I thrive at the intersection of law and technology, serving as the Principal Legal Insights Strategist at 8am, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise, a company that empowers professionals with innovative software and fintech solutions. With a decade of law practice and twenty years of experience in the legal tech industry, my multi-faceted expertise enables me to bridge the gap between technology and the legal profession.

In my current role, I provide valuable insights for driving strategy, disseminate industry knowledge across teams, and foster industry relations. Externally I educate lawyers on leveraging technology to enhance their practices, improve efficiency, and deliver superior client service.

My contributions to the field include authoring/co-authoring three books: Cloud Computing for Lawyers (ABA, 2012), Social Media for Lawyers (ABA, 2010), and Criminal Law in New York (Thomson Reuters, 1999). Additionally, I write regular legal tech columns for the ABA Journal, Above the Law, and The Daily Record. I am also a frequent speaker at legal conferences nationwide, where I advocate for the integration of legal technology in the practice of law.

Principal Legal Insight Strategist

College of Law Practice Management

Fellow

ABA Journal

I write a monthly legal technology column for the ABA Journal

Columnist

Above the Law

I write a legal technology column for Above the Law

The Daily Record (Rochester, NY)

I've written a weekly legal technology column for the Daily Record since 2008.

MyCase

I exist where law and technology intersect. I am the bridge between technology and the practice of law both internally at MyCase and externally with lawyers.  I provide legal Subject Matter Expertise (SME) insight internally and externally, leverage legal industry relationships to establish law school and legal clinic programs,  and educate lawyers on using technology to streamline their law firms, increase efficiencies, and provide better client representation. I've written (or co-authored) 3 books: Cloud Computing for Lawyers [ABA 2012], Social Media for Lawyers [ABA 2010], and Criminal Law in New York [Thomson Reuters 1999]). I also write regular legal tech columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, and frequently speak about using legal tech in the practice of law at legal conferences across the country.

Senior Director, SME & External Education

Legal Technology Evangelist

Monroe County Bar Association

Member Board of Trustees

Founder and Chair of the Technology Committee

Thomson Reuters

I co-authored "Criminal in New York," a legal treatise, with Judge Karen Morris.

Author

American Bar Association

I authored "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" which was published by the ABA in 2012.

I co-authored "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" with Carolyn Elefant. It was published by the American Bar Association in 2010.

Book Author

Bloomberg Law

I wrote a monthly legal technology column.

Freelance Columnist

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 8am 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, Legalweek, and ILTACON on topics including AI ethics and legal innovation.Specialties: AI in Law • Legal Technology • Innovation Strategy • SaaS Growth • Legal Market Analysis • Product Strategy • Messaging &amp; Positioning • Legal Operations • Compliance • Industry Reports • Public Speaking

New chapter, same mission ✅ 

A few months ago, I made the move from the Marketing team to the Product team at 8am, and just realized I never shared the news.

It’s been a great change. I’ve been part of our AI journey from the start, having worked with our strategy team when we were first figuring out what AI in our products could look like. Now, I get to be in the middle of it, helping to test new features, understand how customers use them, and see ideas turn into tools that make a difference for legal professionals.

I’ve been writing and speaking about lawyers and AI since 2017 (and even more so since ChatGPT came on the scene in 2022), so it’s rewarding to help shape how AI shows up in the products lawyers use every day.

It’s also an exciting moment for the product team itself. Our new CPO, Leslie Witt, joined us from Headspace and brings such a thoughtful, innovative perspective to product development. I came over with Gabriela Cubeiro, former CEO of CasePeer, with whom I’ve had the privilege of working for several years.

I still stay connected to the Marketing team, including work on the Legal Industry Report and the Personal Injury Legal Industry Report, so I get to keep a foot in both worlds.

It’s exciting to be in the mix, surrounded by smart, creative people building products that actually make lawyers’ lives easier. Excited for what’s ahead. 🙌

Nicole Black

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

Kicking off the first night at Relativity Fest in Chicago last night. 

Looking forward to exploring the conference today and speaking Thursday on a panel with my legaltech journalist colleagues 🙌

No alternative text description for this image

Another great day at Relativity Fest! 

Here are pics from yesterday: Olga V. Mack  and me before heading out to David Horrigan’s wonderful speakers’ dinner (check out that view!), and the State of the Union panel from earlier in the day.

Curiosity has a funny way of taking you places you never planned to go.

The last test I took was the NY Bar exam. Back then, there were no Red Bulls or iPads. Just caffeine, the faint smell of panic, and outlines that weighed more than I did.

It was so stressful, I swore it would be my last formal exam ever.

Fast-forward to this year: I just passed the WSET Level 2 in Wines. 🙌 

Same test anxiety, much better subject matter. I mean, how often does studying require wine tasting? Talk about a curriculum upgrade!

The best part? I studied with my 23-year-old daughter. It’s a whole new way to experience the world with her, sharing something we both enjoy, learning together, and seeing her adult perspective while still catching flashes of the kid who used to ask, “Why?” every ten seconds. (Apparently, the curiosity gene is hereditary.)

My love of wine actually goes way back. My husband and I caught the bug after our Napa honeymoon in 1998. He even took community college courses at Finger Lakes Community College to learn viticulture and oenology, and this year, he’s bottling his own wine that’ll be ready to sell next year. It just goes to show that fermentation can be a family value. 🍷 

Curiosity led me into legaltech years ago. I became fascinated with technology and realized that it could improve the practice of law and the lives of legal professionals. 

That curiosity turned into a career at 8am that I genuinely love.

Lawyers, in particular, need that curiosity. It’s easy to cling to precedent in law and in life, but rigidity keeps you from discovering new tech, new passions, and new ways of thinking.

Whether it’s AI or Riesling, curiosity keeps life and work interesting. 

And if your next learning experience comes with wine pairings? Bonus points for that. 🥂

New York just joined Illinois, Arizona, and Pennsylvania in setting guidelines for how judges and court staff can use AI. The policy covers who can use it, what tools are allowed, and what should (and shouldn’t) be uploaded.

Only a few tools made the approved list: Microsoft Azure's AI Services,, GitHub Copilot, Trados Studio, and the free version of ChatGPT. The paid version is banned since those extra features and integrations make data oversight more challenging.

Court employees must complete AI training before using any tool, and they’re responsible for whatever AI produces. So AI can help draft, but humans still have to do the thinking.

The policy also takes confidentiality seriously. Even public court filings can’t be fed into public AI models, and anything sensitive has to stay within private, court-controlled systems.

It’s another sign that courts aren’t shying away from AI, and are instead cautiously embracing it.

I dig into the details in my latest Daily Record column. Check it out below 👇

Law schools are still studying AI like it’s a theoretical problem. Meanwhile, their graduates are already using it.

For nearly two decades, legal education has watched change happen from a safe distance. Even as tech reshaped every part of our lives, most schools stuck to the same playbook: lecture, exam, repeat.

The result? Lawyers learning about the tools that define modern practice after they graduate.

A few highlights from my latest Daily Record column:
  🔷 Only one-third of law schools currently offer AI-related courses.
  🔷 Students are forming AI societies because their schools won’t teach it.
  🔷 A few standouts like Fordham University School of Law, ASU, and Suffolk University Law School now require AI training for first-years.
  🔷 And University of North Carolina School of Law recently ran a “trial-by-bot” with ChatGPT, Grok, and Anthropic serving as jurors. (Spoiler: it didn’t go well — but at least they tried.)

Law schools need to stop studying the problem and start preparing students for an AI-first world. Teach them how these tools work, where they fail, and how to use them responsibly.

AI isn’t on the horizon. It’s already part of legal work. Schools that adapt will serve their students well. The ones that don’t will keep graduating lawyers trained for a world that no longer exists.

I've been testing out the new GPT browsers. Perplexity rolled out a free browser recently, and just yesterday OpenAI launched Atlas, ChatGPT’s version.

I added Atlas to my personal laptop to see what it could do. I asked it to add wine to my wine.com shopping cart. It refused because it apparently can't assist with alcohol. I had it add wine glasses to my Amazon cart. It chose really expensive, but nice, ones.

It’s definitely interesting, but right now it takes its time finishing tasks. I’m also hesitant to move all my Chrome data into it. It’s already unsettling that one massive tech company has access to so much of our online behavior. Handing that over to another one, especially now that it’s starting to build an ad-based system so it'll soon be just like Google in that respect, feels like a step too far.

(OpenAI has started hiring developers to work on developing ad-based features into the platform, and ChatGPT already includes built-in shopping features. So it seems pretty clear where things are headed.)

For now, I’m on the fence about the actual utility. I can see the potential once it gets faster and more capable, but I’m not sure the privacy tradeoff is worth it.

Maybe I’ll change my mind once it improves, but right now, I’m holding back and won't be using it as my default browser. Instead I'll continue to test it out for specific tasks.

 Has anyone else tried the Atlas browser? What do you think about the risks vs. benefits? How are you using it? Any particularly impactful use cases that stand out?

🙌 This week’s LegalTech Reality Check just dropped!

This week: AI wins a court case, gets sworn into another, and now apparently lives inside your stomach.

Here's what's inside:
 ◾ Facial recognition fails the vibe check—and due process
 ◾ Social media’s long-overdue cigarette moment
 ◾ Tiny origami robots volunteer as your new healthcare plan

👉 Subscribe for your weekly dose of legal tech news, existential discomfort, and robot overlord chaos.

🙏 Like the newsletter? Share it before Alexa locks you out for “facial mismatch.”

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 | October 24, 2025 by Nicole Black • 5 min read

Legaltech Reality Check | October 24, 2025

🙌 This week’s LegalTech Reality Check just dropped!

This week: A major law firm downplays something definitely not fine, a courtroom AI fail goes full sequel, and scientists working with AI decide that, maybe, just maybe, they shouldn’t.

📢 What’s inside:
◾ A familiar ethics conundrum, now featuring Google reviews and small gifts
◾ A transparency rule that’s either good policy or a software vendor’s worst day
◾ A multitasking robot that can walk, fly, and make you feel underqualified

👉 Subscribe for your weekly dose of legal tech news, existential discomfort, and robot overlord chaos.

🙏 Like the newsletter? Share it before Alexa decides your calendar could benefit from a little “military-grade optimization.”

Open article: Legaltech Reality Check | October 17, 2025 by Nicole Black • 6 min read

Legaltech Reality Check | October 17, 2025

🎉 One year ago this week, I launched my LinkedIn newsletter, The Legaltech Reality Check, with no idea how it would go. 

I wanted to keep things lighthearted while also digging into what’s actually happening across the legal tech industry: the trends, the noise, and the stories that deserve a closer look.

I never expected the kind of engagement and interest it’s received! 

Seeing so many legal professionals, tech folks, and curious readers join in each week has been amazing.

💡 A quick look at the past year:
      📰 249,706 article views
     🙌 27,158 subscribers (total)
     💬 2,812 engagements

What started as a small experiment has turned into one of my favorite parts of the week. The feedback, questions, and even the debates have made it so much fun.

Thank you to everyone who’s read, shared, or reached out. Your support keeps this going.

👀 If you haven’t subscribed yet, you can check it out here: https://lnkd.in/enSP3kwM

Here’s to another year of sharing what’s happening in legal tech. 🥂

Access to justice is a promise that has yet to be delivered. Instead, those with money get representation; those without are left to figure it out.

For years, we’ve heard that technology, most notably AI, will fix this. Sure it offers that potential, but let’s be honest: profit-driven innovation doesn’t often start with the underserved in mind. 

In my latest ABA Journal article, "Justice by Design: Can Legal Tech Deliver on Its Promise?" I ask whether today’s wave of innovation moves the needle or simply slaps a pretty bow on the same old problems.

As you can probably tell, I’m skeptical. But I'm not cynical enough to give up hope. 

As I see it, progress depends less on the tools themselves and more on the people building and investing in them, and their reasons for doing so. 

Innovation alone won’t fix justice—but the good intentions of innovators plus the necessary funding could.

Maybe that’s what justice by design really looks like.

🙌 This week’s Legaltech Reality Check just dropped!

This week: Your browser booked a Vegas trip, in-house teams said talk to the hand, and a bag of Doritos nearly caused a lockdown.

Here's what's on the docket:
 ◾ Five generations, one office, and absolutely no agreement on what “ASAP” means
 ◾ Chatbots on jury duty—what could possibly go wrong?
 ◾ “Efficiency” now takes twice as long to verify—progress, apparently.

👉 Subscribe for your weekly dose of legal tech news, existential discomfort, and robot overlord chaos.

🙏 Like the newsletter? Share it before Alexa rebrands access to justice as a subscription.

Open article: Legaltech Reality Check | October 31, 2025 by Nicole Black • 6 min read

Legaltech Reality Check | October 31, 2025

No one likes hourly billing. Clients hate it. Lawyers hate it. Even timesheets groan under the weight of all those .1 entries.

And yet, it’s still hanging on.

New data from Everlaw and the ACC suggests that might finally change. Corporate counsel, the most sophisticated legal consumers out there, are starting to push back.

Here’s a look at the data:
• AI use in legal departments jumped from 23% to 52% in a year.
• 61% of in-house counsel are likely to question firm pricing.
• 61% want new pricing and delivery models.
• 64% plan to rely less on outside counsel over the next year.
• Over the next 3 years, 82% will outsource contract drafting and negotiation less often.

In other words, they’re handling more work in-house. Faster, cheaper, and with better tools.

When clients this savvy start rethinking how and what they pay for, others will follow: insurance companies, mid-size businesses, and even individual legal consumers, who may start asking why their “simple” contract takes four+ hours of billable time to complete.

As I explain in my latest Daily Record article, if you’re still billing by the hour, now’s the time to rethink it. Consider fixed fees, subscription services, or project pricing. Think: anything that doesn’t punish efficiency.

The writing is on the wall: The billable hour isn’t dead yet, but its obituary is drafted.

Once upon a time, getting clients was simple. You did good work, clients told their friends, and your phone rang.

Now? It’s all about online reviews. Five stars can make your day, and one angry paragraph can tank your week.

However, as lawyers, we don’t get to play by the same marketing rules as everyone else. Our ethical obligations require a more nuanced approach, as the New York Bar reminded us in Ethics Opinion 1286. 

In this recent opinion, the ethics Committee considered whether a lawyer could ask former clients to post Google reviews, and even offer a small token of appreciation in return. 

The short answer: yes, but proceed with caution.

You can invite reviews, but the gift can’t depend on the content of the review. The review must be the client’s own words, which means no “suggested drafts.” 

And perhaps most importantly, you need to consider confidentiality. Even a seemingly harmless post — “Attorney Smith helped me with my immigration case!” — can reveal information that’s protected, potentially identifying the client’s status or the nature of their matter. That’s enough to raise Rule 1.6 red flags.

The takeaway? Online reviews are here to stay, but they come with ethical strings attached. 

As I explain in my latest Daily Record article (see comments for info on the article and the ethics opinion), asking is fine. Coaching, incentivizing, or overlooking confidentiality risks is not.

Reputation still matters, but these days it’s measured in pixels instead of handshakes.

AI is often framed as *the* solution to the access to justice problem. Sure - right after ChatGPT balances the federal budget and turns Mondays into official spa days. 🙄 

Technology can certainly help, but it’s not a magic key. 

The justice gap exists due to a lack of funding, outdated systems, and processes that assume everyone has a lawyer on speed dial.

Last week, I asked you to weigh in improving access to justice, people were split. Some voted for modernized courts, some for better tech, and others for more funding. 

Here’s how 80 people voted:

▪️ Expanded funding – 25%
▪️ Modernized courts/processes – 33%
▪️ Tech/AI for lawyers – 8%
▪️ Tech/AI for legal consumers – 32%

I’m firmly in the funding camp. Goodwill alone simply can't solve this problem.

That being said, not everyone agreed with me. Go figure! 🤷‍♀️ 

But taken together, the poll results offer the true solution: a multi-pronged approach that includes more funding, better tools, and courts that aren’t stuck in the fax era. 

Here's to universally accessible justice. 🥂 AI can keep the spa days. I’ll take a court system that serves everyone, regardless of their means.

💡 I’ve been thinking a lot about access to justice and the role of innovation and technology in closing the gap.

Many suggest that tech, especially AI, will solve access to justice, but I'm not convinced. Certainly, it can make information easier to find and processes more efficient, helping to bridge the access to justice gap. 

But I don't think it will close it.

What's really needed is better funding for legal aid organizations and the courts. 

At least, that's what I think.

What do you think?  

📊 Weigh in below, and let me know why you voted the way you did in the comments. Or let me know what other approaches would be more effective than those included in the poll.

Which of the following would most improve access to justice in the U.S.?

taplio

Nicole Black's Linkedin Analytics

Nicole Black

Performance ScoreNicole Black's LinkedIn Performance

Nicole Black's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Nicole Black's Linkedin Analytics

Nicole Black

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);}Nicole Black's LinkedIn Performance

Nicole Black's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Nicole Black's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScoreNicole Black's LinkedIn Performance

Nicole Black's Best Posts (last 30 days)