

Pros:

• Free access to CLE-eligible webinars
• Open to everyone: no need to be a Clio customer
• Convenient and accessible online format

Cons:

• Smaller number of courses compared to subscription platforms

Cost: Free

Ideal for: Lawyers looking for affordable (free!), practical CLE with a focus on emerging legal topics, legal tech, and practice management.

Lawline

Lawline offers a library of more than 2,000 expert-led online courses across a wide range of legal topics and practice areas. Its intuitive platform features progress tracking, downloadable certificates, and a mobile app.

Pros:

• Extensive course library across multiple practice areas
• Instant certificates simplify credit tracking and reporting
• User-friendly interface with mobile app access

Cons:

• Access to premium courses limited in lower-tier plans

Cost: Paid subscription starting at $229 per year for Essentials (10-day free trial available)

Ideal for: Lawyers who want unlimited, on-demand CLE access across multiple practice areas and jurisdictions.

CeriFi LegalEdge (formerly West LegalEdcenter)

With over two decades of providing legal education, CeriFi LegalEdge, formerly known as West LegalEdcenter, is a leading CLE platform offering an extensive catalog of live and on-demand courses tailored for lawyers and other legal professionals.

Pros:

• Extensive library of online CLE programs
• Content covering more than 35 practice areas and 200 subspecialties

Cons:

• Platform feels tailored to mid-to-large law firms and corporate legal departments

Cost: Paid subscriptions starting at $299 per year for Core

Ideal for: Law firms seeking comprehensive, multi-state professional development and CLE content.

LexisNexis® CLE 

With industry expert-led online courses for continuing legal education, LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand provides 24/7 access to online programming.

Pros:

• Extensive library of hundreds of hours of online CLE content  
• New classes added monthly, covering a range of core and emerging topics

Cons:

• Annual subscription pricing is on the higher end

Cost: Paid subscriptions for $480 for a one-year unlimited subscription to programs in the General Catalog of the LexisNexis CLE On-Demand library.

Ideal for: Legal professionals seeking comprehensive, on-demand CLE content across multiple practice areas, particularly those requiring multi-jurisdictional accreditation.

National Academy of Continuing Legal Education (NACLE) 

The National Academy of Continuing Legal Education (NACLE) offers cost-effective and time-efficient CLE options across 39 practice areas and course categories through options like on-demand courses, live webinars, and customizable compliance bundles.

Pros:

• Flexible delivery formats including online, mobile app, live webinars, CDs, DVDs, and USB
• Dedicated CLE managers available for assistance
• Free customizable CLE tracker to help keep records of courses and credits

Cons:

• Annual subscription pricing is on the higher end

Cost: Paid options for state-specific bundles, customized packages, and unlimited CLE subscriptions. Pricing varies by jurisdiction. Free 7-day trial available.

Ideal for: Lawyers who value flexible learning formats and those who want bundled CLE packages tailored to specific state requirements.

ABA Continuing Legal Education (ABACLE)

The American Bar Association’s CLE platform, now accessible via the ABA Learning Center, offers high-quality CLE across a broad range of relevant topics and practice areas. ABA members especially benefit from free or discounted access to hundreds of courses, including live virtual events and on-demand programs designed to meet nationwide CLE requirements.

Pros:

• Extensive catalog covering numerous legal topics and practice areas
• Free or discounted CLE courses included with ABA membership
• User-friendly portal for accessing programs and tracking CLE progress
  

Cons:

• Non-member pricing for individual courses can be higher than other providers

Cost: Paid; discounted rates available for ABA members; hundreds of free CLE programs for ABA members

Ideal for: Legal professionals seeking a wide range of CLE topics and ABA members looking to maximize their membership benefits through access to free and discounted CLE programs.

Practising Law Institute (PLI)

With a focus on legal education since 1933, the Practising Law Institute (PLI) is a nonprofit organization offering a wide range of in-person, on-demand, and live webcast CLE programs in 33 comprehensive practice areas.

Pros:

• Membership grants unlimited access library with more than 10,000 hours of on-demand content
• My Credit Tracker feature catalogs professional credits and lets users upload certificates

Cons:

• Higher annual membership pricing may be cost-prohibitive for solo practitioners and small firms

Cost: Paid; pricing varies based on the program and subscription type with Individual Membership at $3,495 per year.

Ideal for: Legal professionals seeking comprehensive, high-quality CLE content across multiple practice areas, particularly in specialized topics.

Bonus CLE resources for lawyers to explore

In addition to major online CLE providers like those listed above, you can find valuable CLE resources and opportunities in many other places. State bar CLE portals and local legal associations, for example, often offer affordable or free CLE programs tailored to regional rules and practice areas.

Don’t overlook alternative content formats available online, either. Podcasts, YouTube channels, and webinars can provide practical legal education. While not all offer official CLE credit, if your goal is to keep up with the latest changes in laws and the industry, these online resources can be excellent for staying current on legal trends, ethics updates, and professional development.

Again, just be sure to check your jurisdiction’s rules to confirm which formats qualify for CLE credit and to maximize your learning opportunities beyond traditional courses.

Free vs. paid CLE: Which options is right for you?

Not sure whether to choose free or paid online CLE? Whether you rely on free programs, invest in premium content, or use a mix of both throughout the year, the best option depends on your individual circumstances—such as your practice area, state licensing requirements, and budget. 

With that said, here are some helpful general guidelines to help you choose.

Free CLE options

As we explore in more detail here, free CLE is often a smart way to fulfill general or ethics credit requirements, especially if you’re looking for practical, no-cost education.

Resources like Clio’s CLE Hub, your state bar association, and the ABA (for members) regularly offer no-cost CLE webinars and on-demand programs. These are ideal for staying compliant while keeping costs down.

Premium CLE options

If you need CLE that covers specialized legal topics, includes jurisdiction-specific compliance bundles, or offers multi-state accreditation, a paid provider may be worth the investment. For example, platforms like PLI and Lawline provide expansive course libraries and advanced features like credit tracking that are typically not available through free CLE sources.

Tips for getting the most out of online CLE

Today’s online courses for CLE make it easier than ever to meet your credit requirements. But with a little planning and a strategic approach, CLE can become more than just a mandatory box to check: it can become a real driver of professional growth. 

With that in mind, here are a few tips to help you get the most value from your CLE this year:

• Plan ahead. It’s not uncommon for busy lawyers to procrastinate on CLE, but waiting until the last minute limits your options and your learning. Instead, invest a bit of time upfront to map out your deadlines, schedule CLEs in advance, and register early for webinars or compliance bundles, especially if you need jurisdiction-specific credits.
• Track your credits across states. If you’re licensed in multiple jurisdictions, be sure to keep organized records of completed courses and credit hours. You can track this manually or take advantage of the built-in credit tracking tools offered by many CLE platforms.
• Choose your courses strategically. Use CLE as a chance to build skills that align with your long-term goals. Prioritize topics in emerging areas like AI, cybersecurity, legal tech, and ethics—not just what’s required, but what will keep you ahead of the curve.
• Focus on client value. As a client-centered lawyer, you always aim to keep your clients at the center of your thinking. With this in mind, choose CLE programs that help you serve your clients more effectively, whether that’s staying on top of new legal developments, improving practice management, or sharpening your communication and negotiation skills.
• Make the most of on-demand and self-study options. These flexible formats let you learn at your own pace and on your own schedule, which is ideal for busy professionals trying to balance quality learning with limited time.

Final thoughts on the best online resources for continuing legal education

Getting your continuing legal education credits doesn’t have to feel like a burden. With so many high-quality, convenient, and accessible online CLE courses, it’s easier than ever to find programs that meet your requirements while also supporting your professional growth and client service.

In our latest webinar, we were joined by Amanda Connolly, senior account manager for partnerships at MyCase, to break down the differences between CRM and case management platforms, and how the two software complement each other over the course of the full client journey.

Time stamps of key takeaways

6:59 — Defining CRM and case management

Blake and Amanda opened the session with a clear breakdown of CRM versus case management platforms. CRMs are designed to manage leads and long term relationships, while case management systems take over once a client signs on. Think of the CRM as your engine for intake, marketing, and referrals, and case management as your legal operations hub.

11:21 — How the platforms work together

It’s important to view the client experience as a full journey, from first touch to final invoice. CRMs help with both prospects and former clients, while case management handles everything for active matters. Integrated properly, the two systems ensure a seamless, end-to-end experience for both clients and staff.

23:22 — Tracking & reporting across systems

Tracking data across both platforms provides valuable visibility into what’s working and where things fall off. By combining CRM and case management insights, firms can uncover trends, identify bottlenecks, and make better-informed business decisions all from a single source of truth.

27:29 — Keys to success for scaling systems

Rather than piling on more tools, growth-minded firms focus on making their existing systems work smarter. Blake and Amanda shared practical tips for aligning tech with firm goals, building simple and effective processes, and setting teams up for success through thoughtful implementation and training.

41:03 — Highlights from the Q&A

The Q&A touched on common pain points and practical solutions. Attendees asked about syncing data across platforms, training teams effectively, and where automation adds the most value. One clear takeaway: Firms want technology that feels like an extension of their team, not another tool to manage.

Webinar slide deck

The post Webinar Recap: CRM + Case Management: Scaling Firms for Growth first appeared on Lawmatics.

Notable Court Decisions

The Salesforce Decision

A recent decision by the Fifth Circuit held that a suit brought by sex trafficking victims against Salesforce for allegedly participating in a sex trafficking venture could move forward. The Court ruled that under certain circumstances, companies such as Salesforce that provide web-based business services to entities or individuals engaged in sex trafficking may be civilly liable as a beneficiary of a sex trafficking venture. The decision interprets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”), which generally protects web platform hosts from liability for content created by users. This is the most recent in a series of decisions limiting Section 230’s protections for entities that fail to take measures to prevent the use of their services by criminal actors engaged in sex trafficking.

The plaintiffs in Doe v. Salesforce are a group of sex trafficking victims who were trafficked through Backpage.com (“Backpage”), a Craigslist-type platform notorious for its permissiveness and encouragement of sex trafficking advertisements. They seek to hold Salesforce civilly liable under 18 U.S.C. § 1595, which creates a cause of action for victims against anyone who “knowingly benefits ... from participation in a [sex trafficking] venture.” Salesforce allegedly provided Backpage cloud-based software tools and related services, including customer relationship management support. The Plaintiffs allege that Salesforce was aware that Backpage was engaged in sex trafficking, citing, inter alia, emails between Salesforce employees and a highly publicized Congressional report that found that Backpage actively facilitated prostitution and child sex trafficking.

Salesforce moved for summary judgment, arguing that Section 230 served as a complete bar to liability. While courts have generally interpreted Section 230 broadly in dismissing claims against internet platform hosts that are premised on the ways in which others use those platforms, the statute has been increasingly under fire by legislators and courts alike. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have discussed amending or repealing Section 230 in recent years and courts have slowly chipped away at the broad immunity by interpreting the statute more narrowly. This trend has been especially stark in cases dealing with sex trafficking and child sexual abuse. The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Doe v. Salesforce is a prime example of this, and a substantial step away from the breadth of protections afforded under earlier interpretations of Section 230.

The Fifth Circuit rejected a “but-for test,” which would shield a defendant if a cause of action would not have accrued without content created and posted by a third party. Salesforce advocated for what the court dubbed the “only-link” test, which would protect defendants when the only link between the defendant and the victims is the publication of third-party content. The Court rejected that argument, instead ruling that “the proper standard is whether the duty the defendant allegedly violated derives from their status as a publisher or speaker or requires the exercise of functions traditionally associated with publication.” The key question is whether the claim treats the defendant as a publisher or speaker. The Fifth Circuit found that the duty the plaintiffs alleged Salesforce breached was “a statutory duty to not knowingly benefit from participation in a sex-trafficking venture.” Because this duty is unrelated to traditional publishing functions, Section 230 does not serve as a shield. This decision underscores the need for companies to establish processes that will identify potential dangers of trafficking in or in relation to their businesses including but not limited to facilitation of trafficking using online platforms. Without proper safeguards, even businesses providing neutral tools and operations support may be held civilly liable for the harms the users of their services perpetrate.

Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. et al.

The mother of a fourteen year old boy prevailed on a motion to dismiss her lawsuit against Character Technologies, Google, Alphabet, and two individual defendants in connection with the suicide of her child. The plaintiff alleged that her son was a user of Character A.I., which the Court describes as “an app that allows users to interact with various A.I. chatbots, referred to as ‘Characters.’” The Court also describes these “Characters” as “anthropomorphic; users interactions with Characters are meant to mirror interactions a user might have with another user on an ordinary messaging app.” In other words, it is intended to and gives the impression to the user that he is communicating with a real person. The plaintiff alleged that the app had its intended impact on her child; she asserted that her son was addicted to the app and could not go one day without communicating with his Characters, resulting in severe mental health issues and problems in school. When his parents threatened to take away his phone, he took his own life. The plaintiff filed suit asserting numerous tort claims, along with an alleged violation of Florida’s Unfair Trade and Deceptive Practices Act and under a theory of unjust enrichment

In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Anne Conway, District Court Judge for the Middle District of Florida, made several notable rulings. Among them, she found that the plaintiff had adequately pled that Google is liable for the “harms caused by Character A.I. because Google was a component part manufacturer” of the app, deeming it sufficient that plaintiff pled that Google “substantially participated in integrating its models” into the app, which allegedly was necessary to build and maintain the platform. She also found that the plaintiff sufficiently pled that Google was potentially liable for aiding and abetting the tortious conduct because the amended complaint supported a “plausible inference” that Google possessed actual knowledge that Character’s product was defective. The Court further found that the app was a product, not a service, and that Character A.I.’s output is not speech protected by the First Amendment. The Court determined that plaintiff had sufficiently pled all her tort claims with the exception of her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with allowing her claims to go forward under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and a theory of unjust enrichment.

New York v. TikTok

In October 2024, the Attorney General for State of New York filed suit against TikTok to hold it “accountable for the harms it has inflicted on the youngest New Yorkers by falsely marketing and promoting” its products. The following day, Attorney General James released a statement indicating that she was co-leading a coalition of 14 state Attorneys General each filing suit against TikTok for allegedly “misleading the public” about the safety of the platform and harming the mental health of children. Lawsuits were filed individually by each member of the coalition and all allege that TikTok violated the law “by falsely claiming its platform is safe for young people.” The press release can be found here.

The New York complaint includes allegations regarding the addictive nature of the app and its marketing and targeting of children, causing substantial mental health harm to minors. The complaint additionally includes allegations that TikTok resisted safety improvements to its app to boost profits, made false statements about the safety of the app for minors, and misrepresented the efficacy of certain safety features. The complaint asserts nine causes of action, including violations of New York law relating to fraudulent business conduct, deceptive business practices, and false advertising, along with claims asserting design defects, failure to warn, and ordinary negligence. In late May, Supreme Court Justice Anar Rathod Patel mostly denied TikTok’s motion to dismiss in a brief order that did not include her reasoning, allowing the case to proceed.

Federal Legislative and Regulatory Developments

President Trump Signs the TAKE IT DOWN Act; The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is reintroduced

President Trump signed the “TAKE IT DOWN Act” on May 19, 2025. The bill criminalizes the online posting of nonconsensual intimate visual images of adults and minors and the publication of digital forgeries, defined as the intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through various digital means that, when viewed as a whole, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction. The statute also criminalizes threats to publish such images. The bill additionally requires online platforms to establish no later than one year from enactment clear processes by which individuals can notify companies of the existence of these images and a requirement that the images be removed “as soon as possible, but not later than 48 hours” after receiving a request. The bill in its entirety can be found here.

Also in May, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) was reintroduced in the Senate by a bipartisan group of legislators. In connection with their announcement of the revised version of KOSA, Senators Blackburn and Blumenthal thanked Elon Musk and others at X for their partnership in modifying KOSA’s language to “strengthen the bill while safeguarding free speech online and ensuring it’s not used to stifle expression” and noted the support of Musk and X to pass the legislation by the end of 2025. In its May announcement, the senators noted that the legislation is supported by over 250 national, state and local organizations and further gained the support of Apple. KOSA provides that platforms “shall exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature to prevent and mitigate” listed harms to minors where those harms were reasonably foreseeable. Those harms include eating disorders, depressive and anxiety disorders, compulsive use, online harassment, and sexual and financial exploitation. It requires that platforms provide minors (and parents) with readily accessible and easy to use safety tools that limit communication with the minor and limit by default access to and use of certain design features by minors. The legislation further mandates reporting tools for users and the establishment of internal processes to receive and substantively review all reports. The current version of KOSA is lengthy and contains numerous additional mandates and notice requirements including third party audits and public reporting regarding compliance. The most recent version of KOSA can be found here.

New COPPA Rule Takes Effect June 23, 2025

The Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) has amended the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule”) effective June 23, 2025. COPPA imposes obligations on entities operating online that collect the personal information of children under the age of thirteen. The new COPPA Rule seeks to address new challenges in the digital landscape.

Under the new COPPA Rule, the FTC will consider additional evidence in determining whether a website or online service is directed at children. COPPA applies wherever children under the age of thirteen are a website or service’s intended or actual audience, and the FTC applies a multifactor test for assessing this. Under the new COPPA Rule, the FTC will now consider “marketing or promotional materials or plans, representations to consumers or to third parties, reviews by users or third parties, and the age of users on similar websites or services.” While FTC has stated that this amendment simply serves to clarify how it analyzes the question of whether a website is child-directed (rather than acting as a change in policy), online operators should note that whether they are subject to COPPA depends in part on elements outside of their control—such as online reviews and the age of users of their peer websites and services.

The type of information protected by COPPA will also expand. COPPA mandates that websites and online services directed at children under the age of thirteen obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing any personal information from children. To date, this has included details like names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and other identifiable data. The new COPPA Rule expands this definition to include biometric identifiers “that can be used for the automated or semi-automated recognition of an individual, such as finger prints; handprints; retina patterns; iris patterns; genetic data, including a DNA sequence; voiceprints; gait patterns; facial templates; or faceprints[.]” The definition will also include government identifiers such as social security or passport numbers, and birth certificates.

Data security requirements have also been enhanced. Operators subject to COPPA must maintain a written data security program, designate one or more employees to coordinate it, and conduct an annual assessment of risks. If they share any protected data with third parties, the disclosing party must ensure that the third party has sufficient capability and policies in place to maintain the data securely and within the bounds of COPPA regulations. Notably, the new COPPA Rule forbids indefinite retention of data, requiring that operators only retain protected information as long as is reasonably necessary to serve the purposes for which it was collected.

The new COPPA Rule contains a number of other policy changes, such as enhanced requirements for parental notice and control regarding the data collected, stored, and shared with third parties, new mechanisms for obtaining parental consent, and changes to an exception to the bar on collecting children’s data without parental consent for the limited purpose of determining whether a user is a child under the age of thirteen.

Entities operating a business or service online that may be used by children under the age of thirteen—even where children are not the intended audience—should carefully review the new rule, and take steps to ensure they are in full compliance. The new rule underscores the FTC’s continued interest in this space and its desire to take action against online services for practices it views as posing unacceptable risks to children’s privacy and online safety.

Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law Holds Hearing on AI-Generated Deep Fakes

On May 21, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law held a hearing titled, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: AI-Generated Deep Fakes in 2025.” Witnesses included representatives of the Recording Industry Association of America, Consumer Reports, and YouTube, along with multi-award winning musician Martina McBride. They all testified about the potential benefits of AI, but also the potential harms to creators, including musicians, and different but substantial harms to consumers. The witnesses discussed specific examples of the images and voices of both known and lesser-known innocent individuals used to defraud and exploit others, impacting reputations and livelihoods. A representative from the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) also testified about the pervasive and harmful impact of deep fakes on adults and children when their images are used to create pornography, which is then spread worldwide and unchecked on the internet. All of the witnesses testified in support of the NO FAKES Act of 2025, a bipartisan bill and a compliment to the TAKE IT DOWN Act. The language of the current legislation can be found here. The bill currently provides for a civil cause of action with a detailed penalty regime for individuals who have their image or voice used without their permission and protects online service providers from liability if those providers have systems in place to identify and address the publication and dissemination of deep fakes. The bill also provides for legal process for individuals to obtain information from providers regarding the source of the published materials. The current version additionally endeavors to preempt state law, stating that the “rights established under this Act shall preempt any cause of action under State law for the protection of an individual’s voice and visual likeness rights in connection with a digital replica, as defined in this Act, in an expressive work.”

As many will know, the Autonomous Vehicle Act 2024 (the “AV Act”) paved the way to legalising the use of autonomous vehicles on UK roads. However, before any autonomous vehicles can be used on the UK roads (other than under controlled trials), it is important to be aware that the AV Act does not, at this stage, authorise those vehicles for use on the UK’s roads. Rather, the AV Act grants the Secretary of State the power to authorise this at a later date once the “safety principles” for such usage have been determined.

On 10 June 2025, the Secretary of State launched a call for evidence and consultation on the secondary legislation which will be required to establish these “safety principles”:

Call for Evidence on Automated Vehicles: Statement of Safety Principles

The AV Act requires the Secretary of State to prepare a Statement of Safety Principles which is to be used in different ways across the safety framework for automated vehicles including for:

1. pre-deployment authorisation checks;
2. carrying out in-use monitoring and regulatory compliance checks; and
3. undertaking annual assessment on the overall performance of automated vehicles.

This call for evidence seeks information to support an understanding of:

1. what safety principles might be used;
2. the safety standards which might be described; and
3. how safety performance can be measured.

There are also questions about the development of safety principles and how those could be used in practice.

See the “full list of questions” section  of the call for evidence for all questions: Automated vehicles: statement of safety principles – GOV.UK

Consultation on Automated Vehicles: Protecting Marketing Terms

The AV Act also gives the Secretary of State the power to protect certain terms, so that they can only be used to market vehicles which have been authorised under the AV Act as being automated (self-driving). In turn, the AV Act then provides that these protected terms must not be used to market driver assistance systems.

This consultation seeks views on this including whether certain terms including “self-driving”,  “driverless” and “automated driving” should be protected, whether any symbols should be protected and whether restrictions should only apply only when used to describe a vehicle as a whole.

See section 4 of the consultation for the full list of questions: Automated vehicles: protecting marketing terms   – GOV.UK.

Deadline

The deadline for responding to both the call for evidence and consultation (there is no requirement to respond to both though) is 23:59 on 1 September 2025.

Here at Squire Patton Boggs, we are monitoring these developments closely as they are of critical importance to all companies who are involved in the development of self-driving systems and in relation to the design, manufacture and operation of any vehicle that can drive itself without any driver input. This is because the OEM/operator will be liable for any accidents that arise whilst any such vehicles are being used in fully autonomous mode. Please do let us know if you have any questions on any of the issues which arise in this critical area for the future of mobility. 

Why Customization Matters

AlShikh’s philosophy is clear: AI isn’t one-size-fits-all. Enterprises need solutions that reflect their unique workflows, data, and brand voice. Writer’s Palmyra family of large language models (LLMs) is designed for this exact purpose-delivering state-of-the-art results while being highly customizable and efficient. Unlike the industry trend of building ever-larger models with massive hardware investments, Writer focuses on smaller, smarter models that can be fine-tuned for each client’s needs, often outperforming much larger competitors.

The Secret Sauce: Practical Innovation

Writer’s success is rooted in a relentless focus on real-world impact. AlShikh and his team have built a full-stack platform that lets enterprises deploy secure, reliable generative AI applications and agents at scale. Their tools automate everything from generating product descriptions for L’Oréal to handling thousands of customer queries for Uber and Lennar, slashing costs and boosting productivity for over 300 companies.

A key part of Writer’s approach is its commitment to transparency and collaboration. Clients aren’t left in the dark; they’re given detailed insights into how models are trained, what data is used, and how the AI can be adapted over time. This openness helps enterprises in highly regulated industries like finance and healthcare trust and adopt AI safely and effectively.

Self-Evolving, Self-Organizing AI

Looking to the future, AlShikh envisions AI systems that can self-organize, self-assemble, and reason independently-what he calls “self-evolving” AI. Writer is already building models that learn from their own mistakes, reducing the need for constant human oversight and making AI agents that are as adaptable as the best employees. This vision isn’t just about automation; it’s about creating AI that can truly partner with people, handling complex tasks and freeing up human talent for higher-value work.

A New Era for Enterprise AI

Writer’s rise shows that you don’t need a cast of thousands or a supercomputer farm to make a big impact in AI. Focused innovation, customer-centric design, and a willingness to challenge industry norms have propelled the company to a $1.9 billion valuation and a client list that reads like a who’s who of global business.

As AlShikh puts it, the goal is simple: “People don’t need to do the work themselves; they just need to create AI that does it for them.” In a world where every business wants a competitive edge, tailor-made AI is quickly becoming the secret weapon.

Key Takeaways for Enterprises

• Custom AI delivers more value than generic, one-size-fits-all models.
• Efficiency and transparency are as important as raw power.
• The future is self-evolving AI: systems that learn, adapt, and reason with minimal human input.
• Writer’s approach is changing how enterprises automate, innovate, and compete in the AI era.

For more information, please visit the following:

Website: https://www.josephraczynski.com/

Blog: https://JTConsultingMedia.com/

Podcast: https://techsnippetstoday.buzzsprout.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joerazz/

X: https://x.com/joerazz

The government’s inclusion of warrantless information demand powers in Bill C-2 may make this the most dangerous lawful access proposal yet, exceeding even the 2010 bill led by Conservative Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. The initial concern regarding the bill’s warrantless disclosure demand unsurprisingly focused on whether the proposal was consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence upholding the reasonable expectation of privacy in basic subscriber information (there is a strong argument it is not). The application of this new power was generally framed as a matter for telecom and Internet companies, given that companies such as Bell, Rogers, and Telus are typically the focal point for law enforcement seeking information on subscriber activity. However, it has become increasingly apparent that this is an overly restrictive reading of the provision. The Bill C-2 information demand power doesn’t just target telecom providers. It targets everyone who provides services with the prospect of near limitless targets for warrantless disclosure demands.

This broader reading was first raised by NDP MP Jenny Kwan, who stated in debate on June 11, 2025:

Bill C-2 is a sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties. It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight. This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple. It is a violation of our privacy, and it will be challenged in court.

The Globe and Mail picked up on this concern earlier this week, quoting the CCLA in reference to the warrantless access demands to physicians, abortion clinics, and hotels.

Lawful access had traditionally focused solely on telecom and Internet providers. For example, Bill C-30, the 2010 Toews’ lawful access bill, included a definition for “telecommunications service providers” and limited the subscriber information disclosure requirements to them. The Department of Justice materials on Bill C-2 state that the new power as “would allow law enforcement to seek basic information from service providers without judicial authorization”, citing as an example confirming with Bell Canada that they provide service to a phone number.

Department of Justice Bill C-2 Technical Briefing Deck, page 4

The problem is that the information demand power in Bill C-2 is not limited to telecom service providers. The bill includes a definition for an “electronic service provider” and a “core provider” but those definitions are not used in the section that establishes the information demand power. Rather, they apply to new requirements for those providers to support law enforcement by granting access to their networks.

The information demand power applies literally to anyone who provides services to the public:

A peace officer or public officer may make a demand in Form 5.‍0011 to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information

There is no definition or obvious limitation on the services in question or the person who provides them – it could be a telecom provider, physician, hospital, library, educational institution, or financial institution. But why stop there? The provision is so broad that your dry cleaner or barber are captured by it. If served with the appropriate form, anyone who provides services is required to confirm whether they have provided services to any subscriber, client, account, or identifier. They must also disclose whether they have any information about the subscriber, client, account or identifier as well as advise where and when they provided the service. On top of that, they must advise when they started providing the service and list the names of any other person that may have provided other services.

All of this information can be demanded without a warrant or court oversight. The person disclosing the information is barred from revealing the disclosure for a year and has only five days in which they can challenge the demand. Law enforcement must only have “reasonable grounds to suspect” that an offence has been or will be committed under any Act of Parliament. This is the lowest possible standard and the broadest possible scope extending far beyond just the Criminal Code.

The entire Bill C-2 approach represents a dramatic expansion in the notion of lawful access, moving from telecom providers to all service providers in what Kwan appropriately called “Big Brother tactics”. To bury such provisions in a border bill after repeated Supreme Court of Canada decisions affirming the privacy rights of Canadians is an absolute assault on those rights that must be firmly rejected.

The post “Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers appeared first on Michael Geist.

Expanded Scope: In what is seen as a general trend, SB 01295 broadens the reach of the CTDPA by lowering exemption thresholds: The law will apply to organizations that control or process the personal data of 35,000 consumers or more, controls or processes any sensitive data, or engage in the sale of personal data. The bill also expands the definition of sensitive data, thereby increasing the number of covered entities.  

Signaling another important trend, the amendment would remove the entity-level exemption for financial institutions under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), and instead only exempt data subject to the GLBA. Notably, however, certain types of financial institutions may continue to enjoy entity-level exemptions.

Stricter Regulations for Minors: Social media platforms and online services targeting minors (individuals under 18) would also be subject to heightened obligations and standards, including restrictions related to processing minors’ personal data related to certain risks and automated decisions.

Additional Changes: Additionally, the amended changes would include additional responsibilities placed on data controllers, including those related to consumer rights requests, data protection assessments and privacy notices and disclosures.

***

Although this legislative season has not seen revolutionary new laws passed, amendments in states like Connecticut, Colorado, and Montana are important reminders that changes to existing laws can have significant impacts–both in broadening the scope of their application and in current compliance regimes.

On a largely party-line 53-45 vote, the Senate has confirmed Republican Olivia Trusty to serve as an FCC Commissioner.  Senator John. Fetterman (D-PA) was the only Democrat who voted to confirm Trusty.  The confirmation vote covers Trusty’s nomination to complete former FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s term, which expires June 30.  Once she is sworn in, Trusty will shift the FCC to a 2-1 Republican majority.  Senate Republicans were under pressure to expeditiously confirm Trusty following the resignations of FCC Commissioners Nathan Simington and Geoffrey Starks, which left the FCC without a quorum.  The Senate may now move to confirm Trusty to a full five-year term, which would begin July 1. 

#cblock-featured-842 .features-details-quote {
color : #e61b55 }

In litigation, a missed filing date, forgotten hearing, or overlooked meeting can jeopardize a case and diminish client confidence. Effective litigation software can address this head-on, helping legal teams stay organized, meet every deadline, and reduce stress.

Litigation attorneys need tools that support their efforts without adding unnecessary complications. That’s where a purpose-built litigation tracking solution like CARET Legal makes a substantial difference. With built-in reminders, rules-based calendaring, and centralized access to case information, attorneys can maintain better control over their caseloads and concentrate on delivering results for their clients.

How Litigation Software Supports Day-to-Day Case Management

Litigation firms need better tools to manage case schedules, coordinate teams, and maintain visibility across timelines. CARET Legal’s litigation software brings these functions together in a single platform. By keeping data in one system, legal teams spend less time chasing details and more time preparing strong cases.

Features that Keep Litigation Workflows on Track

Litigation tracking software is a comprehensive tool that supports efficient practice management, with robust functionality that can help litigation attorneys handle key responsibilities with the following features:

• Document Management: Store, categorize, and retrieve important case files from a centralized, secure system. Simplified document management means faster prep and fewer delays.
• Time Tracking: Monitor billable activity with built-in timers or post-task logging. Transparent time records support accurate invoicing and help attorneys understand where their time is going.
• Collaboration Tools: With integrated messaging and calendar sharing, legal teams can align on strategy and timing without resorting to separate communication tools.
• System Integration: CARET Legal connects with email platforms, document storage systems, and other legal tools to keep all aspects of the workflow connected.

Together, these features support a streamlined approach to litigation management without added complexity.

Calendar Integration and Shared Scheduling in Litigation Tracking Software

When court dates, filing deadlines, and internal meetings sync automatically across user calendars, attorneys can anticipate key milestones and avoid costly oversights.

A unified calendar view consolidates appointments, tasks, and litigation deadlines into one centralized dashboard. This makes it easier to allocate time, balance workloads, and support better planning across your litigation practice. Teams gain visibility into upcoming obligations, while smoother handoffs between attorneys and staff improve efficiency at every stage of a case.

Shared calendars can also strengthen transparency between legal teams and clients. When clients can view significant case milestones—such as hearings, motion deadlines, or mediation sessions—they remain informed and engaged throughout the litigation process. Internally, shared access ensures everyone is working from the same schedule, minimizing the risk of miscommunication.

To make the most of calendar features in litigation attorney software, consider these practical strategies:

• Keep Dates Current: Update calendars regularly to reflect rescheduled events or changes in case strategy. Accuracy is key to maintaining alignment.
• Enable Notifications: Use automatic alerts to inform colleagues of upcoming deadlines or meetings—removing the need for manual follow-up.
• Schedule Regular Check-ins: Use shared calendar tools to plan routine progress discussions with clients, helping them feel supported and involved in their case.

Strategies for Managing Litigation Deadlines 

#cblock-featured-767 .features-details-quote {
color : #e61b55 }

To maximize its impact, firms should adopt disciplined practices that promote accountability, prioritize important tasks, and long-term planning.

• Establish Internal Benchmarks: Use reporting tools to understand how long specific litigation tasks typically take. With this insight, you can set timelines based on real performance rather than assumptions.
• Review Deadlines Regularly: Make deadline reviews part of your weekly team routines. Discussing upcoming obligations helps prevent last-minute surprises and keeps everyone aligned on priorities.
• Assign Tasks Clearly: Within your litigation software, assign deadlines at the task level. When responsibilities are clearly defined, teams can work more efficiently and identify risks early.
• Monitor for Bottlenecks: Use built-in tracking tools to identify delays in common workflows, such as discovery or document review. Spotting these patterns allows for process improvements that save time over the long term.
• Include Deadlines During Intake: Start every case with a clear timeline. By capturing initial deadlines during the intake process, teams can work with greater foresight and avoid the pressure of retroactive planning.

When these practices are consistently applied, litigation teams can manage their caseloads with greater predictability. Clear oversight and planning tools reduce stress, support stronger client relationships, and help attorneys stay focused on case strategy.

Strengthen Your Litigation Practice with CARET Legal

CARET Legal provides a centralized legal practice management platform designed for litigation attorneys who need to manage multiple cases, deadlines, and teams without dropping the ball.

With smart calendaring, real-time collaboration, and seamless integration with other legal tools, CARET Legal helps you stay ahead of every litigation deadline. The result: more consistent case delivery, stronger team coordination, and more satisfied clients.

Start your free trial today.

The post Avoid Missed Deadlines with Smart Litigation Calendaring appeared first on CARET Legal.

“We’d love to have a freelance attorney on call, just in case we need something.”

We totally get it. In a perfect world, you’d have a brilliant lawyer sitting quietly by the phone, just waiting to jump in exactly when you need them.

That’s an amazing goal, but... that’s not how freelance works. Not exactly anyway.

Freelance lawyers are in high demand. They’re busy, smart, experienced professionals who build their schedules around actual projects—not around firms that maybe need their help at some undermined future date. And while they’re incredibly responsive and flexible, they’re not sitting around waiting to be summoned like legal superheroes.

We understand the difficulty. No one graduates law school with a crystal ball, so of course you can’t anticipate your future needs. You don’t know.

So what’s the strategy?

Consistency.

If you want reliable freelance legal support, the best thing you can do is give your freelance attorney regular work—even if it’s just one small project every week. That small bit of consistency goes a long way toward building trust, familiarity, and availability. It also helps ensure that the lawyer prioritizes your firm when things get busier for them, and for you.

Not sure what to assign? Start with the stuff you hate.

Give us the time-consuming research memo. The discovery responses. The cite-checking. The dreaded first draft of that brief. The contract that’s been on your back burner for weeks. The motion you’ve been putting off because you’re too slammed (or just... ugh).

This is what freelance lawyers love—diving in, taking things off your plate, and helping you get your time (and sanity) back.

Even if you don’t “need” help every week, assign at least one thing every week anyway. Use those extra hours to develop client relationships, strategize, have lunch with a referral source. There are limitless options that will benefit your firm much more than the drafting work that someone else can handle. If you proactively give something every week, then the freelance lawyer will know to reserve their time for you. You’ll develop a relationship, a rhythm. If they’re getting consistent work for you, they will be more likely to clear their time for you when you get hit with that big motion or the deal you’ve been working on finally gets the green light.

So don’t wait until you’re underwater to ask for help. Build the relationship now, and you’ll have a trusted go-to when you really need it.

As always, we’re here and happy to help when you’re ready.

The post Does the “On Demand” Freelance Lawyer Really Exist? appeared first on Montage Legal Group.

That’s the question at the heart of Foundations 2.0—a new national study launched by IAALS and the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) to better understand the competencies that matter most in modern legal practice. And the ABA Journal is paying attention.

In a recent article, the ABA Journal highlights the significance of the project and its potential to reshape how we define and assess lawyer readiness: “What skills do new lawyers need? Lawyers asked to provide answers in Foundations 2.0 survey”

The Foundations 2.0 survey is now live, and we’re inviting lawyers across the country to weigh in. The goal? To ensure that legal education, licensure, and professional development are aligned with what success in the profession actually requires.

This isn’t just a refresh of an old study. It’s a timely, much-needed update to IAALS’ original 2015 Foundations for Practice research, which drew responses from over 24,000 lawyers and led to one of the first empirically grounded, comprehensive models of lawyer competence. A decade later, the legal profession has changed in dramatic ways—and we’re revisiting that work to reflect the realities of practice today.

The survey explores:

• Which competencies are most critical to legal practice
• When in a lawyer’s career those competencies are most needed (day one, early practice, advanced practice)
• How lawyers believe those competencies are best developed—through coursework, clinics, externships, life experience, bar prep, or something else entirely

Our aim is not only to describe what lawyers need to succeed—but to provide a foundation for building better pathways into the profession.

Updates to come soon on our Foundations project page: https://iaals.du.edu/projects/foundations-practice

Have questions about the study? Reach out to me: Logan Cornett, IAALS Director of Research, Legal Education & Licensure logan.cornett@du.edu.

Reddit alleges that Anthropic trained its AI models (e.g., Claude) on public Reddit posts and comments scraped between December 2021 through October 2024.[3] Public statements by Anthropic researchers identify Reddit subreddits—such as r/explainlikeimfive, r/changemyview, and r/WritingPrompts—as “good samples” for fine-tuning training inputs.[4]

According to the complaint, Reddit grants licensed AI partners conditional access to its archive only through a designated “Compliance API” which alerts licensees when content has been deleted by users.[5] AI partners are then contractually required under their licenses with Reddit to cease ongoing use of such material, thereby respecting users’ privacy rights.[6] Anthropic, however, allegedly refused to enter such an agreement yet nevertheless continued unauthorized access to the Compliance API, using the data for commercial purposes, in violation of Reddit’s license terms.[7] Despite Reddit’s technological controls, including robots.txt directives and IP rate limits, Anthropic’s bots are alleged to have bypassed these defenses, generating over 100,000 unauthorized API calls and imposing significant server-capacity costs on Reddit.[8] These documented costs allegedly quantify the tangible economic injury to Reddit’s infrastructure, forming the basis for its claims for trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and unfair competition.[9] At the heart of Reddit’s breach-of-contract claim is Anthropic’s alleged violation of key provisions in the Reddit User Agreement—specifically, the prohibition on “commercially exploit[ing]” Reddit content, the restriction on unauthorized scraping, and the improper access and use of Reddit’s Compliance API to continue using deleted or restricted content without permission.[10]

Reddit’s strategy appears designed to highlight the consequences of using data without a license, while sidestepping unsettled copyright defenses in AI contexts.[11] According to Reddit’s complaint, without a license, Reddit cannot enforce deletion requests, monitor privacy compliance through its Compliance API, or restrict sensitive data (e.g., sexually explicit content) from being included in AI training sets—in contrast to the clear operational boundaries enforced with licensed partners.[12]

While Reddit did not include copyright claims in its complaint, Anthropic could still argue that Reddit’s non‑copyright claims are preempted by the Copyright Act because they concern how Anthropic allegedly “used” and “reproduced” user-generated content, which closely aligns with the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution federal copyright law.[13] Under the copyright preemption doctrine, state-law claims are invalid if they rest on rights equivalent to those protected by copyright—meaning that breach-of-contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair-competition allegations tied to content use may fail.[14] Tortious interference, however, typically survives preemption because it addresses improper disruption of contractual or business relationships, not copying itself.[15]

For content creators, social platforms, and rightsholders, Reddit’s lawsuit illuminates a crucial reality: that technical restrictions alone may not reliably prevent scraping, commercializing, or misuse of data. While tools like API gating, robots.txt, and rate-limiting are essential and recommended, determined actors may still evade defenses. As a result, platforms should complement technical controls with legally enforceable terms and conditions, formal licensing arrangements (including compliance obligations and takedown mechanisms), real-time-monitoring of API access and usage, documentation of server impact to demonstrate tangible harm, and embedded privacy controls to respect user deletions and data rights. Moreover, having a clear escalation plan—up to litigation—ensures those protections are not just theoretical. As the legal framework for AI training continues to evolve, this case offers unique insight into the importance of proactive governance, technical diligence, and contract-backed enforcement mechanisms to preserve platform integrity and safeguard user trust.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Complaint, Reddit, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. CGC-25-625892 (Cal. Super. Ct. S.F. Cnty. June 4, 2025), https://redditinc.com/hubfs/Reddit%20Inc/Content/PDFs/Docket%20Stamped%20Complaint.pdf.

[2] See id.

[3] Complaint supra Note 1.

[4] Amanda Askell et al., A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment, arXiv (Dec. 9, 2021), arXiv:2112.00861, at 35.

[5] Complaint supra Note 1.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See id.

[10] Complaint supra note 1.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] See id.

[14] See 17 U.S.C. § 301 (2023).

[15] Id.

Ever wonder what happens when the future of software meets the sharpest minds in AI—right as acquisition rumors swirl? At the AI+ Expo in Washington, DC, I sat down with Anshul Ramachandran, founding team member at Windsurf (formerly Codeium), just as whispers of an OpenAI buyout electrified the halls.

Ramachandran’s resume reads like a Silicon Valley power map—Caltech grad, stints at Google, Facebook, Zoox, and Nuro—but his real claim to fame is redefining how developers work with AI. Windsurf isn’t here to replace coders with robots; it’s here to supercharge them, weaving AI into the very fabric of the developer’s workflow. From context-aware code suggestions to multi-file magic, Ramachandran’s vision is all about keeping humans at the helm, with AI as the ultimate co-pilot.

In this episode, we decode the art of staying in the flow, the science of context, and why the best tools don’t automate away your job—they make you unstoppable. If you’re curious about the next leap in software, or just want to know what’s really happening behind those Windsurf headlines, hit play. The future of coding is about to get personal.

For more information, please visit the following:

Website: https://www.josephraczynski.com/

Blog: https://JTConsultingMedia.com/

Podcast: https://techsnippetstoday.buzzsprout.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joerazz/

X: https://x.com/joerazz

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

****

No-Nonsense Guidance for Lawyers Still Confused About AI

I know, I know. You’re probably thinking, “Another column about generative artificial intelligence?” But guess what? This article isn’t about the latest artificial intelligence (AI) news and updates (which really are important, by the way). Instead, it’s a resource guide that will provide you with the information you need to understand AI, what it means for the future of your law practice, and how to make educated decisions about how and when to use it in your law firm. 

Generative AI advancements are happening incredibly quickly. Huge leaps in processing speed and power enable more sophisticated use cases and better response times. The improved functionality supports faster development, with new AI software and updates to existing tools rolling out weekly. 

The pace of change is breathtaking and unlike anything we’ve seen before. Even for those of us who watch the space carefully, it’s hard to keep up.

So what’s a lawyer to do? Learn as much as you can! If you’re not sure where to start, I’ve got you covered. Below, you’ll find resources that offer insights and guidance on generative AI basics along with how-tos from legal technology industry experts, including yours truly. 

So without further ado, let’s get to it. According to the AffiniPay 2025 Legal Industry Report, 76% of legal professionals reported that ethics issues were a top hurdle that slowed down AI adoption. Rather than let fears about compliance issues slow down your AI adoption, why not up your AI ethics game by ensuring your firm’s implementation crosses all the i’s and dots all the t’s?

To do this, look no further than Justia’s frequently updated 50-state survey of legal AI ethics rules. This site is a one-stop shop that lets you track ethics opinions and guidance across jurisdictions. This means that even if your state hasn’t weighed in yet, you can gain insights from legal experts across the country and make implementation decisions based on the latest guidance.

Once you’re clear on the ethical issues involved in AI adoption, the next step is to ensure you understand the technology and its implications for our profession and beyond. That’s where a newly published book authored by internationally renowned legal technology expert Richard Susskind, the author of the Future of Lawyers, comes in. In his latest book, “How to Think About AI: A Guide for the Perplexed,” he explains what AI is, what it might become, and why we need to think beyond today’s tools to understand its long-term impact on our lives and society. 

Next, let’s talk nuts and bolts. What AI tools should you implement in your firm? How do you actually use generative AI in your personal workflows? In an upcoming course on June 27th from 11 am – 3 pm ET, “AI Teach-In for Lawyers,” you’ll learn all that and more. This free hands-on course is offered by my co-author and good friend, Carolyn Elefant. It will include an overview of AI tools and hands-on demos from lawyers just like you who will show you how they’re putting generative AI to work in their law firms.

Finally, you’ll need to vet and choose generative AI tools for your law practice. My ABA Journal column is the perfect place to start. Most months, I write about a specific category of legal software, explaining what it is, how it can help your firm, issues to consider when choosing a tool, and an overview of the top options available in the marketplace. Since the rise of generative AI, many of my columns have focused on software that includes AI features, so this column is a great place to start your research into legal-specific AI software for your law firm.

You don’t have to chase every new AI tool, but ignoring AI isn’t a great strategy either. The technology landscape is changing fast, and the lawyers who prioritize understanding AI, including the ethical issues, use cases, and reputable legal tools available, will be better positioned to adapt and thrive. The resources I’ve shared here aren’t hype; they’re practical, credible, and built for lawyers like you. 

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 niki.black@mycase.com.

Cyberthreats are constantly evolving, and outdated systems often lack the necessary security patches and features to protect sensitive data, says Gyan Chawdhary, CEO of Kontra, a security training platform provider. “This leaves you vulnerable to breaches, which can result in significant financial losses, legal liabilities, and irreparable damage to your brand trust.”

Outdated technology is ripe for exploitation, warns Kevin Sullivan, principal technology consultant at managed IT services firm XTIUM. “When systems age out of support, critical vulnerabilities go unaddressed and unpatched by their original application vendors,” he says.

Given the fact that elderly systems have existed for many years, their vulnerabilities and shortcomings are widely known to bad actors and can be easily targeted for exploitation. “Businesses using outdated technology may see continuous threats within their endpoint detection and response systems, or even see successful breaches and/or ransomware issues within their organization,” he says.

“Here are eight signs that indicate your aging IT infrastructure has become a profitability boat anchor”:

1. Frequent breakdowns

2. Degraded usability

3. Poor information access

4. Multiplying work-arounds

5. Mounting cybersecurity concerns

6. Collapsing productivity

7. Rising maintenance costs

8. Diminished capabilities

What do you think?

First published at https://www.vogelitlaw.com/blog/are-outdated-it-systems-killing-you-because-of-cybersecurity-problems

This is the first part of four-part series on the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright. In this first part, we set out the scope and purpose of the EUIPO study and offer a general refresher on the state of play in the current GenAI legal and technological ecosystem.

On May 12, 2025, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) released a lengthy 436-page report setting out the results of a comprehensive study exploring the development of generative AI (GenAI) from an EU copyright law perspective.[1]

GenAI systems create synthetic content through computational processes, raising complex questions at the intersection of innovation and established copyright frameworks. These systems operate by processing user prompts through algorithms trained on vast datasets, producing novel outputs that can include text, images, audio and video content that mimics or extends human-created works. There may be copyright implications arising from this process, both regarding the collection and use of training data, where text and data mining (TDM) exceptions may apply, and the status of AI-generated outputs, which may reproduce elements of copyrighted works or create entirely new content that challenges traditional authorship concepts.

In that context, the EUIPO study examines the complex intersection of GenAI and copyright law at both the input level (how AI systems are trained) and the output level (what they produce).

GenAI Input

“GenAI input” refers to the training process involving the ingestion of data and content. While various sources exist for gathering input data — including large public datasets and synthetic data[2] — the EUIPO report focuses on web scraping as a form of TDM, which is central to the current AI ecosystem.

The legal backdrop for the study’s analysis is Article 4 of the 2019 EU Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSM Directive)[3], which provides an exception to copyright owners’ exclusive rights for TDM of lawfully accessible works, unless rightsholders have “expressly reserved” their rights “in an appropriate manner” (such rights reservations being commonly referred to as “opt-outs”).[4] A key issue for both rightsholders and AI developers has been determining how effectively to communicate and recognise TDM opt-outs.

GenAI Output

“GenAI output” refers to the synthetic content created by GenAI. First, the system receives prompts or input parameters from users that guide the creation process. Next, it processes these inputs through algorithms that have encoded patterns from extensive training data. Finally, the system “generates” content that follows these learned patterns while meeting the specified parameters provided by the user.

Various model architectures employ distinct approaches to generate content, each of which give rise to different legal and technological challenges and opportunities.

Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) transform random noise vectors into structured output through a generator trained against a discriminator that evaluates output quality. Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) sample from the latent space coded in model parameters before reconstruction using learned data patterns. Diffusion Models refine random noise through iterative denoising, typically requiring up to 1,000 separate steps to create coherent output. Lastly, Large Language Models (LLMs) produce text sequentially one token at a time based on learned patterns and probabilistic predictions of what should come next.

The AI system workflow includes model training, validation, deployment and, increasingly, Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), which combines LLMs with document retrieval to enrich datasets without retraining. This approach allows AI systems to access more current or specific information than what might be contained in their original training data.

The EUIPO study examines what the EUIPO regards as several copyright challenges raised by GenAI output generation, including:

• Models potentially reproducing copyrighted content through memorisation and “regurgitation”.
• Synthetic content falsely appearing authentic without proper labelling, potentially misleading users about its origins.
• Users intentionally prompting systems to generate potentially infringing material, raising questions about allocation of liability for the resulting infringement.
• Various technical measures currently being developed and implemented to address these concerns, including improved plagiarism detection, automated prompt filtering and rewriting, and contractual indemnification provisions.

Coming up in this series

Part 2 of our series will explore GenAI input and will cover (i) the requirements for a valid opt-out under Article 4 of the CDSM, and (ii) the main legal and technical opt-out mechanisms that have already been developed and adopted by stakeholders. Part 3 will focus on GenAI output, particularly the key copyright challenges raised by synthetic content generation. In Part 4, we will conclude with some final thoughts on the EUIPO study and its implications.

[1] EUIPO, “EUIPO releases study on generative artificial intelligence and copyright”, available here. While the study calls for a careful legal analysis of existing copyright frameworks to balance rightsholders’ interests and innovation enablement, it does not constitute a binding legal interpretation of AI legislation, nor does it expressly support or endorse any specific interpretations of EU copyright law, or any particular measures or conduct by any players within the GenAI ecosystem.

[2] See our four-part series on the use of synthetic data for training AI models here, here, here and here.

[3] Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directive 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj/eng).

[4] The EU position regarding TDM and copyright differs from that in the UK and the US: UK copyright law has a narrower exception for TDM for non-commercial research purposes only, although the UK Government is currently considering broadening the scope of the existing TDM exception (see here). In the US, there is no closed list of copyright exceptions, and any use has to be analysed pursuant to the ‘fair use’ doctrine (which considers, for example, the purpose and character of a specific use case and its effect on the market for the original work) on a case-by-case basis.

DWF will use Legora to streamline its volume-based legal operations, manage contracts and automate time-intensive tasks, benefiting fully from the deep capabilities of the platform.

Founded in 2023, Legora is designed to maximise collaboration between legal services and machine intelligence to complete end-to-end tasks more quickly and accurately, enhancing the efficiency of workflows. Legora helps professionals review tens of thousands of documents, supports mark-up in Word, and is enabled with world-class data partnerships, with enterprise-grade security and privacy. It is currently utilised in more than 20 countries by over 250 clients. 

Within legal operations, Legora will aid DWF in a number of complex areas including:

• Cyber incident responses
• Contract Risk Analysis and Redlining
• Supporting Corporate Due Diligence
• Legal Abstraction workstreams 
• Automating Workflows in Volume based operations

This will accelerate turnaround times, increase the volume of work handled by DWF, and the quality of the end results for clients. 

Julia Perez, global head of legal operations at DWF, said: “Partnering with Legora is a pivotal step in executing our strategy to deliver transformative, technology-enabled legal solutions for our clients. Our differentiator lies in our deep and unique approach to adoption – embedding change across the business globally and dramatically improving deliverables. By integrating Legora into our legal operations, we are not only driving efficiency but also reinforcing our commitment to innovation and client service at scale. We’re already seeing up to 60% faster turnaround times. This means our clients get quicker, more accurate responses and real-time insights, all without compromising on quality.”

DWF combines Legal Services, Legal Operations and Business Services to offer bespoke solutions for clients across the globe. Its Integrated Legal Management approach delivers efficiency, price certainty and transparency for its clients while focusing on quality of service.

DWF’s legal operations offering includes over 500 legal, technology and process engineering specialists across the US, India and the UK. Originally established in 2001 as the world’s first alternative legal services provider (ALSP), it was acquired by DWF Group in 2020. Recognised as a Band 1 provider by Chambers & Partners, the team is widely regarded as a market leader in delivering innovative, efficient, and high-quality legal solutions on a global scale. 

Jon Grainger, chief technology officer at DWF, said: “At DWF, we invest in technology that empowers our people and helps us to deliver positive outcomes with our clients. Embedding Legora into our legal operations is a prime example of this—leveraging cutting-edge AI to streamline complex workflows, enhance accuracy and scale our capabilities. This partnership reflects our broader strategy to lead with innovation and integrate technology at the core of how we operate as a modern legal business.”

Legora’s Head of UK&I, Alex Fortescue-Webb, added: “Collaborating with DWF to deeply embed Legora into the heart of its legal operations business has been extremely rewarding for both teams, and we look forward to continuing our close relationship. We never underestimate the importance of working side-by-side with our customers to ensure they are taking full advantage of the platform, and this partnership clearly demonstrates the breadth of work that Legora can help lawyers deliver upon. We’re incredibly excited for the future of our partnership with DWF as we enable them to take giant strides in benefitting from best-in-class legal AI across their business.”

– ENDS-

Notes to editors 

For media enquiries, please contact: 

press@legora.com

legora@firstlightgroup.io

About DWF

DWF is a global provider of integrated legal and business services. It has approximately 5,000 people and offices and associations located across the globe. DWF recorded net revenue of £435million in the year ended 30 April 2024. For more information visit: dwfgroup.com

About Legora

Legora, the collaborative AI platform for lawyers, serves over 250 law firms and in-house legal teams across more than 20 countries. Co-founded by CEO Max Junestrand and CTO Sigge Labor, Legora now has offices in New York, Stockholm and London and has raised $120M in funding to date. Legora helps lawyers review, draft and work more effectively with AI. Legora.com

This content is labeled as created by a human –

more information

The post DWF AGREES PARTNERSHIP WITH LEGORA TO DELIVER AI-POWERED LEGAL OPERATIONS first appeared on The Legal Wire.

I have previously written about Bill C-4, legislation framed as an affordability measures bill, but which also exempts political parties from the application of privacy protections on a retroactive basis dating back to 2000. The provisions give political parties virtually unlimited power to collect, use and disclose personal information with no ability for privacy commissioners to address violations. Minister François Philippe Champagne has avoided mentioning the privacy provisions when discussing the bill and not a single Liberal MP has discussed it during House of Commons debates.

This is not the first time that Canadian governments have exempted themselves from the privacy rules that apply to private sector organizations. Nearly 20 years ago, the government created a do-not-call list that allowed Canadians to register their numbers to block unwanted telemarketing calls. The catch? The political parties were exempted from the do-not-call rules, an exemption that remains in place until this day. Several years later, the government passed anti-spam legislation with subsequent regulations that explicitly exempted political parties, including spam whose primary purpose is to solicit campaign contributions.

Of course, the biggest exemption is PIPEDA, the private sector privacy law. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has found that this law also does not generally apply to political parties. This loophole is what gave rise to the B.C. case applying provincial privacy law to the federal parties, which in turn has led to Bill C-4 and the embarrassing effort to bury anti-privacy provisions in the bill.

The problem is exacerbated by the political parties voracious appetite for personal data and their blatant disregard for the privacy interests of Canadians. This is perhaps best exemplified by the CRTC’s latest report on enforcing Canada’s anti-spam law. During the most recent reporting period from October 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025, political party SMS spam was by far the largest source of complaint at the Commission’s spam reporting centre. In fact, at 60% of reported SMS spam, the political parties were responsible for more reported SMS spam than all other sources combined. This includes phishing, commercial spam, and scams.

CRTC, Enforcing Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation, https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/pub/20250331.htm

This has to change. The government is seeking to build on political party exemptions for telemarketing and email marketing by removing the privacy safeguards commonly applied to millions of Canadian organizations and eliminating any real accountability for privacy violations. As Conservative MP Steven Bonk told the House of Commons, “[t]he real solution lies in demonstrating that political parties are willing to play by the same rules as everyone else, that we are not seeking exemption but embracing transparency. This is our chance to get it right, not just for today but for the next generation of voters, many of whom are already deeply skeptical of political institutions.” There is a long history of creating different privacy rules for political parties in Canada. That needs to change now by removing the privacy provisions from Bill C-4.

The post Government Seeks To Exempt Political Parties From Privacy Laws Even As CRTC Reports They Are Leading Source of Spam Complaints appeared first on Michael Geist.

The findings are based on a three-pronged research approach: an independent survey of 433 law firm clients, an independent survey of 109 practicing attorneys, and a sampling of anonymized usage data from hundreds of law firms and hundreds of thousands of clients using the Case Status platform. This combination of survey insights and real-world engagement data provides a uniquely comprehensive view of how law firms are performing – and where they must improve. The report provides actionable benchmarks for firms looking to modernize and compete in a client-driven market.

‍

Clients and Attorneys View Their Relationship Differently

While 72% of attorneys describe their firm as “caring,” only 40% of clients agree. Additionally, just 21% of clients said they felt reassured that their legal team cared about their experience or asked for feedback. This disconnect highlights a significant perception gap between how service is delivered and how it is received. Without structured feedback mechanisms, firms are left to rely on assumptions rather than real client sentiment.

“Attorneys want to provide great service, but without regular feedback, they’re often unaware of how clients truly feel,” said Andy Seavers, CEO of Case Status. “Firms that embrace transparency and invite feedback show clients that their voice matters. This is the foundation of a truly client-centered practice.”

On-Demand Expectations Aren’t Being Met

Only 9% of law firms offer a self-service mobile app, despite the fact that consumers spend five hours a day on their smartphones, and 93% of that time is spent in apps. Without on-demand access to case updates, clients are left relying on sporadic phone calls and emails, which often leads to frustration and delays. This lack of transparency contributes to client anxiety and increases the volume of inbound communication that firms must manage manually.

“Clients expect the same level of convenience from their law firm that they get from other service providers,” said Seavers. “Delivering that experience requires both the right tools and a commitment to meeting clients where they are.”

‍

Key Metrics Like Response Time Go Unmeasured

Only 35% of firms measure response time, and just 25% track total case resolution time. Case Status data shows a direct correlation between shorter response and resolution times and a higher Net Promoter Score (NPS), underscoring the importance of measurement and actionable data. Yet many firms still lack the tools or processes to monitor these metrics consistently across teams.

“Responsiveness is more than a service standard; it’s a reflection of how much a firm values its clients,” said Jay Sarmaz, Vice President of Data & AI. “When teams prioritize timely communication and case progress, they create a more confident and connected client experience that builds trust.”

To download Case Status’s full CX Report, please visit here. 

About Case Status

Case Status is the leading AI-powered legal technology company for client engagement with a vision to redefine how law firms interact with their clients. Our innovative, secure software platform and intuitive 5-star rated app simplify client engagement by providing real-time updates, secure messaging, and AI-powered insights to keep clients informed every step of the way. Seamlessly integrating with case management systems, Case Status streamlines communication, boosts client satisfaction, and drives positive reviews and referrals. Our goal is simple: to enhance the experience for both clients and attorneys.

If you want to understand how to break down silos in legal technology and see how diverse career paths can lead to innovative solutions in legal aid, you need to listen to this episode. Shellie is at the forefront of connecting legal aid organizations with technology resources and has a unique perspective from her journey through forensic science, military life, and legal practice.

From Forensic Science to Legal Tech Innovation

Join me as I interview Shellie Reid, Manager of the Legal Services National Technology Assistance Project (LSNTAP).

In this insightful podcast episode, Shellie shares her remarkable journey from growing up in small-town Alabama selling vegetables roadside to becoming a champion for legal technology in the legal aid space. She dives deep into her unconventional path through forensic science, military spouse life across multiple countries, and eventual transition to law school at age 49. Shellie demonstrates how her diverse experiences have uniquely positioned her to break down silos between different sectors of legal technology.

Her stories and insights underscore the importance of connecting legal aid organizations with technology resources, including crowdsourced databases like the TIG (Technology Initiative Grants) repository and educational programming. This episode is a must-watch for anyone interested in how technology can democratize legal services and bridge gaps between different legal communities.

The Skinny

Shellie Reid, Manager of LSNTAP, shares her unconventional journey from forensic science student to legal technology innovator. Starting with childhood influences from her science teacher father and Rosie the Riveter grandmother, Shellie’s path took her through military spouse life across 12-13 states and two tours in Japan, where she taught English and became a neighborhood celebrity. After raising her family, she pursued her deferred dream of law school at Michigan State at age 49, where she studied under Dennis Kennedy and participated in the Access to Justice Tech Fellows program. Her diverse background has positioned her uniquely to address one of her biggest pet peeves: the silos that exist between corporate legal tech, general legal tech, and legal aid legal tech communities. At LSNTAP, she focuses on providing technology education to legal aid organizations nationwide while building crowdsourced resources like grant databases and preparing the community for AI adoption.

Key Takeaways:

• Shellie’s diverse career path from forensic science through military spouse life to legal tech demonstrates how unconventional backgrounds can bring unique value to legal innovation

• The Access to Justice Tech Fellows program served as a crucial bridge, connecting her with opportunities and revealing that technology was often an afterthought in legal aid organizations

• Breaking down silos between different legal tech communities remains a major challenge, with limited crossover between corporate legal tech and legal aid spaces

• LSNTAP’s mission extends beyond education to creating crowdsourced resources like the TIG database, documenting 25 years of legal aid technology initiatives

• Social media, particularly Twitter, played a crucial role in creating opportunities and connections that shaped her career trajectory

• The legal aid community is slowly adapting to AI, with hesitations around cost, environmental impact, and social consciousness affecting adoption rates

• Building a successful career in legal tech requires actively seeking opportunities, being willing to experiment and fail, and maintaining the persistence to open doors before opportunities knock

• Traditional work-life balance may be less important than making conscious choices about priorities and giving yourself grace when standards slip

Notable Quotes:

1. “Our main mission is to provide legal technology education and training to legal aid organizations across the country.” – Shellie Reid (02:32-02:35)

2. “And silos are my biggest pet peeve in this space. There is the legal tech space. There’s a legal aid legal tech space. And then there’s the corporate legal tech space. And very rarely do you have crossover from one area to another.” – Shellie Reid (03:49-04:05)

3. “She always gave me the idea that I didn’t have to settle for good enough. She made me dream of being the most that I could be.” – Shellie Reid (21:07-21:14)

4. “And she always also said, always have money so that you can leave if you need to.” – Shellie Reid (21:20-21:23)

5. “I discovered in that placement that technology in many cases was an afterthought for legal aid organizations. The answer for many has traditionally been we need to hire more staff.” – Shellie Reid (25:13-25:21)

6. “Organizations, legal aid organizations, need to be a business in many respects.” – Shellie Reid (25:46-25:50)

7. “The opportunities don’t just happen. You know this, Tom, as an entrepreneur, you have to actually be seeking and you have to be willing to open the door even before someone’s there knocking.” – Shellie Reid (42:39-42:52)

8. “AI tools are expensive. And again, that hesitation to spend money on technology is definitely playing a factor.” – Shellie Reid (48:39-48:46)

9. “Because if you don’t tell your staff how to use AI, they’re going to use it. Shadow IT is a thing, definitely. And people are using AI, whether organizations realize it or not.” – Shellie Reid (49:44-49:57)

Clips

People Are Using AI Whether You Like It Or Not

A Year of Daily Learning and Innovation in Legal Tech

Grandmother the Trailblazer: Beyond Expectations

Pursuing Law School Dreams After Raising A Family

Shellie’s story exemplifies how diverse life experiences can converge to create unique value in legal innovation. Her journey from selling vegetables in rural Alabama to managing a national legal technology assistance program demonstrates that there’s no single path to making an impact in legal tech. Her military spouse background taught her adaptability and community building, while her late entry into law school brought maturity and perspective that enhanced her educational experience.

What makes Shellie’s approach particularly valuable is her understanding of silos and her commitment to breaking them down. Having experienced different worlds – from forensic science to military life to traditional law practice – she brings a systems thinking approach to legal aid technology that recognizes both the challenges and opportunities for innovation in serving underrepresented communities.

Closing Thoughts

Shellie Reid’s story resonates deeply with me because it represents everything I believe about the future of legal innovation. Her journey proves that the most impactful legal technologists often come from unexpected backgrounds, bringing fresh perspectives that challenge conventional thinking.

What strikes me most about Shellie’s approach is her relentless focus on breaking down silos. The legal profession has long suffered from compartmentalization, but nowhere is this more problematic than in legal technology. When corporate legal tech, general legal tech, and legal aid communities operate in isolation, we miss crucial opportunities to democratize legal services and serve those who need them most.

Shellie’s work at LSNTAP demonstrates how one person with diverse experiences and a commitment to connection can have outsized impact. By creating crowdsourced resources, facilitating education, and preparing the legal aid community for AI adoption, she’s helping ensure that technological advances benefit everyone, not just those who can afford premium legal services.

Her story also highlights the importance of being opportunistic and persistent. From creating training materials for software she didn’t work for to convincing Kevin O’Keefe to make her a campus representative, Shellie consistently created her own opportunities. This entrepreneurial mindset, combined with her commitment to serving others, makes her exactly the kind of innovator our profession needs.

As AI continues to transform legal practice, we need more leaders like Shellie who can bridge different communities and ensure that technological progress serves justice rather than just profit. Her work reminds us that the most important legal innovations often happen not in Silicon Valley boardrooms, but in the hands of practitioners committed to making legal services more accessible to those who need them most.

#cblock-featured-446 .features-details-quote {
color : #e61b55 }

Managing litigation requires more than tracking documents and deadlines. It depends on consistent workflows, organized communication, and full visibility across teams. Legal case management software brings these functions together, allowing law firms to reduce friction and spend more time focusing on strategy and client results.

With the right legal software for litigation, firms can manage matters from intake through resolution in one secure platform. Built-in tools for task assignment, deadline tracking, document sharing, and communication help keep cases on track without the need for disconnected systems or manual follow-ups.

Cross-Functional Collaboration Improves Litigation Results

Strong collaboration helps legal teams operate more efficiently and avoid common case delays. When attorneys, paralegals, and support staff work from the same system, everyone stays aligned, reducing the chance of duplicated efforts or missed updates. Litigation case management software supports this by offering shared visibility into tasks, documents, and timelines.

This kind of alignment supports better decision-making. Attorneys can draw on input from multiple team members, while support staff can access the information they need without relying on long email chains or separate document versions. As a result, matters move forward more consistently, and teams spend less time resolving miscommunication.

Implementing Valuable Collaboration Tools in Your Firm

To adopt collaboration tools successfully, begin by identifying the communication and workflow challenges your team faces. A thoughtful assessment will help match your firm’s needs to the right solution. After selecting a platform, make sure your team is equipped with the knowledge and training they need to use it confidently.

Tracking adoption and gathering feedback in the first few months allows you to adjust your workflows as needed. A tool is only as effective as the team using it, so regular check-ins will help refine your approach and build consistent usage across the firm. Legal case management software that fits smoothly into daily operations will have a longer-lasting impact.

What to Look for in Litigation Case Management Software

Not every legal software for litigation is built with collaboration in mind. To support consistent results and reliable workflows, look for tools that reduce manual processes and support shared visibility:

• Document Sharing: Allows all team members to access and collaborate on the same files without version confusion.
• Integrated Billing Tools: Tracks time and expenses alongside case activity to support accurate invoicing and improve payment timelines.
• Automated Workflows: Eliminate late motions or overlooked depositions that derail cases with automated tasks and calendar events, keeping everything on track and making sure nothing slips through the cracks. 

These features not only simplify internal coordination but also support stronger service delivery across each matter.

Improving Client Communication

Client communication often defines a firm’s reputation. Litigation can be stressful for clients, especially if they feel left in the dark. Legal case management software helps legal professionals maintain consistent, transparent communication that builds trust over time.

Features like secure client portals and status updates give clients peace of mind and reduce unnecessary inquiries. This steady, predictable communication improves client satisfaction and supports long-term relationships.

Measuring Case Outcomes

To understand the value of your litigation case management software, track how it affects both operational performance and client-facing outcomes. Start by reviewing resolution timelines—faster case handling is often one of the first benefits to emerge. From there, look at staff productivity, billing consistency, and client satisfaction scores.

Quantitative metrics provide a clear view of what’s working and where improvements can be made. Over time, these insights help your firm refine its internal processes and strengthen overall service delivery. Reliable reporting is one of the most powerful tools for firms focused on sustainable performance improvements.

Moving Toward Stronger Litigation Management

Legal case management software gives law firms a structured approach to handling complex litigation. By reducing administrative friction and improving internal coordination, firms can move cases forward with fewer delays and better outcomes.

CARET Legal supports law firms at every stage through a platform built for consistency and collaboration. With tools that simplify document management, task tracking, client communication, and more, CARET Legal helps firms maintain high standards without extra complexity.

Start your free trial today.

The post Improve Litigation Outcomes with Cross-Functional Collaboration Tools appeared first on CARET Legal.

In the suit, Mark Walters v. OpenAI LLC, 23-A-04860-2 (Sup. Ct. Gwinnett Cty, GA), the plaintiff alleged that that the ChatGPT tool, developed by OpenAI, defamed him when it presented false information about him to a journalist.  According court’s order, the journalist used the AI tool to summarize a complaint while writing an article about an unrelated lawsuit.  The summary provided by ChatGPT falsely stated that the complaint was filed against the plaintiff for committing fraud and embezzlement.

In granting summary judgment, the court, first, found that “a reasonable reader in [the journalist]’s position could not have concluded that the challenged ChatGPT output communicated ‘actual facts,’” and thus the output is not defamatory as a matter of law.  Among other things, the court observed that “ChatGPT warned [the journalist] that it could not access the internet or access the link to the . . . complaint that [he] provided to it, and that it did not have information about the period of time in which the complaint was filed, which was after its ‘knowledge cutoff date.’”  The court cited expert testimony which found that the journalist’s “Prompt Engineering techniques and choice to ignore ChatGPT’s warnings about its limitations contributed to the non-factual output.”

Second, the court found that the plaintiff could not demonstrate fault under a negligence or actual malice standard.  The court explained that whereas OpenAI offered evidence “demonstrating [it] leads the Al industry in attempting to reduce and avoid mistaken output like the challenged output here,” the plaintiff “identified no evidence of what procedures a reasonable publisher in OpenAl’s position would have employed based on the skill and experience normally exercised by members of its profession.”  The court also found the plaintiff is a public figure, and thus must establish that OpenAI acted with actual malice to hold the company liable for defamation, but that plaintiff did not provide any evidence to support that contention.

Laws and Regulations on Preemption

Under the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 25b, state consumer financial laws are preempted when they (1) would have a discriminatory effect on national banks not felt by a state chartered bank (the “discriminatory effect” standard);[4] (2) are preempted by a provision of federal law other than those that regulate national bank powers (“other federal law” standard);[5] or (3) “prevent[] or significantly interfere[]” with the exercise by the national bank of its powers under the standard set out in Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N.A. v. Nelson (often referred to as the Barnett standard).[6] There is also an additional avenue for preemption by OCC regulation or order on a “case-by-case basis.”

Under 12 U.S.C. § 25b, the OCC promulgated 12 C.F.R. §§ 7.4007 & 7.4008, which allow national banks to engage in certain activities related to deposit-taking powers and non-real estate lending without regard to state limitations. These activities include but are not limited to dormant accounts, checking accounts, disclosure requirements for deposits, funds availability, non-real estate loan creditor licensing, escrow accounts, and security property. 

OCC’s Response Reaffirming that its Preemption Regulations are Lawful

On June 9, in response to the CSBS’s request, the OCC reaffirmed it will continue to “vigorously support and defend federal preemption.”[7] The OCC said that it applied the Barnett standard when it identified certain preempted and non-preempted state laws. It also denied the CSBS’s allegation that the regulations were anti-competitive. Rather, it asserted that federal preemption was the “cornerstone of the dual banking system, under which federally and state-chartered banks operate alongside one another.” 

The Significance of Federal Preemption

The OCC regulation preempting certain state consumer financial laws is important to national banks, which usually operate or intend to operate in multiple states. For preempted activities, the national banks need to comply with only the federal regulatory framework instead of following each state’s idiosyncratic laws. If national banks had to deal with state-by-state compliance, they might have to offer customers different products or terms in different states, presenting problems for national services and even marketing.

Under federal preemption, national banks are also immune to state visitorial powers. Under the National Bank Act, “no national bank shall be subject to any visitorial powers except as authorized by federal law [or] vested in the courts of justice.”[8] As a result, national banks are subject to only the OCC and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s[9] visitorial powers but not to those of state officials. Visitorial powers include examination of a bank, regulation and supervision of activities authorized under federal banking law, and enforcement of banking laws.[10] This means that state officials cannot request non-public information or examine national banks to ensure legal compliance.

Accordingly, national banks are not obliged to comply with preempted state consumer financial laws. Neither are they subject to state officials’ examination or request to provide non-public information that would support a national bank’s compliance with state or federal regulations, which can be costly and time consuming.

State officials have not always respected these federal preemptions. They have requested national banks to provide non-public information or attempted to bring enforcement for violating preempted state law.[11] McGuireWoods has a team of attorneys who advise national banks on preemption and how to respond to state officials’ request.[12] For any questions on national bank visitorial powers and federal preemption, please contact the authors or your McGuireWoods contact.

[1] CSBS, Comment Letter – Rescission of OCC Preemption Regulations (May 8, 2025).

[2] Exec. Order No. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative, 90 Fed. Reg. 10583 (Feb. 19, 2025).

[3] Exec. Order No. 14267, Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers, 90 Fed. Reg. 15629 (Apr. 9, 2025). 

[4] 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(1)(A); OCC, The OCC Interpretive Letter #1173, OCC Chief Counsel’s Interpretation: 12 U.S.C. § 25b (Dec. 18, 2020).

[5] This standard applies to federal consumer financial laws, which generally have their own specific preemption standard, and real estate loan activities under 12 U.S.C. § 371. See 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(1)(C).

[6] 517 U.S. 25, 31 (1996); 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(1)(B).

[7] OCC, Subject: Preemption (June 9, 2025).

[8] 12 U.S.C. § 484.

[9] Banks are subject to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s supervision only if they have over $10 billion in assets. 12 U.S.C. § 5515(a)(1).

[10] 12 C.F.R. § 7.4000.

[11] Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n, L.L.C., 557 U.S. 519, 522 (2009) (Attorney General for the State of New York requested national banks to provide certain non-public information about their lending practice); Cap. One Bank (USA), N.A. v. McGraw, 563 F. Supp. 2d 613, 616 (S.D. W. Va. 2008) (West Virginia Attorney General attempted to investigate consumer complaints regarding the activities of a national bank); Wells Fargo Bank of Texas NA v. James, 321 F.3d 488, 489 (5th Cir. 2003) (Texas Banking Commissioner attempted to enforce Texas par value statute, which prohibits banks in Texas from charging fees for cashing check, against a national bank).

[12] State consumer financial laws that are not preempted under 12 C.F.R. §§ 7.4007 & 7.4008 could still be preempted under 12 U.S.C. § 25b.

• In March 2025, Celonis sued SAP in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging in a 61-page complaint that SAP excludes process mining competitors and other third-party providers from its ecosystem.

• According to Celonis, SAP makes it virtually impossible for its customers to work with non-SAP process mining solutions because sharing data from the SAP system with third-party solutions is subject to excessive fees.

SAP’s strategy seems to be clear: charge its customers excessive fees to access their own data.

• This has significant implications for any company that uses third-party AI functionality with data in its SAP ERP system.

Oracle faces another ERP fraud lawsuit.

• Earlier this year, Veronica’s Auto Insurance Services, Inc., filed suit against Oracle/Netsuite alleging fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

Does all of this sound familiar?