“The AI revolution is here,” proclaims a new study released by International Data Corporation, noting that “organizations will need to adapt to survive.”

The report, “Generative AI in Legal 2024,” is based on a survey of 300 legal professionals to examine how they are incorporating generative AI into their daily activities.

According to the report, which was commissioned by Relativity and conducted by IDC, half of legal professionals have increased their use of AI generally in the last two years, and 69% expect their use of generative AI specifically to grow within the next two years. Toward that end, 73% of organizations are taking steps to develop technical proficiencies with GenAI.

While contract analysis and legal research are currently the areas with the highest GenAI usage, document review is the area in which the most growth is anticipated. It is also the task legal professionals are most willing to entrust to GenAI, with 89% of respondents describing themselves as “very comfortable” or “somewhat comfortable” using generative AI for document review.

New Research Study Predicts Continued Growth for Generative AI in Legal [Law.com]
Generative AI in Legal 2024 [Relativity]

The post Stat(s) Of The Week: Talkin’ Bout AI Revolution appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

Nothing involving the killing of people’s dogs can be considered anomalous. The US Department of Justice pointed this out years ago, albeit not officially. In 2014, community-oriented-policing program head Laurel Matthews stated that cops are killing up to 30 pets a day, something she referred to as an “epidemic.”

If anyone wants to argue this estimate isn’t accurate, they’re free to do so. But it isn’t difficult to believe American law enforcement is capable of killing 30 pets a day across the nation, especially when there’s little reason for them not to shoot any animals they see while inviting themselves onto other people’s private property.

But most cops are willing to limit themselves to one or two killings per incident. Former Tennessee law enforcement officer Connor Brackin, however, decided he couldn’t call an end to this animal welfare visit until he’d personally killed all but one the animals he was supposed to be saving. (h/t Reason)

Conner Brackin, a 24-year-old police deputy with the McNairy County Sheriff’s Office, was arrested and charged with aggravated animal cruelty on Tuesday following an investigation by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. On Nov. 4, Brackin responded to an “animal welfare concern” in Bethel Springs, a city located around 100 miles east of Memphis. According to the affidavit, Brackin spoke with the person who made the complaint about multiple dogs on the neighboring property, some in pens, some in two different trailers. Brackin released one of the dogs from a pen and then “loaded his service rifle and pistol and began firing into the campers at the dogs.”

He allegedly fired eight times, killing seven dogs.

That’s not insane. That’s pyschopathic, which is something else altogether. The owner of the dogs, Kevin Dismuke, didn’t know law enforcement was taking a look at his dogs until after Deputy Brackin had killed all but one of them. He was left to discover the fact on his own upon his return to his trailer, where he was greeted by one dead dog and then several others in quick succession.

The McNairy County Sheriff’s Office tried to spin this a bit:

The McNairy County Sheriff’s Office stated Brackin observed two dogs in “extremely poor health” and one was “already deceased.” After looking for the dogs’ owner, Brackin let a neighbor take one of the dogs and said that he had been “cleared to put down the remaining animals safely by my supervisor.”

But there’s no force behind these words, much less any real sincerity. The Sheriff’s Office doesn’t really think Deputy Brackin’s actions were justified. Nor does it care what the dogs’ owner thinks about this impromptu guns-out raid performed by the deputy.

We already know most law enforcement agencies are rarely sincerely concerned about the misery their officers cause. But we do know the Sheriff’s Office didn’t feel these actions were justified, otherwise it might have stepped in to protect one of its own before this happened:

On November 7^th, at the request of 25th Judicial District Attorney General Mark Davidson, TBI special agents began investigating the incident.  Agents subsequently developed information that on November 4th, the McNairy County Sheriff’s Department received an animal welfare concern call.  Deputy Connor Brackin (DOB: 07/26/2000) responded to the residence in the 8300 block of SR 199 in Bethel Springs, to check the condition of the dogs.  Bracken released one of the dogs to the complainant.  For reasons under investigation, he fired his duty weapon, shooting and killing seven dogs on the property.

On Tuesday, TBI agents obtained warrants for Brackin, charging him with seven counts of Aggravated Cruelty to Animals and eight counts of Reckless Endangerment.  Brackin turned himself in and was booked into the McNairy County Jail.

If the deputy felt his employer would have his back, he never would have turned himself in. If the Sheriff’s Office thought Deputy Brackin was worth keeping on staff, it would have acted on his behalf. And it certainly wouldn’t have accepted the 24-year-old officer’s resignation if it thought his actions were justified. The now-former deputy is on his own. And, on top of this, he’s feeling the weight of his (extremely short) law enforcement past being brought to bear.

[Brackin] graduated from the training academy in September 2022. In less than two years, his personnel file shows an administrative summons with allegations from two different shootings. A statement from a hearing in May 2024 says Brackin “did not shoot the subject and was merely returning fire to the area where he observed a muzzle flash and the sound of gunfire.” It was recommended he undergo remedial training.

The second incident, less than two months later, ended with someone dead. The TBI said the local district attorney called them in to investigate the shooting from March 2023.

In May 2024, the end of Brackin’s probationary period, “Chief Corley found it was in the best interest of the community, the City of Jackson, and the Jackson Police Department to not retain Officer Brackin as a police officer.” Brackin resigned a day later.

Getting canned less than two years in means someone is so bad at being a cop even cop shops won’t stick out their neck for him. Fortunately for bad cops, there’s always another cop shop willing to hire anyone to be a cop, especially if they’ve got any amount of experience under their belt.

But two years after this rescue from the pile of law enforcement rejects, Connor Brackin is once again jobless. Unfortunately for him, this second separation from the Thin Blue Line was voluntary and comes coupled with multiple criminal charges. Whatever comes out of this won’t keep Brackin from seeking law enforcement options in the future. But maybe… just maybe… it will prevent law enforcement agencies from hiring him.

Mass Puppycide Ends Career Of Tennessee Deputy Who Probably Never Should Have Been A Cop

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Court Says There’s Nothing Unconstitutional About Warrantless Seizures, Searches Of An Immigration Lawyer’s Phone
DOJ Investigation Proves That If A PD Isn’t Known For Its Constant Rights Violations, It’s Because It Hasn’t Been Investigated Yet
FTC Joins CFPB In Finally Taking Aim At Data Brokers As Trumpism Looms

The post Mass Puppycide Ends Career Of Tennessee Deputy Who Probably Never Should Have Been A Cop appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

But it turns out, it’s not that at all! From Law360:

Recent mid-morning slowdowns of the federal courts database known as PACER in the Southern District of New York are caused by a profusion of data miners that ply their trade around the same time each day, a district official confirmed Tuesday.

Yes, it’s that every news organization and legal research entity decides to do its massive scrape job at the exact same time that every bleary eyed litigator shows up to work and check their dockets. It’s the sort of drain on the system that could get worse if, say, a moron decided to put “all court cases” into an AI because he’s tired of losing real court cases and wants to replace the justice system with an algorithm.

“This is why you can’t have free PACER!” the federal judiciary is undoubtedly saying despite the fact that this problem is happening now and the people doing it will continue regardless of the fees associated. Paywalling out normal people because the New York Times causes a bottleneck isn’t a just strategy for a public and transparent justice system.

For years, the courts used PACER fees as a slush fund instead of making the comprehensive investments necessary to bring the site up to — I won’t say the 2020s, because that might be too ambitious — at least the early aughts. The judiciary fought free PACER for years, arguing that opening up the system would cost them $2 billion. It turned out to be much, much less.

But PACER needs to do something. Identifying data miners and throttling their accounts until close of business in the United States could at least move the problem to a more manageable window. The Southern District of New York, arguably the most newsworthy court in America — at least outside of Amarillo — is working with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to find an answer.

Until then, treat this problem the same way this country treats recycling or power conservation… restrain your ultimately inconsequential use of the system as a purely symbolic gesture while megacorporations continue causing the problem.

It’s Not Your Imagination, SDNY Attys: PACER Really Is Slow [Law360]

Earlier: Free PACER Would Cost $2B And Other Completely Made Up Garbage The Federal Judiciary Is Peddling
When Federal Judges Said Free PACER Would Cost $2B, They Were Completely Full Of Crap

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The post PACER Sucks More Than Usual… And We Know Exactly Who To Blame appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

We are nearing the end of another year filled with significant advancements in cybersecurity protections adopted by law firms to combat the constant cyberattacks they face. Law firms are finally embracing Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) software, cybersecurity awareness training, and phishing simulations. The reality is that the measurement of cybersecurity protections can never be genuinely quantified. The primary reason is because the goalpost everyone aims for keeps moving farther and farther away with each new vulnerability or attack method discovered or developed by attackers. The continually evolving and complex world of cybersecurity shows no signs of slowing down.

More Governance.

What else must law firms endure besides constant cyber and phishing attacks? How about further governance regarding data privacy? Law firms got a taste of this in 2016 with the EU’s passing of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), touted as the world’s strictest privacy and security law. The GDPR imposes obligations on any organization that targets or collects data related to people in the EU.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CPPA) went into effect in January 2020, providing residents of California with greater control over personal data collected, including the ability to request a business to delete any harvested personal information. This legislation applies to anyone who does business in California that meets certain thresholds. That’s just California’s privacy law. There are now 20 states that have varying degrees of data privacy laws.

As a result of governance, law firms have adopted privacy and data collection policies to meet these requirements, including GDPR policies and popup notifications regarding Cookies and the types of data collected when visitors browse their websites. Failure to abide by and comply with these changing regulations may result in malpractice claims, lawsuits, or fines for non-compliance. That certainly has gotten the attention of many law firms. Suddenly, law firms are taking the long-standing regulations seriously, which have largely been ignored in the past.

Driven by Client Demand

It’s not just the cyber insurance carriers; clients have also gotten smarter about data protection. Law firms commonly receive cybersecurity questionnaires from larger corporations or defense contractors, which must be completed before engaging with the law firm. Clients demand to know what protections are in place to keep their data safe and, in some instances, want proof—not just self-attestation. These questions are very similar to those asked by cyber insurance providers.

Some of the cybersecurity measures asked about by clients include:

• Are 100% of endpoints protected by “next-gen antivirus” and “EDR” software?
• Have you had a penetration test and vulnerability assessment performed within the last year, and if so, were all the medium, high, and critical vulnerabilities remediated?
• Are your information systems monitored by a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solution backed by a 24/7 Security Operations Center?
• Are your critical systems backed up to an offsite location protected against ransomware attacks or infections (immutable backups)?
• Have your employees attended a cybersecurity awareness training session within the last 12 months?
• Is MFA required for access to all firm resources?

These are some very tough questions from clients, but they underscore the importance of data protection and privacy from the client’s point of view. Law firms that haven’t implemented the requested measures often use the request as a catalyst for positive change to implement the solutions before responding to the questionnaire and are willing to take on the cost to get the client. It’s a win-win.

Risks of Litigation

It was only a matter of time before the data breach attorneys showed up to the party.  Class action lawsuits have now become a nightmare for law firms who have suffered a data breach. Law firms are becoming subjects of class action lawsuits, which often tend to settle relatively quickly without the details being outlined in court. Class action lawsuits, expensive data breach notification requirements, and monetary fines from State Attorney Generals for data privacy violations- what more can be done to drive the point home about the need for rigorous data security protections? For a long period of time, law firms hesitated to take on class action lawsuits against other law firms which suffered data breaches. Those days are long gone.

Mandated privacy and data protection are here to stay, as are cyberattacks. Law firms must remain proactive in adopting these measures which benefit the firm and its clients. Serious reviews of your cybersecurity and annual security changes mitigate risk and exposure and will keep class action lawsuits at bay. As an added benefit, you may even get your cyber insurance carrier to lower your premium (or not increase it as much as they usually do) with all the added security measures you’ve implemented.

Michael C. Maschke (mmaschke@senseient.com) is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. Mr.Maschke is an EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE), a Certified Computer Examiner (CCE #744), an AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE), a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). He is a frequent speaker on IT, cybersecurity, and digital forensics and he has co-authored 14 books published by the American Bar Association.

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

John W. Simek (jsimek@senseient.com) is the co-founder of and consultant to Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), and a nationally known digital forensics expert. He is a co-author of 18 books published by the ABA.

The post The Legal Landscape Of Privacy: Why Lawyers Must Keep Up With Change appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

A valued opportunity to meet potential clients? 

Or an exhausting blur of tech talk and marketing speak that leaves you with little but an expense report and a headache?

Whether you regularly attend trade shows or avoid them like the plague, we want to know what you think. Please take our brief, anonymous survey to share your views. 

The post Valuable Source Of Business Or Dreaded Obligation? Share Your Take On Trade Shows appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

Grok, Musk’s version of generative AI, is just like OpenAI’s or Anthropic’s, except it spits out answers with a dash of conspiracy theory and all the humor and wit of a concussed rooster pecking on a Ouija board. Science fiction is full of artificial intelligences modeled after their creator and — on that count — the famously unfunny Musk seems to have succeeded.

Someone who still posts on X recently suggested that Grok might soon be able to summarize large pieces of legislation — you know, the thing that every commercial grade GenAI product is already doing — “so politicians can’t hide stuff from us.” You might ask, “Wouldn’t relying on summaries actually exacerbate the power of politicians and lobbyists to bury small, unrelated issues in a several hundred page bill?” And you ask that because you’re not the sort of person dumping your life savings into fake money schemes.

In response to this message about Grok’s summarizing functions, Musk wrote:

No, it will not.

But this does encapsulate the Elon Musk experience: throw some cases into an algorithm already struggling with basic fact inquires and announce that it will replace litigation! This approach tracks the overall development model for Grok, which Musk champions for training on its access to everyone’s public Tweets.

For most technologists, Garbage In, Garbage Out is a precautionary axiom. For Musk it’s a design philosophy.

To be blunt, “all court cases” means a lot of bad, cursory, and confusingly drafted opinions that aren’t particularly useful to anyone outside the parties. And sometimes not even clear to them.

Not to mention that a lot of times judges are just plain wrong and no one bothers to clean up the record. Many an erroneous summary judgment opinion sits safely on the books because the underlying case settles before trial. By way of a notable example, Kathryn Mizelle’s opinion that “sanitation” doesn’t mean “something that’s sanitary” because sanitation departments pick up garbage — is still perfectly undisturbed because afterward the Biden administration dropped the whole sanitary mask order on its own in light of the pandemic coming to an end. Nonetheless, Mizelle’s opinion fits squarely into the “all court cases” category even though it’s less Marbury v. Madison than that answer from Billy Madison.

Legal tech providers with far greater expertise in this field and a much deeper reservoir of secondary sources have put in a lot of effort to make legal AI work. When Thomson Reuters showed me some early AI work, they felt that “hallucinations” — AI being outright wrong — could be controlled with the benefit of their broader library, but that the challenge in building something that can work for legal is solving for results that are real but wrong. Misreading dicta, imputing parenthetical quotes in string cites to the case at hand, granting too much weight (or far too little weight) to a particular concurrence… these are all higher level challenges that actually serious legal tech providers are spending massive amounts of money to solve.

Meanwhile, Musk is just tossing cases into the hopper and letting Grok sort it out and deliver “extremely compelling legal verdicts” in favor of the plaintiff while taunting the defendant as “the fourth generation of imbecile” or some drivel. It’s the sort of half-assery he’s already shown toward his new job as head of federal government efficiency (maybe we cut every employee with an odd social security number!). Or actually, “co-head” because the efficiency group can’t even streamline its own leadership.

Though it’s also impossible to read this announcement outside of the broader context of Musk’s dealings with the law. He locked himself into a corner in buying Twitter because he blew off standard legal advice, waiving protections that he would — hopelessly — try to resuscitate after the fact. He cultivates fanboys who bombard judges ruling against him with angry letters. He’s working hard to move all of his legal exposure to appear before N.D. Texas Judge Reed O’Connor who just happens to be invested in Musk’s business. Of course he dreams of a chatbot that spits out opinions!

It would save him a lot of trips to Northern Texas.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The post Elon Musk Feeds AI ‘All Court Cases,’ Promises It Will Replace Judges Because He’s An Idiot appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

The post Law Firm Confidentiality Can’t Be Left To The Honor System appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.

Image courtesy of NetDocuments.

Last month, I asked whether generative artificial intelligence is the answer to the access-to-justice problem. I expressed skepticism, suggesting that capitalism always trumps best intentions. Sure, generative AI could expand access to justice, but would its potential ever be fully realized?

But, maybe, just maybe, my cynicism was misplaced. What if generative AI as an access-to-justice bridge isn’t just a pipe dream? What if partial realization is all we need, enabling us to chip away at the access-to-justice gap, one chatbot at a time?

It certainly sounds like a plausible premise: generative AI chatbots are a feasible way for courts and legal aid organizations to improve access to justice. In theory, by leveraging GenAI’s conversational and responsive capabilities, these institutions can address longstanding barriers in the court system.

But theory is one thing. How does it work in practice? I located some examples and quickly realized that this high-tech gamble might be paying off. Select courts and legal aid groups are already using these tools to benefit the public while also reducing administrative strain by providing self-represented litigants with on-demand legal information and procedural guidance.

Still not convinced? Seeing is believing. Check out some examples of generative AI-powered chatbots available on court and public interest group websites:

• Legal Aid of North Carolina offers the Legal Information Assistant. This generative AI chatbot, which answers questions in English or Spanish, was developed in partnership with LawDroid. It assists litigants in obtaining answers to an array of legal questions.
• The Nevada Supreme Court recently released a generative AI-powered chatbot. It was developed by CiviLaw.Tech for the Nevada Supreme Court and offers easy-to-understand legal guidance in multiple languages, helping individuals understand their options and the procedural steps they need to take.
• Missouri Tenant Help, developed by Lemma Legal, is an online resource for Missouri tenants seeking legal support. This intake screening tool assists with determining eligibility for assistance before speaking with program staff.
• SANDI is a chatbot available on the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida’s website. It was funded by a federal grant from the State Justice Institute, in collaboration with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and Advanced Robot Solutions, which developed this AI-powered digital assistant.
• The Law Center for Better Housing, the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation, and the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois worked together to roll out an AI chatbot,  Illinois Intervention. This virtual assistant assists Illinois tenants seeking assistance with housing issues, providing information and resources on housing rights.

These examples showcase how generative AI chatbots are beginning to reduce the barriers faced by self-represented litigants. That sounds great, but not so fast.

While the potential of these tools is undeniable, it’s important to temper enthusiasm with a healthy dose of realism. The tools deployed thus far show promise but are far from comprehensive. These endeavors address specific, often narrow, legal needs. To remain impactful, ongoing maintenance and thoughtful design will be necessary.

Additionally, the success of these chatbots depends on more than just the technology itself. Behind each implementation is a patchwork of grants, partnerships, and organizational buy-ins, which means scaling these efforts is a challenge. The tools might work well in localized contexts, but their broader application remains uncertain, especially in jurisdictions where resources are limited or priorities lie elsewhere.

Even so, these incremental steps matter. Each chatbot in operation today is a test case, showing what’s possible and the pitfalls that remain.

For now, generative AI chatbots aren’t revolutionizing access to justice—far from it. But they are evidence that small, practical gains in access to justice are achievable and that technology can be part of the solution. Whether these efforts can grow into a larger systemic shift remains an open question, one that will require sustained commitment, funding, and innovation to answer.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Director of Business and Community Relations at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

The post Generative AI And Access To Justice: Incremental Solutions Or Overhyped Promises? appeared first on Above The Law's Legal Tech Non-Event.