Transcription
Welcome everyone to another edition of Legal Tech Week, the show where we talk about what happened this week in legal tech and innovation. It is February 20th, 2026, and uh I I already see the room filling up with Fireflies, notetakers, so that's that's a good thing. I'm always good to have a good attendance at this program. Um I am Bob Amroi. have a blog called Law Sites and a podcast called Law Next and our panelists today. Uh starting Nikki, you want to kick it off introducing yourself?
>> Sure. My name is Nikki Black. I'm the principal legal insight strategist at 8 a.m. the team behind Law Pay my case here in Docket Wise. And I was just informed before we started that I have a challenging title. I didn't think it was that bad. But I [laughter] uh and um I write uh legal tech columns for AVA Journal Above the Law and the Daily Record. And I also um write our uh legal industry report which is coming out very soon. So I'm very excited about that. [clears throat] And uh it is not snowing here, but I know some people weren't able to make it because of snow and unusual places. [laughter]
>> Yeah. All right. And Stephanie,
>> um I didn't say you had a challenging title. I just said it was a lot more complicated than nurse. [laughter] Um, I'm Stephanie Wilkins, the director of content at Legal Tech Hub, and it's good to see everyone.
>> Good to see you, Ree.
>> Sure. Hey, I'm uh Ree Dipshan. I'm the editor-inchief of Eagle Tech News.
>> All right. And Steve,
>> hey, Steve Ambry. I publish the blog Tech Law Crossroads, and I also write for Above the Law.
All right. And uh I didn't have snow because I'm in San Francisco, but weirdly I had to go I had to drive my wife to the airport this morning and and was getting like weather warnings on Google Maps about subzero sub freezing temperatures here in the San Francisco Bay area. So, uh they kind of freak out when it hits 32, I guess, in San Francisco. Um it's been cold here. It's been weird weirdly crappy weather, but I guess that's that maybe that's the way it goes. Uh anyway, um so uh where should we start today? There were a couple of uh I thought it was interesting that we had a couple of different stories about I think judges uh getting a little impatient with some of the uh outfall from AI. So uh one of those stories uh Nikki, one of those stories was yours AI related. Anyway, do you want to kick us off with that one?
>> Yeah. Um, I chose a story that was not one that I had um written because it caught my eye. The story that I wrote um the article that I wrote was uh that I didn't submit was um I summarized Thompson Murderers's new report which was very interesting but it was just a lot of data and feel like we've talked about that lately um AI data and a you know what that looks like. So I thought that I would instead submit this because I thought it was really interesting. Um, [clears throat] it's a Fast Company article about the Meta uh litigation where um when Zuckerberg was getting uh questioned. The judge got really mad because apparently u Mark walked in with a bunch of his cronies with him and they all had the Meta glasses on and apparently some were wearing them in court and it she uh the judge got very upset and chastised them and warned them to not wear them in court both because it was recording the proceedings but I guess the other [clears throat] um concern was that the uh what she said was that she was concerned about facial recognition techn technology being applied to the um juror's faces. And then in the article, they talked about how the glasses don't actually have facial recognition tech. So, what she must have been thinking about was the idea that you can upload, you know, the the um recordings and use additional software and apply facial recognition tech to it. And I was wondering if maybe they were giving her too much credit there because I don't know a lot of [laughter] judges that have that kind of tech savvy. But hey, you never know. But even [clears throat] if but you know, at some point not not too far down the road, we're going to get to the point where the glasses like that are going to have facial recognition tech built in, right? And um so I just thought it was a super interesting um issue that judges need to be aware of even when it's not, you know, Zuckerberg walking in surrounded by his entourage of people wearing the meta glasses partly as I think an advertising maneuver or [clears throat] publicity stunt, but um that's just going to be increasingly more common in courts in courtroom proceedings moving forward. So, um, I just thought it was a notable thing to highlight and it raises a bunch of different issues that I also think are interesting. So, that was the story I submitted.
>> I thought it was interesting. I guess what struck me about it was, you know, so in in one of my jobs, I represent the news media and in in most courts, there are rules about bringing cameras into courtrooms. uh and uh state courts and federal courts have different rules around that. Different states have different rules around that. But the the point is simply that there are rules and this is effectively bringing a camera into a courtroom. You know, I guess I mean I suppose you could argue the same thing about bringing an iPhone in except it's very conspicuous if you're holding your iPhone up and filming somebody whereas with the glasses it's not very conspicuous. And I guess it struck me as uh just surprising that the lawyers for Meta didn't think to either clear this with the court in advance or advise their clients that maybe you want to take those things off uh before you sit down here in the courtroom. So, it's it just struck me as a little bit I don't think the article really mentioned any anybody sort of pointing the finger at at finger at the lawyers, but just struck me as a little bit negligent on their parts if they that they even got themselves into this situation.
>> It honestly just seems like a stupid publicity stunt like almost that they knew they were going to get called out. Um, it also does raise a concern about these types of um, I guess AR V like AR asses. I'm not even sure how to describe them. Um, they are still fairly new tech and doesn't really seem that, you know, they're taking off at all. Um, you know, if it if we ever come to a time when they become cheaper and way more common, you know, are people just going to have their have to have their sunglasses and eyeglasses scanned in courts or take, you know, you have to take them off in courts? Like it's >> it's, you know, it's a a host of privacy concerns right there.
>> It's a real interesting question. And there was a cruise line that recently banned the use of those glasses in a lot of areas including casinos. And the casino is really kind of an interesting question because you know you you the glasses and I have a pair. I mean you if you could look at them you wouldn't necessarily conclude right off the bat that they were smart glasses. Plus you'd have an argument that hey I can't see very well. I mean I mean you're depriving me of the ability to see the cards because you're taking my glasses away. So that's a whole lot of interesting kind of questions I think are going to blow out of those. And then you also have what the new new pen that Apple is supposed to be developing and looks like a necklace that does all the same things. And um so yeah, it's a lot of lot of lot of interesting questions.
>> And eventually maybe well people will be wearing contacts instead of glasses and how do you deal with at that point you know and what about neural implants like where are we going with all those [laughter] things?
>> It's all a simulation.
>> Court's going to adapt you know.
>> But again I guess the courts will have to adapt. I mean again I I know in Massachusetts because that's where I work but I I was actually way back when part of a committee that came up with what's the current rule is and you know it was t it was at that point tackling what was sort of emerging technology. they kind of started to come up with the rule right when people started bringing smartphones and that that sort of thing into the courtrooms. Their concern was was one jurors as as you mentioned in this case, but the other one was um witnesses in criminal cases that that uh that there there was this fear that uh you know people would come in and and film witnesses, you know, in in not inadvertently say sort of secretly film witnesses as they were testifying and then you know provide that film testimony to others who might want to retaliate against those witnesses or or threaten those witnesses or that sort of thing. So, uh you know, it's the rules the rules need to keep up with the technology, but still the lawyers need regardless the lawyers need to be cognizant of whatever the current rules are and and abide by them. But we've had plenty of stories of lawyers not caring what the rules are. I guess.
>> Or following them either. The juror point is interesting too like going forward I mean because at least like when you go into deliberations they definitely don't let you have devices and whatever and if you have these glasses and could access stuff that's interesting from that perspective too.
>> Yeah. Can you I don't even have a pair. Do they can they be disabled easily enough or is it uh?
>> Well, the the the camera feature there's there's a little light that comes on if you take a picture or to do a video, but if you were at a in a brightly lit place, I'm not sure how easily that would be.
>> Yeah.
>> To be seen.
>> Plus, you could put a little piece of tape over probably the light that is. Um.
>> All right.
>> So, yeah. and and they're also developing sort of um uh glasses that aid in hearing as well which raises you know another dimension to it because people that are hearing impaired you I need the glasses I can't hear the witness if I can't.
>> Wear my glasses with the I don't know.
>> Yeah, well well not me but some people I know who are of a certain age are getting flooded with marketing for those hearing uh hearing glasses. Yeah.
>> I do feel like we'll have a situation sometime, you know, in the f future where to like >> go into a court. You'll have to be scanned with those like new TSA scanners where you got to put your like hands up or something and they got to do like some crazy scan to see like what Tekken implants you probably have. That's basically the only way [clears throat] to secure somebody's privacy.
>> Yeah.
>> TSA has gotten I mean I don't know about you, but in Boston it's like I just I don't even have to take out my ID or my phone or anything. They just scan my face and I walk through a lot of places.
>> Scan your face? I've never had that happen.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> My eyes. My eyes.
>> Biometric eye thing.
>> Oh, no. There's facial recognition in most of the New York airports, too. You're theory allowed to say you don't want to do it, but Yeah. But you have to provide your ID and then they do it. That's everywhere I've gone that's how it's been.
>> Well, it depend. Most of them Yes. But Delta has a few things where it literally just is. It scans your face and you just walk through and like I've had my ID in my hand and they're like you don't need that.
>> Yeah, this is Delta and Plus I have Clear too. So it may it may be part of the Clear feature now, but you don't even have to you don't have to do anything.
>> I actually have a shoe in Dallas as well. Like I flew in from overseas in December and I had to go through uh the immigration and um customs too and for people with US passports um that they just had us scan our face and I just went on through. Didn't have to interact, didn't have to like any ID. They just like had a like, you know, uh tablet and they scanned my face and they're like, "Okay, welcome home." And I'm like, "All right, that's easy enough." But also a tad concerning as well.
>> Well, yeah, that's how the global entry kiosks are at JFK. You walk in and you walk up and it just senses that you're there in this picture. It's like, "Go ahead." Like, you hardly even looking at the camera by the time. It's like you're through. Like you don't even answer the questions or anything anymore and you walk up and they're like, "Hello, Stephanie."
>> Yeah. Well, fortunately, we can trust the government with our private information, so we don't have to worry about that.
>> I mean, I'm pretty much sure everyone has all my information. [laughter] Like, I could have failed before I knew to be.
>> We all know your social security number at this point, Stephanie. [laughter]
>> But my my face for sure. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. All right. So, a a a somewhat related uh case I thought Ree was one. You you brought up uh the uh the fifth circuit uh ruling that you guys covered this this week. I think it was just earlier a couple days ago. Uh this week uh in also some involved judges getting a little fed up with with with AI issues, right? You want to talk about that?
>> Yeah, sure. Um you know what struck me was that the fifth circuit um was ex you know was essentially like okay like this is going to happen forever and there's no like clear ending. I um they were really angry too about the fact that the attorney tried to downplay the mistake as well. Um and I believe the the sanction or the fine was about 2500 which seems pretty low. Um, it's an interesting article because, you know, it stresses that attorneys just could be very forthcoming. Um, and if this is going to keep happening all the time, which there's a chance it will, perhaps they should increase the fines and sanctions and then we have a new stream of funding for all the courts. I don't know. It's just a suggestion out there.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, something that was interesting about that case, and I think you you said that is is that it's kind of encouraging lawyers to be a little more forthcoming about that because I think they they suggested that, you know, the sanctions would have been uh perhaps lower or or uh less severe had the lawyer been more uh forthcoming about the fact that they they'd used AI. Apparently, the lawyer was kind of like trying to fudge a little bit what had happened there. And and that's part of what what got the fifth circuit um upset there.
>> And also um oh I'm sorry um it did say that um the attorney did use GI tools from Elix um which I assume is probably Vincent and also co-consel as well. um they don't ever go into detail about which tool the hallucination came from. Um and it you know can be interesting to kind of you know like see like which you know which tool is causing the most hallucinations or like issues. The problem is like all these disclosures and court filings don't really go into that detail.
>> Yeah. I was just going to say it's pretty similar to what Mark just put in the chat, but like between the first case about the glasses and this, I feel like there's this running theme of like maybe don't try to pull one over on the court.
>> Maybe [clears throat] let's let's try to be a little bit upfront about what we're doing before we do these things and maybe you'll get in less trouble.
>> Don't be ludicrous. I know.
>> I also think that this is not the first time this has happened where they've used multiple tools that are legal specific. And I think that when people because there's this oh you've got to double check, you've got to cross check, you've got to make sure and then people start engaging in this game of AI telephone and they enter things into one and then they enter it into the next one and then they put into the next one. Well, it's got to be right now because it went through three of them. No, like it just hallucinated. view of like the exponentially like and and so they're trying to solve the problem by using more of them and the lines blur a little bit too between these tools and the AI. You know, you can't just do legal research anymore without the AI being involved somehow. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's sometimes I think because the line is blurred in terms of whether you're using an AI or a legal research product, maybe people don't really understand that AI is, you know, sort of shaping the outcome in some of these cases and that they do need to double check it by going into the traditional legal research tool that is sometimes, like I said, the interfaces blend them a lot in a way that can be a little bit confusing.
>> [clears throat]
>> It's interesting Joshua in the comments says that in the case the judge actually doubted the claim that the find lawyer used the tools they claimed.
>> Uh I haven't read the order so I don't know but that's interesting.
>> Um
>> Meaning what they just used GPT or what? Who knows? I don't know.
>> I was actually hoping to return to something that Stephen had said I believe in October at uh Relativity Festival in November and it still sticks with me today. you know, like um pre NAI tools, attorneys, you know, wouldn't have to check anything. They would just trust their associates. Um, so.
>> It's kind of like you're just, you know, increasing the work owed and folks aren't, I guess, really accustomed to having to check stuff over and over again. Um, you know, in the past they would just be like, "Yeah, it's totally fine." and like we had associates or whomever like you know check it or like you know draft it and it's probably okay just file stuff. Um these days it seems like okay like we actually have to you know pee on top of everything,
>> right? So [clears throat] particular you see the issue particularly when you look at uh like uh judges and their law clerks is a law clerk does a piece of research for a judge this judge is now going to have to check every site. I mean that's I mean we we're coming to that point. It almost is a point of diminishing your terms.
>> There's a middle ground, right? where like yes, we say like to some degree people were just relying on associates and I'm like well they shouldn't have always been doing that either. So yeah, I mean like I understand that depending on you know if you have a very senior associate that you're trusting and you know that's to me that could be more of a buck stops with them than just like if you were always blindly if you're like I never had to check stuff before and now I do. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for that because it was always on you. I wonder if there's gonna.
>> Yeah, but it's.
>> Go ahead.
>> It's it's uh [clears throat] it's I guess the problem is the penalty or or a hallucinated sight is so great that I mean you just imagine the scenario. You might have a senior associate that is really hairy, got a crisis at home, has to go out and he uses or she uses the bot one time and it's a hallucinated case out it goes and boom and it's a big big problem. So, I don't know how to how to contend with it. I know there are some vendors out there that are providing site checkers that do these kind of checks automatically, or so they claim. So, maybe that's an answer, but it is a wrinkle in the workflow process and a lot of legal work.
>> Yeah. Well, and I think one of the wrinkles too, sorry Nikki, I think you were going to talk, but Hayden said it in the chat, was that we've sort of moved on like some people are still citing fake cases. Sure. But we've sort of evolved in our hallucination nation here where we [clears throat] it is a real case. It's just cited for the wrong proposition because the AI got beholding wrong or something like that. So that's even I mean purely fake citations should be easier because there's nothing to link to. But yeah, sorry I cut you off, Nikki. Oh, I was going to say that [clears throat] my the firm I worked in was pretty good about this once you became um you'd been an associate for a while, they would also put your name on the submissions. But a lot of um firms don't do that. Like these associates work away in the background. They never get credit for anything and they end up doing all this work and never getting to the point where they start to let them be co-consel if you will on the briefs or at least get some credit or argue some, you know, they just sort of have them um working [clears throat] away in the background all the time. So maybe this is going to have the unintended consequence of them actually getting some credit. And maybe that might be part of the [laughter] solution is that if they're like, well, a partner's like, well, I don't I don't want to review the whole thing and make sure it's accurate. So, let's just put all the burden on them. And a that'll make uh the person who's actually wrote it responsible, but b maybe that'll make them be a little more careful, assuming they're the the problem versus the partners drafting it themselves are the problem. But.
>> I was going to say, yeah, I used to I used to be like such a big deal if I finally got my name on a brief, and now I'd be like, "No, that's okay. You don't have to."
>> [laughter]
>> It's all right.
>> Yeah,
>> never mind.
>> I mean, to to that to that point and and to Reese's earlier point about, you know, partners maybe maybe having to maybe having previously been able to trust associates more or something, I'm still I we and we've talked about this a million times on the show, but I'm still old school enough that if I am filing a brief or a motion or something in court that spot that cites cases, I am going to have opened each of those cases and read the case. That's just I just can't envision not doing that.
>> It it it maybe that's true, but I can tell you from my background that wasn't true. The briefs are too long, the time frames are too short. You may be local counsel, national counsel does the work. I mean, there's just so many scenarios. Yeah, if it's a critical case, I'm going to read it. But let's say it's a string site of standards for summary judgments. I mean, who cares, right? I mean, it is what it is. But but one of those cases is wrong. It's a hallucinated case and and the other side finds it out.
>> And I mean it's a >> it's a lot of a lot of practical practical issues floating around out there in the workflow process. Um.
>> Particularly where you've got such such huge time pressures and I don't it's hard. It's going to be really hard.
>> Yeah. Um, I'm actually curious to the extent to which people actually have checked case citations pre NAI. Um, there was actually someone in the chat that was like, well, like we're able to check case citations because you just run stuff through geni tools or something or like through a west law or like access I guess. So like you know like is the issue that we are able to check case um case citations and people are actually able to do that pretty quickly as opposed to in the past when people would just you know scroll through them and just be like yeah that's probably fine like those cases probably exist. I think that's definitely part of it because um.
>> You would absolutely pull the cases that stood for some substantive um element of the law or that had factual you know um recitations that compare you know are analogous to the case at an but when you have those string sites like Steve's talking about and you know this is what the general rule of law is and it [clears throat] doesn't really matter if those cases are the right ones because that is the principle of law and you know it because you've done the research on your end. You're not checking those, but you are checking the ones that are very fact specific or that stand for something that's the exact opposite of what you wanted to say. You know, you want to dive in and see if they're are they making it up. Did they misstate the law? So, I think you've definitely have both of those things happening. People are cross-checking all those stupid multiple sites in a row um that don't really matter and there's something incorrect in there and the AI makes it a lot easier to check all those sites. So, yeah, I think you have a combination of things happen in there.
>> Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Like if it's the major if the m if the major cases you're relying on to support your argument for sure you should be checking them by like I feel like I can tell this story because the statute of limitations have passed but it [laughter] was like no I was like seriously like I I did so much research and I was the person that read every single case and did whatever and I distinctly remember I was like a second or third year associate at the end of a month-long arbitration where I had lived out of the Hyatt Regency in Chicago which you all know why I love that hotel so much right and it was like the last day of a month-long arbitration. There was a massive brief all these sites and I realized in one string site for like our third alternative argument in one of the string sites I had cited a descent. I didn't realize it and I was like sweating bullets for like 4 hours in the back of the arbitration being like can we disclose? Can we just close? Can we disclose? I don't want this one thing. It was so irrelevant. But it was like the one mistake I I I viscerally remember it now because I did check all the sites. So I do understand how you know little mistakes like that happen. But nobody caught it because it was you know this the fourth case cited for a very minor point you know.
>> Yeah. And are you sure the statute of limitations is passed on it or do you ask GPT? Well, but you know that does kind of raise an interesting point because I mean.
>> Whoever your the partner in charge of that case was, that's why you were there to do that, right? To do those to the site. But now we're sort of saying, well, you know, does that partner now have to go site check all those cases himself or herself? Can I not rely on Stephanie anymore? And if that's the case, then, you know, I might as well just do all the work myself and forget the associate, right? Because I still got to do the same amount of work.
>> But in fairness, like like I said, that was such a minor alternative argument with so many other cases cited for it that they did read the actual cases that anyone ever discussed in the case. So, I don't know.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, uh, maybe law firms shouldn't be fully relying on AI for their case citations, but what about for their law firm recruiting interviews? [laughter] Uh.
>> Yeah, these, uh, these are two actually they're they're two articles, but one of them talks about both both situations, and I but I thought it was really interesting. One of them, a law firm is actually putting uh recruits through simulations um where they they interact with a simulated colleague or other stakeholders and they respond to text messages and voicemails and and they have workloads that they have to manage in this simulation. And it's all designed to and then they're given a project that they have to complete in a very short order of a time. is designed to see um you know can they can they act react under pressure and do they use good judgment and you know make priorities correctly and so I thought that that really was kind [laughter] of kind of an interesting way and it reminded me you know there's that uh there's that training vendor uh Altaquera and they do something similar although it's not to recruit it's to help train lawyers But they create these simulations and.
>> Stay tuned. We got more from them later in the show.
>> Yeah. Oh, that's right. They that's they and I think that they're doing a really nice job with what they're doing. But the and then the other uh article other another firm was using an AI bot to do its initial interviewing uh initial screening of people that's I guess submitted resumes or recruiting and that struck me as kind of well that could create there could be a lot of potential bias in there that could could lose out. But then there was a quote from somebody that went through it which I thought was really interesting. And the quote said, you know, actually this was pretty good because, you know, the the bot asked me some really good questions that enabled me to bring out some of the things that I'd done and some of the highlights of of my law school career. And it was much more talkative and and uh communicative, frankly, than talking to a partner in a law firm who could care less. and it's just having to check off the box that he did the interview. And so, you know, it's uh maybe it's not all bad, but uh it could be the future of where we're headed to. You want to get a job at a law firm, you better be ready to go through a simulation and talk to a bot. But to Nikki's always good point, it's all a simulation anyway, so what the hell? [laughter] I do find those stimulations more interesting than I just feel like everything I keep reading about the job application process now is like people are using AI to write a resume and then the people reading the resume are using AI to read the resume and it's just like just physical AI reading AI reading AI and then maybe a person gets an interview and.
>> I don't love that but I find actually at least the simulation depending on how it's built obviously and what goes into it I find that a little bit more interesting because you're at least letting people express some personality or knowledge or something that's not just on paper.
>> Yeah. The other thing I thought about is with with this initial interview, I mean, I'm not exactly sure how they set it up, but seems like it would be very easy for the applicant to use an AI tool to suggest the answers that the AI bot was was [laughter] questioning about it. So, it'd be like AI talking to AI and said, "You're a really good candidate." I don't know. Yeah.
>> Thanks. Thanks to my bot who and thanks to your bot for asking all the right questions. [laughter]
>> Well, I think part of.
>> I think it highlights how stupid these things are in the first place. This whole process is kind of stupid and people aren't supposed to go with their gut, but they go with their gut. It doesn't really matter what you say. Most of the time in these interview processes, they're going by their gut whether they like you and think you'll be a good person to work with, right? that's what they're actually assessing even though they are checking off boxes and doing all the things. So I definitely feel like the whole application and and or it's so and so's kid so of course we're going to hire him but we got to make him go through the you know.
>> Process and so there's a lot of that going on too and it just always felt so performative to me. I haven't fortunately I didn't have to do a ton of interviews in my life but.
>> They just were always so awkward and I just felt like I'd run a race by the time I left them. I was like sweaty, dressed out.
>> Well, you know, in a lot of fir a lot of firms, the you the lawyers and legal professionals do the interviewing and.
>> They really I mean there aren't they aren't trained for that. They really don't and so they end up talking about themselves most of the time in the interview. You just nod their head. That's interesting.
>> Those are the best interviews.
>> You just you just flatter the person interviewing you and and then they think it was a great interview at the end,
>> right? But I remember when I was, you know, in big law, there were like somebody was interviewing, they would slot four people onto the interview schedule. There would be like a partner to like a mid-level senior and a junior or whatever. And like you would just get thrown on a random interview and I was like a first year. I didn't know anything about anything even including where I was working yet, but I was interviewing somebody to go to work there. And yeah, it was.
>> Yeah. I wonder if this is a little bit of a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander in that law firms are increasingly using AI to perform their intake their client intake and they're lit, you know, literally using voice agents and and and other tools to u do the initial interview when a client reaches out and uh you know in some cases uh you know I think probably a few of us probably wrote a few weeks ago about Alphalit that launched which is you know not not just doing the initial intake but gathering all the documents and and evaluating the case and making a judgment as to whether this is a case worth pursuing. There are other tools like that. I think Case Status is doing that now where they're kind of performing an initial evaluation of the case. So, if AI interviewing is good enough for potential clients, why shouldn't it be good enough for potential associates? [clears throat]
>> That that that brings up that that raises a really good interesting point, Bob, because you know, you think about these clients that put matters out for RFPs and so like say you've got three finalists. Are you going to put them through a simulation to see really how how good a fit they are for the client or how good a good good a lawyer they really are? I mean, why wouldn't you if you if it's a big enough matter?
>> Yeah, I like that. Let's work on developing that product and we'll [laughter] if anybody's doing that yet.
>> That's a million dollar idea, you guys. This is going to be.
>> Vibe code it.
>> That's how I was going to vive coat it. I just I just read about how to do that. So, I'm ready to go here. I think we can get some people to invest. Andrew Andrew Aruto will invest. I'm sure [laughter] right Andrew. Um, so [laughter]
>> Simulations there.
>> Um, all right. Well, uh, I'm so glad you talked about simulations in Alta CLO because uh, Stephanie happens to have story about simulations in Alta.
>> I know. I feel so old school that I like actually just picked a product story for my story today. Like we just never do that. Um but yeah, so Altaro in partnership with Verbbit, the AI the trans or transcription deposition company. They put out uh a new simulation e-learning product. Alterero has been doing a lot of e-learning over the years and I've been lucky enough to let them they let me test a lot of them out which is great. Um, but so this one I actually thought it was really cool. It's called Depo Sim and it literally is a um deposition simulator where you you go in, they give you a case file, you know, of like the relevant like the complaint answers like certain case documents like this was a short simulation, right? Um, but then and then you put in you can make your own outline or I use their preset outline for your deposition outline and it gives you a way to practice taking a deposition from start to finish and you can pick like a hostile witness which I did and it was certainly hostile and or like how aggressive opposing council is and objecting and things like that and you run it and it like the AI simulates every part other than you. It simulates the witness, the court reporter, um the opposing council. So, it starts with it actually swears it in like it's a real witness and you can mark exhibits and you can walk through it and it responds to your questions. It'll be like, "Give me a second. Look at that document." And my hostile witness was a jerk. And you'd be like, "But that's not what I meant." And I it also reminded me how long it's been since I've taken a deposition because I was definitely floundering and had not prepared that much. And at one point, I was like, "Oh, let me find it." the the fake witness is like, "Well, maybe you should have prepared more." And I was like, "Okay, [laughter] cool." But um but no, it was really realistic. So, I mean, you could do it as many times as you want and like so if you needed to train whether you were new or if you had been doing it for a long time and like say you had never really handled a hostile witness and you really wanted to go in and do one, at least get used to what that's like or like you know your opposing council as a total jerk face, you could put that in too. And um it's like it's totally meant for for simulation, but it really is. And I mean, you get a comprehensive feedback like they judge it against what you set out in your outline to achieve and it'll say like you actually got through these, you made these points or you missed these or and you can look at certain segments and rerun them. You can share the transcript if you want feedback with people. Like I thought it was like a really cool like yes you could a little bit tell it was robotic but it felt very real other than like you were like sitting in your own room without looking at a person but I thought it was really well done. It was really cool.
>> I.
>> Yeah, I've seen it too. I think it was I thought it was really cool and and and realistic in a lot of ways. I mean, it's, you know, you you you do pick your type of witness that you're going to depose. And so, it does put certain parameters that, you know, are not totally realistic because sometimes you might have a witness that's very hostile in one area and very talkative. I mean, it's but.
>> To train people, particularly younger lawyers, or to get, you know, get up to date if you're been around for a while, it's better than anything else that I've heard of. So, I thought it was cool, too.
>> Absolutely. I they'd given me the opportunity to take a look at it too, but I decided to just wait till legal week and take a look at it. So, I'm looking forward to seeing it. But I think what seems so interesting about this is that um uh you know, one of the gaps that we're seeing, not just in legal, but is the training aspect, right? It used to be we go in there [clears throat] and kind of train on the job um but AI's uh taking a lot of the tasks that you would do. One of which was when I was um moved from criminal law into civil litigation. One of the first things they gave me to do in the firm because I had never tried a civil case um was to summarize a deposition so that I could see what a deposition looked like so that I could just understand how the format and who did what and also so that I could wrap my mind around the case and start helping the lawyer with a case. But it was a great way but now you can throw a deposition in AI and it'll summarize it in a heartbeat. Yeah. So, [clears throat] you know, it's it's a waste of time to have a young lawyer do that. But you need to kind of do that to understand what a deposition is, where it fits in, what it looks like, and how to conduct one yourself. Then maybe you attend one or two as well with a partner. But now it's like I think it's a way that law schools could start having a trial prep training class that will make it so that lawyers are more practice well students are more practice ready when they graduate. So that the firms have someone. It's part of almost like the apprenticeship within or the residency within law school but virtually. And maybe that'll help fill that gap.
>> And the way I learned was being a second chair, but back then you really kind of needed a second chair because I had to literally lug piles of paper in and stickers on them and hand them out. So that's not as necessary anymore. But I also like that they're using AI in the training because I feel like there's so much focus, rightfully so, on training people on how to use AI, but there's not I don't feel like as many people are leaning into the using an AI to AI to deliver the training part. So, I really like I I I thought it was I thought it was a great idea and they plan to expand it to other sort of advocacy tasks like negotiations and things like that. But I was I was really impressed with it. One one thing I really like about these kind of programs is, you know, before a lot of the the training in law firms was catches, catch can. I mean, you know, Stephanie, you got you might have gotten to be second chair on a really big case and with a partner that was really good to work with and kind of mentored and helped you out and, you know, you you did well. I, on the other hand, got stuck with the jerk partner who could care less and just, you know, threw a bunch of paper at me and said, "Spit this out." And you know that penalizes me in in my advance. But the good thing about these kind of programs is it it's the availability for every young lawyer in the firm who wants to be a litigator can do this and gets equal training which is you know what we ought to be about anyway considering the investment you're making in an associate start out with.
>> I did I I did everything wrong when I was a young lawyer. I the first time I did a deposition I had never seen a deposition. I went in by myself. I didn't I was a solo lawyer. I had I wasn't working with a a senior partner who was going to train me or anything else. I was scared shitless. And if I had had something like this, I would have eaten it up. It would have been so useful for me to have something like this.
>> Yeah. And when I was like a mid-level to senior, I don't know, maybe I was like a fifth or sixth year associate. I was sent to like a trial advocacy camp, I guess, for like a weekend at UVA or whatever, where you spend two days and you learn how to do oral argument and stuff like that, which was like.
>> Great, but like they sent one person a year.
>> To do this.
>> Whereas something like this, everybody can sit down and do it.
>> Right?
>> Actually, it just.
>> Yeah, that's the beauty of it.
>> To how like the industry is totally okay with these kind of like virtual simulations. I mean like you know precoid like this would just be like heresy like you know like I feel like people were always so focused on those like you know in person like heman skills you know associates being trained by two um like uh during the return to office and co everybody was like well like people have to be trained so you have to come in and have those skills too and then everybody's like oh wait it's totally Hey, we don't have to have.
like that at all. Like we can just do this with like these virtual emulations. Um, which also like Gen Z is completely okay with too. Um, just having like grown up like with you know, like the tendency to interact on the internet and to interact in very, you know, like tech-savvy ways too. Um, and it's just, you know, like really interesting to see that change pre-COVID and post-COVID and how quickly it's all changed, too.
I mean, I was really quite impressed when like Hot Shot and like um, like Elaero came out and they took off so quickly. I think it was like what, 2021, 2022, um, and the shift in like law firming like happened almost overnight. Um, and it was like a giant cultural shift that they kind of were were kind of like forced into due to all the changes that COVID brought, including the fact that the partners had no time to train in any way.
That's a really good point because, and Reese probably knows this more than anybody, having formerly been my colleague that I was on a massive soapbox about return to office and this notion that people weren't getting trained because they had some antiquated idea that the partner was coming down the hallway, putting their arm around you and making you a good lawyer. And I'm like, that wasn't happening before COVID. Your only for return to office is in-person training. It's not happening. So like, I never even thought of it that way. This is a shift and I'm making it even more.
>> Yeah. Although Ha was actually around around since 2014 because they were, but they were like one of those overnight successes that had actually taken years to get to get to the right point in time for them to take off. But yeah.
>> Yeah. They pivoted their model a bit too. But yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. The whole idea that you're going to bump into the partner at the water cooler, like my office didn't even have a freaking water cooler. [laughter] And if it did, you know, nobody had time to go stand around the water cooler waiting for a partner to stroll by. You need to get your butt in the office, close the door, and get to work and bill some time.
>> If [laughter] you were at a water cooler or equivalent and you heard a partner coming, you'd like scurry away.
>> Right? Particularly on Friday afternoon. [laughter]
>> Yeah, those were the days.
>> So, I I had a couple of story. I don't know. I had a serious story and a not serious story, but I'm maybe gonna start with a serious story only because I'm wondering what you all thought of this story about Harvey this week, hiring Harvey, uh, their the guy who played Harvey in Suits as their like brand spokesperson. Uh, and I I I don't know if you all saw that story, but it struck me as kind of funny. Uh, and like a little bit of a, here's what you do when you got more money than you know what to do with. Uh, and I'm I just I you know, I I wonder what like what's the ration, like are lawyers, are law firms going to use Harvey because they got some, you know, TV actor who played a lawyer once as their as their brand spokesman. Uh, I don't know, what what did you all think?
>> I'm just I'm just disappointed they didn't get a rabbit. [laughter]
>> Well, yeah. Right.
>> I would like the rabbit.
>> Right. And the other thing.
>> Probably a lot of people listening.
>> Andrew can confirm, people listening have no idea what I was just talking about, but.
>> Right. [laughter] Well, yeah, I know, but Andrew can confirm this also, but there they were, the the second AI product named after a after a Suits character because I think Ross was also named after um, one of the characters in Suits. So.
>> But anyway, it just seemed funny.
>> Was named after Ross from Friends, but that's just me. I don't know.
>> Yeah.
>> Ask Andrew.
>> Well, Mike Ross is what I understand. The character Mike Ross, but full coincidence. Okay. I don't know.
>> I think Andrew is actually an investor in Harvey, too, or was an investor. So we can.
>> Harvey was like, Harvey is just like owing off this to an extent, you know, like it's has so much cash and so much sway that it's like, we can finally hire the guy that we paced the um, the aim on to, you know, like it's a it's a very giant well-funded company and they're just having some fun and throwing their AM too, which isn't surprising, although like, you know, it could rub people the wrong way, except I think it's like a silly, funny, you know, marketing boy.
>> It's fun.
>> It's fun. Who who was the u was it Smokeball years ago that hired um, forget the name of the woman that played.
>> Yeah, Calista Flockhart.
>> Oh, really?
>> Yeah. That didn't seem to last very long either. That was a short-lived relationship as far as I could tell. Uh.
>> It was just for that one like tech ABA tech show video they put out.
>> Yeah, it might have been that. That was that was a while ago. Um, there was also Lindsay Lohan, I believe, or like she did some advertisement for some legal tech company. Um, if I recall right, Stephanie, I believe we did the article on that or.
>> I feel like I would remember that.
>> Feel like that would be highly memorable. What's our archives?
>> Lawyer.com. Yeah, there you go.
>> Okay.
>> Just Google it.
>> That's the one.
>> Did a lawyer.com ad. Here's a Mashable headline. Says Lindsay Lohan has a bizarre new gig with lawyer.com. [laughter]
>> I think we should get all the celebrities in this field. You know, it's interesting. It keeps it fresh.
>> Yeah. All right. Uh, then to [clears throat] this story, I should just post it today, but it it's not something I wrote by although I I well, I wrote about it, but I was actually writing about uh I had only recently sort of come across this this U Arizona Republic newspaper did this like series of of reports about the about Arizona's alternative big business structure program. And I thought it was pretty interesting because, you know, there there had been there the Stanford study came out last year saying that, you know, we've looked at the data and there was really kind of no evidence of consumer harm uh coming out of either the Arizona or Utah programs. Uh, and you know, they they said that based on looking at sort of disciplinary complaints that had been filed uh with the Arizona regulatory authority and found there were very, very few complaints. But this Arizona story kind of went out and talked to a bunch of consumers and and and uh lawyers and and others and and found uh kind of this widespread uh uh level of of uh of of consumer complaints. Uh, and consumers complaining that they had been uh, you know, in some ways wronged uh or scammed by law firms that were operating under the under the Arizona license. Uh, and uh, in part, it was kind of the the this the article is kind of focused on the fact that so many law firms have kind of started using their Arizona license as a as a launching pad or or home base for for national practices uh, and in some cases, basically national telemarketing practices to kind of bring in clients and then dole them out to uh to law firms in in different states. Um, so it's uh, it's u interesting read. You would I mean, I've I've summed it up a little bit in my story. I think you need a subscription to the Arizona Republic. I don't think cuz I ended up buying one to read the full the full uh series of articles. But, you know, a much different portrait uh than than we've seen so far and and different than sort of the uh the main talking points we've been getting so far about these uh these alternative business structures. Uh, I haven't had a chance to hear back from anybody from from the court themselves in in Arizona. I did get a I did talk to some to uh to Natalie uh uh uh Nolton at uh at Stanford and got, you know, some feedback from her on on their perspective on it, which again is basically that they just kind of focused on the publicly available data rather than go out and individual interview individual consumers or whatnot, but um, you know, I I think it's probably going to be something that's going to get uh get a lot of uh a lot of people looking at it who are considering similar reforms in other states. And uh uh apparently, according to the Arizona Republic, the Arizona court itself is already looking at possible reforms to their rule to uh try and get law firms to focus more on serving Arizona clients as opposed to clients all over the country.
>> I thought it was interesting and there were two things that stood out to me. First was that I always say that um capitalism trumps altruism with all these access to justice plays and that I really just think more funding at a federal level or at a statewide level are really the only ways that you're going to truly help bridge access to justice. And this [clears throat] just sort of confirms my I think my thesis or my hypothesis about all of this that at the end of the day, people just find capitalistic ways to use whatever you roll out to make money, not to help people, you know, obtain access to justice. So that, that's my first thing. The second thing is I love when there's Real Housewives connections to like legal text because.
>> I'm like my guilty pleasure used to be more when I traveled um was to watch Real. It's like to only watch Real Housewives when I'm on the road and I um Joe Gorga, this is the second time he's was listed in your article as somebody who is, you know, trying to bank on this and make a lot of money off of this [laughter] um Arizona's uh structure there. But that's the second time someone's popped up. And the other one is um the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. And uh I forget his name, but that lawyer that basically forced California to have like ethics rules and discipline. [laughter] He really basically had none. I can't remember his name. The guy who had like a basically a Ponzi scheme going in his law firm. He's the one that did um Brachovich. He was a lawyer that was [clears throat] the lawyer on the Brachovich case. I can't remember his name, but so far had two different people tied husbands of Real Housewives doing some pretty sketchy stuff that.
>> Uh touch on the legal side of things. So, this is I'm I'm keeping track. And I think this is the second one I'm aware of so far. So, that was very exciting.
>> My day.
>> The Real Housewives of New Jersey, I think, was probably the craziest of all the franchise. And I'm not surprised that uh Joe Gorga is up to this. Um, it strikes me as like, you know, akin to what the states are doing with like legalized retail um cannabis. Um, they try something, it's totally new, and they don't really know how to properly create the regulations around it. Um, and stuff just takes off and you have all these crazy unintended um consequences too. And there's a ton of like Real Housewives husbands who have also opened retail uh cannabis stores that are quite shady as well. So like, no, it it could take some time for states like Arizona to understand how to properly construct the guardrails around this. I mean, it is, you know, still fairly new. Um, you know, it's strange that people take concern with the fact that, you know, the firms in Arizona are, you know, reaching clients outside of the state. It's supposed to help the state. Although if it brings in like taxable income to the state, you know, and if there's a way to kind of like, you know, to to to create the regulations around it so it can help the state while still being able to to um have clients, you know, out in the country. You know, like there's quite a few legal tech um companies too that have like um firms in Arizona and they have those firms to serve the entire country too. Like the one that comes to my head is um probably the firm by like Rocket Lawyer. Um, they're doing a very targeted approach and they're serving people around the country through sick um sick onments and, you know, it seems to be a very thought-out, you know, helpful approach and, you know, it's it's concerning too if like the Supreme Court what in the state tends to clamp down too hard um, it could like, you know, really harm from some of these really um, you know, um courageous, I guess we can call them, like legal tech folk who are trying really interesting uh firms in the states and firm structures too.
>> Yeah. All right. Well, we are at the top of the hour. So, uh we are out of time for today. But, uh as usual, I appreciate uh all of all of you on the panel for being here and all of you in the chat and everybody else who's uh watching and and listening on uh on YouTube or uh podcast version. Uh, we'll be back next week to talk about whatever happens between now and then. See you then.
>> Have a good weekend everybody. Take care.
>> Good evening.
>> Bye.