Director of Legal @ Malbek | Legal Tech Author and Commentator | Fastcase 50 2022 Honoree | Legal Tech Startup Advisor and Investor

I help legal professionals, legal teams, and technology organizations make sense of legal technology so they can work smarter, deliver stronger outcomes, and lead with confidence in a field that is often noisy, fragmented, and misunderstood.

As General Counsel of Malbek and a long-time educator, author, and advocate, I sit at the intersection of law, technology, and learning. My work centers on translation. I take complex, fast-moving technologies and turn them into clear concepts, practical strategies, and informed decisions that legal professionals can actually use. Whether guiding teams through digital transformation or shaping how legal products are built and adopted, my focus is always on clarity over hype.

Teaching is core to how I operate. I regularly speak to diverse audiences, from military organizations to law firms and in-house legal departments, as well as large professional groups, on AI’s impact on legal work and the responsible, effective use of technology. Across these settings, my goal is the same: to help people understand not just what tools do, but how they change legal work, roles, and judgment.

That same educational mission runs through my writing and publishing. I am the author of The Legal Tech Ecosystem, a foundational guide to understanding the industry and its players, a co-author of CLM for Dummies, and the editor of the Handbook of Legal Tech. I also write regularly, serve as a columnist for Today’s General Counsel, and contribute through podcasts, webinars, and industry forums. Each platform is another way to make legal tech more accessible, grounded, and actionable.

Across every role, my aim is to equip people with the knowledge and confidence to engage with innovation thoughtfully and critically. If you are trying to cut through the legal tech noise, educate your team, modernize how your legal function operates, or build tools that truly serve legal professionals, I help move you from uncertainty to understanding and from learning to execution.

Let’s build what comes next.

Colin Levy

You can't negotiate AI contract provisions if you don't understand how the technology actually works.

The guide walks through it in the context of AI-specific contractual clauses:

What to flag, redlining suggestions, and negotiation suggestions.

Let me know what you think!

I'm Colin S. Levy, General Counsel at Malbek and author of The Legal Tech Ecosystem.

#legaltech #contracts #law #business #learning

Colin S. Levy

General Counsel at Malbek | Author of The Legal Tech Ecosystem | I Help Legal Teams and Tech Companies Navigate AI, Legal Tech, and Digital Enablement

AI Clauses Guide

AI Agents and Your Data: Two Questions You Should Be Asking

As AI agents become more prevalent in legal workflows, I'm noticing a gap in the conversations happening around their adoption. We're discussing capabilities and use cases extensively, but glossing over the practical realities of data management and security.

Two areas deserve sharper focus:

1) Data Handling and Storage
When an AI agent processes your documents, drafts your contracts, or analyzes your matter files, where does that data actually go? How long is it retained? Is it used for model training? These aren't theoretical questions. They're foundational to understanding what you're agreeing to when you deploy these tools.

Most lawyers assume their data stays private and ephemeral. It doesn't always. Different providers take vastly different approaches to data retention, storage locations, and usage rights. Some retain your inputs for 30 days. Others longer. Some use customer data to improve their models unless you explicitly opt out. The terms matter, and they're rarely transparent.

2) Cybersecurity
AI agents typically require broader access than traditional software. They need to read files, access systems, sometimes act on your behalf. That expanded access creates expanded risk.

Are you treating AI agent deployments with the same security rigor you'd apply to any third-party vendor with system access? Validating their security certifications? Understanding their incident response protocols? Reviewing their encryption standards?

I'm optimistic about these tools. Their potential is real. But potential comes with responsibility. 

We need to ask hard questions about data practices and security standards before deployment, not after something goes wrong.

The legal profession has a particular obligation here. We're stewards of confidential client information. 

That duty doesn't evaporate because the technology is new or exciting.

I’m Colin, General Counsel at Malbek, and author of The Legal Tech Ecosystem. 

#legaltech #innovation #law #business #learning

General Counsel at Malbek | Educator Translating Legal Tech And AI Into Practice | Adjunct Professor | Author, The Legal Tech Ecosystem

I operate at the intersection of law, technology, and innovation strategy. A former litigator turned legal tech and AI expert, I now serve as Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind LawPay, MyCase, CasePeer, and DocketWise. 

Inside the company, I provide insight on the legal market, law firm operations, and how AI is impacting the practice of law. I advise on AI implementation within our products, author legal industry reports, and guide teams on how to communicate with lawyers so that our technology solutions and messaging align with their needs and realities. My role bridges market knowledge, product strategy, and effective engagement with the legal profession.

Outside the company, I educate the legal community on adopting technology to improve efficiency and client service. I’ve authored (or co-authored) three books, including Cloud Computing for Lawyers and Social Media for Lawyers (ABA Publishing), and Criminal Law in New York (Thomson Reuters). I also write columns for the ABA Journal, Above the Law, The Daily Record, and the 8am Blog, and speak frequently at leading conferences such as ABA TECHSHOW and Legalweek on topics including AI ethics and legal innovation.

Specialties: AI in Law • Legal Technology • Innovation Strategy • SaaS Growth • Legal Market Analysis • Product Strategy • Messaging & Positioning • Legal Operations • Legaltech Ethics • Industry Reports • Public Speaking

Nicole Black

Wrapping up a great weekend at the Women + AI Conference in Nashville. 

I decided to attend this year after Stephanie Wilkins spoke so highly of last year’s event, and after some strong encouragement from my friend and co-author Carolyn Elefant. I’m glad I listened. 🙌 

The weekend started with the SimplyAgree dinner, where I had a number of thoughtful conversations, including one with Megan McMillin, Legal Innovation Partner at Harvey, and another lively discussion during the Uber ride back to the hotel with Stephanie Goutos. 🚘 

I also appreciated the chance to present alongside an impressive group of speakers and facilitators who generously shared their experience and insight, including: Catherine Goodman, Hailey Doerr, Dyane O'Leary, Chanal Neves-McCain, Sabra Tomb, Adele Shen, Jamie Giani, Hannah Kupfer, Maya Markovich, Natalie DeCesare, J.D., Stephanie A. Everett, Yaa Kumah-Crystal, MD MPH FAMIA, Stephanie Phillips, CAT CASEY, and Dana Rozier.

Saturday night brought a wonderful dinner and more great conversations, including catching up with Debbie Foster and learning more about the importance of - and joy that comes from - paying it forward.

Many thanks to Cat Moon and the fantastic team at Vanderbilt University Law School for hosting such a well-run, eye-opening, and welcoming event.

Director of Content at Legaltech Hub

AI Expert & Skills Training for lawyers/legaltech |Lawyer fighting BigEnergy at FERC, statePUCs & court for renewables, ratepayers, landowners & communities | Hearing Officer | Law firm ownership’s stan @MyShingle.com

SimplyAgree

Legal Innovation @ Harvey | Lawyer | Mom

Harvey

Attorney | AI Builder | Head of Practice Innovation @ Gunderson Dettmer | Preparing Leaders for the Future of Work | Fueled by Coffee, Humor, & Being Told It Can’t Be Done 🔥

Global CKO and AI Lead at Kennedys, Honorary Professor in Law at Queen Mary University of London

Enterprise Account Executive | Spellbook

Professor of Legal Writing Director, Legal Innovation & Technology Center

Assistant Professor of Legal Writing

Director of Training Programs & Strategic Business Development | Lawyer & Educator Across Higher Ed | Program Builder

Judicial Innovator | Solving hard problems, cleaning up backlogs, modernizing responsibly | Founder & CEO, Third Branch Solutions | Advocate for grief literacy & mental health transparency

Vice President at AAA-ICDR Institute | Executive Director at Justice Tech Association

Legal AI Enablement @ Harbor Labs

Bridging strategy, decisions, and the future of law | Translating growth, systems, and AI into execution for law firm leaders | Author, The Small Firm Roadmap • Co-Host, The Lawyerist Podcast

HealthIT Clinical Director, Associate Professor Biomedical Informatics, Associate Professor Pediatric Endocrinology: Vanderbilt University Medical Center

eDiscovery Project Management | Artificial Intelligence | Legal Operations | Integrated Operations | Litigation | Empower your peers, empower yourself. |

Global AI Evangelist | Chief Legal AI Futurist, Masters AI | Builder of Billion-Dollar Legal Tech Brands | Founder The Technocat LLC | Founder AI Baddies | Board Law Rocks | Technocat Podcast | NYSBA AI Task Force

AI Training & Strategy for Small Teams| Helping Non-technical Leaders Build Practical AI Skills That Save Time and Drive Results

💡Helping law firm leaders get unstuck •💪Moving firms forward through strategy, leadership, and technology • ⭐CEO, Affinity Consulting Group • 🎤Keynote Speaker

Provocateur | ‘Be ignited, or be gone.’

Vanderbilt University Law School

AI in Law & Legaltech Expert | Legal Innovation & Strategy | Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind LawPay, MyCase, CasePeer, & DocketWise | Lawyer, Author, Journalist, Speaker | WSET 2 Wine Certified

#wheelsup to NYC for Legalweek. See you soon! 

#legalweek26 #legalweek2026

No alternative text description for this image

Really enjoyed the opportunity to return to my alma mater, Albany Law School, to talk about why understanding AI is no longer optional. 

I had really interesting conversations with curious students about the future of the legal profession and the importance of understanding how AI is going to impact their careers and the practice of law. I also emphasize the importance thinking about their career evolution as a sequence of pivots instead of a straight line. And I shared with them a piece of advice I often tell my daughters: make choices that give you more choices.

I also had opportunities to connect with members of the administration and faculty about the future of legal education and and how more classes on emerging technologies can be incorporated into the curriculum.

I even walked away with a complimentary copy of a new book that provides a roadmap to the next wave of lawyering!

All in all a fantastic trip and it was great to be back in Albany!

Albany Law School

The "fake it 'til you make it" strategy has officially hit a new low in the courtroom.

My latest article for Above the Law covers a recent train wreck (caught on VIDEO) at the New York Appellate Division Third Department. 

An attorney submitted 23 fabricated cases, then tried to gaslight the bench into thinking his 90% accuracy rate was a passing grade.

Spoiler alert: The judges were not impressed.

The Highlights of his Audacity:

😱 The "So What?" Defense: Attempting to tell an appellate panel that fabricated citations are "not germane" to the case.
😱 The Participation Trophy: Arguing that being 90% accurate is good enough for a court filing.
😱 The Double Down: Responding to allegations of AI hallucinations by submitting more hallucinations.
😱 The $5,000 "Audacity Tax": Getting sanctioned because "oops, the robot did it" isn't a legal defense.

If you’re going to let a chatbot write your brief, maybe don't act surprised when the judges notice the law doesn't exist.

Read the full breakdown in my latest column - info below 👇

Looking forward to Legalweek 2026 in New York this March. 🙌 

As I cover the event, I’m looking to move past surface-level marketing and instead want to discuss how AI is being integrated into legal workflows and what that means for the future of the profession.

I've got a few spots left in my schedule and am interested in connecting with companies and attendees on:
🔹 Agentic AI: The move from passive chat interfaces to autonomous systems that execute multi-step legal tasks.
🔹 Firm Economics: How the shift in efficiency is forcing a change in billing structures and associate development.
🔹 Practice Transformation: Tangible examples of AI impacting litigation strategy and day-to-day legal work.

When I’m not in sessions or conducting interviews, you might find me at one of 8am's booths—(113) or MS-6.

If you are a company with a new approach or an attendee with a perspective on where the practice is headed, I’d love to hear from you. Please drop me a DM to connect in NYC. 📩 

#legalweek2026 #legalweek26 #legalweek

The 8am 2026 Legal Industry Report is officially live. 🚀 

I’ve had the opportunity to be part of this project for five years now, and I’m incredibly proud to see how it has grown. 

This year’s data is especially telling, offering insights into how legal professionals view emerging tech like generative AI and their perspectives on the effectiveness of our justice system.

Here are some of the most interesting findings from the report:

➡️ Adoption is doubling: 69% of legal professionals now personally use AI tools for work, more than twice as many as last year (31%).

➡️ Legal-specific AI is on the rise: 42% of respondents now use legal-specific AI tools , with firm-level adoption jumping from 21% to 34% in just one year.

➡️ Real-time savings: Among those using AI, 61% report saving time each week. 38% save between one and five hours, and 14% save up to ten hours weekly.

➡️ The policy gap: Despite high usage, 43% of firms still have no formal AI policy and no plans to create one.

➡️ Systemic Challenges: While over half of lawyers describe the current state of access to justice as "poor", 76% believe AI has the potential to help narrow the gap. Additionally, 62% of lawyers believe the rule of law is currently under threat in the U.S. compared to 40% of other legal professionals , with corruption and political polarization cited as the top risks.

This report was a massive effort from our cross-functional team. I’m grateful for the many folks who helped get this release out into the world.

I’ve tagged the full team in the comments below! 👇

You can find the link to the full report in the first comment as well. 📈

Download the report, give it a read, and let me know what you think about the findings!

I conducted a social experiment with ChatGPT a while back. 

I asked my personal account, which I use to discuss legaltech and many other topics, to create an image of my life based on what it knew about me. It served up a cozy scene: a white woman, a puppy, and wine. 

Then I asked my work account, which I use exclusively for legal tech issues, that same question. It offered up a white man in a suit sitting in a tech-focused command center.

Apparently, to the algorithm, "legal tech" still looks like a man.

That wasn't just a glitch; it’s a reflection of who's in the room when generative AI tools are developed.  

That digital editing mirrors what happens in the real world. 

If you’ve ever been a woman at a tech conference, you know the feeling of being invisible. Despite your credentials, you stand in a networking circle and watch as men shake hands, make eye contact, and converse with everyone but you.

Does this always happen? Of course not. Does it happen often enough that it's predictable? Yes, absolutely.

I recently attended the Women + AI Summit at Vanderbilt Law, and for once, that "invisibility cloak" was gone. I felt consistently seen and acknowledged. Ideas flowed freely, and no one was sidelined or ignored.

It was a glimpse of what happens when everyone's perspectives are prioritized in the conversation. When women aren't competing to be heard, the quality of output and ideas improves for everyone.

The takeaway:
➡️ AI isn't neutral; it’s a mirror of the room where it was built.
➡️ If women and marginalized groups aren't in that room, the "default" setting remains a white man in a suit.
➡️ We can't just "prompt" our way out of systemic bias; we have to change who is in the room when tech is developed.

For more info, see my latest ABA Journal article below 👇

🙌 This week’s Legaltech Reality Check just dropped!

On the docket: AI models that treated nuclear brinkmanship like a timed challenge, courtroom drama sparked by cutting-edge eyewear, and a court opinion that suggests privilege might require a heartbeat.

📌 Inside this week:
 ◾️ An AI adoption report where everyone’s enthusiastic and almost no one’s tracking ROI
 ◾️ A well-meaning access-to-justice push where “good enough” is suddenly a feature, not a warning label
 ◾️ Humanoid death robots warming up with choreography while we clap politely

🙏 Like the newsletter? Share it before your smart assistant decides confidentiality is optional and escalation is efficient.

👉 Subscribe for your weekly dose of legal tech news, measured skepticism, and carefully timed applause for our dancing future.

Welcome! Welcome to the Legaltech Reality Check! Every week, you've got a front seat to the latest news in legal technology, privacy, our robot overlo

Open article: Legaltech Reality Check | February 27, 2026 by Nicole Black • 6 min read

Legaltech Reality Check | February 27, 2026

🙌 This week’s Legaltech Reality Check just dropped!

On the docket: a legal profession racing into AI with the enthusiasm of a startup and the governance of a group chat, an algorithm with some surprisingly retro ideas about who belongs in tech, and a courtroom reminder that “mostly accurate” is not a legal standard.

📌 Inside this week:
 ◾️ A brewing fight over whether AI is a trusted drafting tool or gossipy snitch
 ◾️ A shiny new tablet that might quietly replace half the laptops in a law firm
 ◾️ A productivity miracle where AI saves time, but no one seems to have any

🙏 Like the newsletter? Share it before Siri decides the proper response to “imminent risk” is forwarding the entire firm's chat history to the nearest authorities.

👉 Subscribe for your weekly dose of legal tech news, mild existential dread, and robot-overlord welcomes.

Open article: Legaltech Reality Check | March 6, 2026 by Nicole Black • 7 min read

Interested in "vibe coding," but aren't sure where to start? You may have heard chatter about Claude Code and wondered what it was and why everyone's talking about it. Or maybe you have an idea for an app or a workflow improvement, but coding feels too far outside your skill set to give it a try.

Don't ignore that curiosity! There's no better time than now to explore AI and learn new ways to use it. Not only will you learn something new, you'll improve your AI literacy and possibly create something that's a huge time saver. 

If you're not sure where to start, I've got a great resource for you. It's a website that rounds up Claude Code resources and guides (hat tip: 8am's Chief Marketing and Sales Officer, Nate Skinner).

You can find info about the website in the comments👇 

Let me know if you've already tried vibe coding and if so, how you've used it and what you've created with it.

And if you use the resources listed below to get started with Claude Code, let me know how it goes! 🙌

Lawyers are using AI every day, and yet, many are still uneasy about it. 🤔 

The newly released 2026 Thomson Reuters report highlights that tension, with a focus on larger law firms' approach to AI adoption.

On the usage side:
• 55% of firms use general-purpose AI tools
 • 35% use legal-specific tools
 • 30% use AI multiple times per day
 • 25% use it daily

The most common tasks AI is used for are:
• Legal research (80%)
 • Document review (74%)
 • Summaries (73%)

At the same time, sentiment about it is mixed:
• 21% feel excited
 • 31% feel hopeful
 • 23% feel hesitant
 • 19% feel concerned

And perceived risks are on the rise:
• “Major threat” to unauthorized practice: 36% → 50%
 • “Major threat” to jobs: 15% → 24%

Even so, 62% say AI should be applied to their work.

So to sum up: we have steady, often daily use, rising concern about long-term impact, and broad agreement that it belongs in the workplace.

This disconnect is probably the most interesting part of the report. 

What I think it shows is that the tools are so useful and provide so much potential value that lawyers are using them despite overarching concerns. 

How do you interpret the data?

To learn more, check out my latest Daily Record article, where I analyze additional law firm data from the report 👇

🙌 This week’s Legaltech Reality Check just dropped!

On the docket: a GitHub folder triggers a $285B stock market meltdown, California issues a "Don’t Be Lazy" mandate for lawyers, and a 154-page manual reminds judges to actually do their own homework.

📌 Inside this week: 
 ◾️ Why the legaltech "moat" might just be a shallow puddle of buzzwords 
 ◾️ AI video tools that think "lawyer" is a gender-exclusive beard club 
 ◾️ A $176,000 humanoid robot that’s literally running a fever

🙏 Like the newsletter? Share it before Siri reviews the 2026 budget and helpfully cc’s you on the news that she’s replacing you for the low, low price of $20 a month.

👉 Subscribe for your weekly dose of legal tech news, mild existential dread, and robot-overlord welcomes.

Legaltech Reality Check | February 13, 2026

Many lawyers are using AI the wrong way. They think "speed" is an excuse to ignore professional obligations.

Case in point: a California judge just sanctioned an attorney for filing a ChatGPT-drafted brief full of hallucinations, including "cross-pollinated" concepts and made-up authorities. 

Now, the California Senate is seeking to pass a bill that forces lawyers to personally read and verify every single citation.

The Reality:
🔹 Verification is non-negotiable: If you haven't read the source, you shouldn't cite it.
🔹 Hallucinations are your problem: You are responsible for fixing AI errors and removing biased content.
🔹 The license is yours, not the AI's: You cannot outsource your ethical duties or final work product.

You can—and should—use AI for its speed. But you can't hand it the wheel and close your eyes. If your name is on the signature line, the responsibility for the research and analysis remains with you.

Choose to be part of the solution, or you'll eventually be the one getting sanctioned.

Read all about this case and the new legislation in my latest Daily Record post 👇

In my latest Daily Record article, I examine a growing conflict in the courts: Is generative AI a third party or a drafting tool? Two recent orders offer opposing answers, and the outcome will determine how legal privilege functions in a rapidly changing digital world.

While the facts in U.S. v. Heppner and Warner v. Gilbarco differ—most notably that the client, not the lawyer, input the data in Heppner—the broader legal question remains the same.

In Heppner, the judge ruled that a defendant using Claude waived privilege because a "trusting human relationship" cannot exist with software. Conversely, the Warner court held that AI is a tool for "mental impressions reformatted through software" and that it is protected under the work-product doctrine.

✅ My Analysis and Takeaways:

  ➡️ Tool vs. Third Party: Treating AI as a third party to whom disclosure is made ignores how modern practice functions. Concluding that privilege is waived if third parties have access to stored or input data under some circumstances,  then the status of email and cloud computing may be at risk.
  ➡️ Work-Product Protection: The Warner court recognized that software is a conduit for a litigant’s internal thoughts. Output should not be discoverable simply because it passed through a drafting tool.
  ➡️ Contractual Terms: The reasonable expectation of confidentiality depends on data practices. AI systems that store or review user inputs for model training are viewed differently than those with strict contractual restrictions on data use.
  ➡️ Workflow Impact: Technology providers should be viewed as service vendors or agents that facilitate representation. To hold otherwise would disrupt law firm workflows and court dockets nationwide.

Ultimately, the focus should remain on whether confidentiality was reasonably maintained, not on the "AI" label. Treating common drafting technology as an adversarial third party ignores the objective of the attorney-client privilege.

More info and a link below 👇

Sharing another post about my Public Defender days. This one is about my first jury trial.

The year: 1996. The ADA and I were both due to rotate out of the town court we'd been in for a year, and our judge was offended at the thought that we'd leave his court without having a jury trial under our belts. 

My client was charged with Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail) and Attempted Petit Larceny (Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail). He was accused of breaking into a car and attempting to steal a cell phone late at night, breaking the charger in the process.

According to the arrest report, a neighbor of the complainant saw my client trying to open car doors until he reached the complainant's, which was unlocked. The witness confronted my client and restrained him until the police arrived.

Our judge refused to accept the ADA's reasonable offer since he wanted a trial. Since there was no incentive to plea, I set a trial date.

The trial started at 10 pm on a weeknight. Yes, you read that correctly. 10 pm.

The eyewitness testified, and he was so eager to convict my client that he made up all kinds of details about the interior of the car. I intentionally asked him open-ended question after open-ended question about the phone, the charger, and the car, and he oh-so-helpfully came up with all sorts of random details that the owner later contradicted when she testified.

In fact, she seemed downright confused when I asked her about them. I'd describe the ridiculously crazy, detailed description of the phone, the charger or the dashboard, and then she'd look at me like I was on drugs and say "No, it actually looked totally different than that..." and then she'd go on to tell me what it really looked like. 

The jury was out for maybe 20 minutes and returned with their verdict at 2 am. 

They'd apparently come to the conclusion that my client was trying to steal the phone but failed, and unintentionally damaged the charger in the process. 

They convicted him of Attempted Petit Larceny and acquitted him of the more serious charge. I think they simply compromised in order to get the damn trial over with. It was late, and everyone was tired.

The judge promptly (and unhappily - he'd been gunning to send my client away for a year, and my client knew it) sentenced him to 90 days, on the spot, in front of the jury. 

The best part then followed. My client jumped up, shouted "Yes!" and walked over to the court deputy, his arms extended. As he was led away, he yelled over his shoulder, "Thanks, Ms. Black!"

So, although I hadn't technically won the trial, I had a client who was (very) happy with the results, and my first jury trial was behind me. All in all, it was a good night - albeit a late one.

In my latest Daily Record column (see comments for info 👇 ), I wrote about a recent S.D.N.Y. Order in United States v. Heppner, where Judge Jed S. Rakoff held that a client’s chats with Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege.

The court treated entering information into an AI tool as disclosure to a third party, pointing to the platform’s privacy policy permitting model training and the collection of user inputs and AI outputs, along with possible disclosure to regulators. The judge concluded there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality and rejected comparisons to email and cloud providers, which courts have long said do not waive privilege.

I don't see that reasoning holding up over time since it puts a wide range of everyday tech use into question, including cloud computing and email. Courts have long held that email and cloud providers are simply service vendors or agents that facilitate legal representation, and entering confidential information into these tools does not impact privilege. 

After I wrote the article, I learned that on the same day Judge Rakoff issued his written order, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti of the Eastern District of Michigan reached the opposite conclusion on work product in Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. 

In Warner, the court treated AI use as part of counsel’s internal drafting process rather than as disclosure to a third party.

The cases are not identical. The underlying facts differ, impacting the exact issues analyzed by the courts and the final determinations.

Even so, despite two very different approaches, the issue ultimately boils down to this question: Should AI be treated as a third party or a tool that processes attorney work product?

How courts resolve that question will impact more than just AI use. It will influence how and whether lawyers can continue to use other long-accepted technologies, including email and cloud platforms, to manage confidential information in everyday practice.

What do you think? How should AI be treated for privilege and work product purposes? Vote below 👇

taplio

The Battle

Colin Levy

Nicole Black

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreColin Levy's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNicole Black's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Colin Levy

Nicole Black

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Colin Levy's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNicole Black's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreColin Levy's LinkedIn Performance