Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept; it is an active partner in the practice of law, promising efficiencies from legal research to document drafting.

However, the rapid adoption of AI in the practice of law is not without significant risk. For every efficiency gained, there is a potential pitfall that could jeopardize client trust, breach ethical duties, and expose the firm to malpractice liability or severe court sanctions. The excitement around AI must be tempered with vigilance and a clear-eyed understanding of the professional responsibility rules that govern the legal profession.

We must recognize that AI tools are just that - tools; they are not lawyers. The buck, ultimately, stops with the supervising attorney and the firm itself.

Here are the top five high-stakes pitfalls that US-based law firms must actively address when their lawyers utilize AI in the practice of law.

1. The Catastrophic "Hallucination" and the Failure of Competence

The most public and immediate threat posed by generative AI is its propensity for "hallucination," where the AI tool fabricates plausible but entirely nonexistent legal authorities, statutes, or facts. The consequences of submitting a brief to a court that relies on fake case law are severe, leading to judicial sanctions, fines, public reprimand, and a catastrophic loss of professional credibility.

This pitfall strikes at the core of ABA Model Rule 1.1: Competence. A lawyer who fails to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content - especially citations and legal analysis - is failing to provide "thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." In the eyes of the court, ignorance is no excuse; the lawyer remains responsible for every assertion made. Firms must understand that AI's confidence in its output is wholly uncorrelated with its accuracy. Attorneys cannot be lazy about these citations just because they are generated by AI. Now more than ever, what you learned in your first-year Legal Research and Writing class is true. "Cite-checking is important."

2. Breaching Client Confidentiality and Privilege

Law firms are custodians of their clients' most sensitive data. The unauthorized disclosure of confidential information is a fundamental breach of trust and a violation of ABA Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information.

The AI pitfall here lies in the input. Many popular, general-purpose AI tools (especially those publicly available) may use the data input by a user to train their underlying models. If a lawyer inputs confidential client documents, trade secrets, or litigation strategy into such a tool without ensuring the vendor has robust, legally-vetted privacy protocols, that information could inadvertently become part of the publicly accessible training data for the model. This is an unauthorized disclosure that could waive attorney-client privilege and subject the firm to immense liability and client flight.

3. Algorithmic Bias Leading to Discriminatory Outcomes

AI systems are trained on vast datasets, and if that data reflects historical or societal biases (for instance, in criminal justice records, demographic information, or financial data), the resulting AI output will perpetuate and even amplify those biases.

This pitfall is insidious because the discrimination is hidden behind a seemingly neutral "algorithm," violating a lawyer's obligations regarding fairness and non-discrimination. If a firm uses AI for tasks like predictive policing analysis, e-discovery prioritization, or even internal hiring and promotion decisions, and the tool produces biased results, the firm risks legal challenges under Title VII or other anti-discrimination laws. Worse, it erodes the public's trust in the integrity of the justice system itself. The firm could be seen as outsourcing its ethical responsibility to a "black box" technology.

4. The Erosion of Independent Professional Judgment

A major risk is the over-reliance on AI, where lawyers treat the technology not as a research assistant, but as a definitive authority. This creates an erosion of independent professional judgment, a key element of competent lawyering.

AI is designed to find patterns in data, but it struggles with legal nuance, jurisdictional subtleties, and the human element necessary for effective client strategy. If a junior attorney relies solely on AI for a complex contract clause or a novel legal theory, they may miss critical context, fail to exercise skepticism, and ultimately provide substandard advice. This over-dependence diminishes the value of the human lawyer and potentially increases the firm's exposure to malpractice claims. Firms are hired for their judgment and advice, not their ability to parrot a chatbot.

5. Failure of Supervisory and Training Duties

The adoption of AI necessitates firms to rethink how they approach supervising lawyers and staff, and reviewing their work product. This is especially important in light of ABA Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3 (Responsibilities of Partners, Supervisory Lawyers, and Nonlawyer Assistants).

The final pitfall is the failure of firm leadership to establish and enforce clear, mandatory policies for AI use. Leaving AI implementation to individual attorneys invites chaos. If a partner fails to adequately supervise a junior associate who is using an unauthorized, non-secure AI tool to draft a motion, the partner and the firm can be held professionally responsible for any resulting ethical breach or legal error. This liability extends to non-lawyer staff who may be using AI for administrative or document review tasks without understanding the confidentiality risks.

Solutions: How to Safeguard Your Firm

Avoiding these pitfalls requires a proactive, mandatory, and governance-first approach. Firms are wise to embrace AI, but must do so safely and ethically.

1. Mandate Human Verification and Oversight

• The "Zero Tolerance" Rule for Hallucinations: Enforce a mandatory, documented human review of all AI-generated citations, case law, and factual assertions before submission to a client or court. Treat AI output as a first draft from a highly capable (but fundamentally unreliable) individual.

2. Implement a Vetted-Only AI Policy

• Restrict Tool Usage: Create a firm-approved list of AI tools. This list should exclude all general-purpose AI platforms unless the firm has a dedicated enterprise license that contractually guarantees no client data is used for model training.

• The Confidentiality Triage: Lawyers must be trained to never input confidential, privileged, or personally identifiable client information into an unvetted AI system.

3. Prioritize Technological Competence Training

• CLE Requirements: Make ongoing, mandatory CLE on the benefits, risks, and ethical obligations of AI a requirement for every attorney and relevant staff member. Training must cover how to spot hallucinations and recognize algorithmic bias.

• CLEwebinars.com offers a variety of Continuing Legal Education webinars that cover the opics of law firm implementation of Artificial Intelligence and ways to avoid the kinds of pitfalls discussed here.

4. Establish Clear Supervisory Protocols

• AI Checklist: Incorporate AI usage into existing supervision workflows. Create a checklist for the "Verification of AI Input/Output". Require supervising attorneys to review this "Verification of AI Input/Output" checklist for any work product generated or assisted by AI. This can help ensure accountability under Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3.

5. Open Client Communication

• Informed Consent: Be transparent. If the firm plans to use AI in a material way that involves client data, the firm should consider obtaining informed consent from the client, explaining the benefits and, more importantly, the steps taken to mitigate the risks to confidentiality. This does also give the client the opportunity to opt-out of having AI employed for their matters. Be prepared.

By integrating robust policies, mandatory training, and diligent human oversight, firms can responsibly harness the power of AI while ensuring that the firm’s ethical obligations and commitment to excellence remain uncompromised.

The post Navigating the AI Frontier: Five Pitfalls US Law Firms Must Avoid appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Just published by the American Bar Association, "Internet Legal Research on a Budget: Free and Low-Cost Resources for Lawyers, Second Edition" by Judy Davis and Carole Levitt directs lawyers to useful and reliable databases and explains how to use them effectively. This edition has updated information about resources discussed in the first edition, new resources and expanded chapters on Casemaker and Fastcase.

With cost-conscious clients scrutinizing legal bills, lawyers cannot afford to depend on expensive legal research databases, especially when reliable free resources are available. This updated edition of "Internet Legal Research on a Budget" will help you quickly find the best free or low-cost resources online and use them for your research needs. The authors share the top websites, apps, blogs, and other Internet resources that will save you time, money, and frustration during the legal research process.

This book will help you locate and use:

• Legal portals and directories (government, academic, and commercial);
• Case law databases (government and commercial);
• Federal Statutory research;
• Federal, legislative, and congressional materials;
• Starting points for state, local, territorial, and tribal law;
• Foreign, international, and comparative law resources;
• And more!

Davis, JD, MLIS, is a senior law librarian and adjunct assistant professor of law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. She has practiced law in California and currently teaches legal research to USC law students, works in the law library’s Reference department, and gives lectures and training sessions on legal research and related topics.

Levitt, JD, MLS, is the founder and President of Internet for Lawyers (www.netforlawyers.com) and Vice-President of CLEwebinars.com. She practiced law in California and was a law librarian in Chicago and Los Angeles. She is a nationally recognized CLE seminar speaker and bestselling Law Practice Division author. She is an expert on Internet investigative and legal research.

The post Internet Legal Research on a Budget Gets New Edition appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

CLEwebinars.com is hosting a new webinar based on the the popular and newly updated book "Internet Legal Research on a Budget" on July 8, at 1:00 pm ET. After you sign up for this webinar, you'll receive a discount code for 25% off the price of the book. This code will be active through August 31, 2020.

The webinar speakers, Vice-President of CLEwebinars.com Carole Levitt and Judy Davis, Senior law librarian and adjunct assistant professor of law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, have based this webinar on the new edition of their just published ABA Law Practice Division book, "Internet Legal Research on a Budget: Free and Low-Cost Resources for Lawyers."

The post CLE Webinar Based on popular Internet Legal Research Book Coming Soon appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

With 7.4, you can now:

• Jump directly from your search results into the Outline View to learn which libraries are part of your current subscription
• Quickly see which cases have been overturned because they are now highlighted in red in the Interactive Timeline
• Home in on the best possible results because in 7.4 Fastcase overhauled its relevance algorithm to show the best results on the top of the results list

Fastcase has also added these new partners to offer subscribers more secondary content, such as:

• Expert witness profiles from JurisPro: Brief annotations about the experts are integrated right into your search results if you run an “Entire Database” search. Then, if you click an annotation from the results list, the full-text of the expert’s profile is shown (for free). You can also search JurisPro on its own or in combination with other databases on Fastcase. Another expert witness profile database, Courtroom Insight, is new to Fastcase, but you can’t get a free look at the expert’s full-text profile like you can with the expert witness profiles from JurisPro. You can only see the brief annotation unless you have a separate subscription to Courtroom Insight.
• American Bar Association Sections’ books and treatises are not online yet, but when they are the will be treated like the expert witness results above. You will see brief annotations integrated into your search results, but unlike the free access to the full text of Jurispro’s expert witnesses’ profiles, you will not be able to view the full-text of any book for free. You must have a separate annual subscription to an individual ABA book or a practice section library of online books in order to access the full-text. The ABA books will join a group of other book publishers already online at Fastcase, such as James Publishing, HeinOnline, the New York State Bar Association, and others.
• TransUnion TLOxp: This is an investigative research database used for due diligence and to find missing people, etc. We have an individual TLOxp subscription and wonder if there’s going to be a discount if we subscribe via Fastcase. We’re awaiting a call-back to clarify this detail.

If you want to search Fastcase’s secondary materials, such as the expert witness profiles or any books and treatises, you will learn that Fastcase does not make it that easy to find them, so here’s how to find them: To view secondary material that is not jurisdiction-specific, such as JurisPro, Courtroom Insight, and books and treatises that are not from a state bar publication department, click Outline from the homepage and then choose All-Federal or any state to view the available books and treatises. To view only state-specific secondary materials, such as books and treatises from the New York State Bar Association, click Outline from the homepage and then click New York.

The post Fastcase Introduces New Features in Version 7.4 (Codenamed ‘Venus’) appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Dear U.S. Supreme Court website: The ABA Preview of U.S. Supreme Court Cases provides merit and amicus briefs from 2003-present. You first must choose a Term (e.g., 2014-2015) and then select from an alphabetical list by party name. Or, to quickly find your case from the long list, we would recommend you use your Find function (Control f for PCs and Command f for Macs) and enter part of the case name into the find box to be taken directly to the listed case. You can then choose any of the briefs to view full-text.

Another site that archives merit and amicus briefs is Scotusblog, but it doesn't go back as far as the ABA site--its archives go back only to 2007. However, it offers some useful features that the ABA site does not offer. For instance, in addition to briefs, Scotusblog includes the Court's Proceedings and Orders (docket) so you can follow various steps of the case (such as, DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016, as shown in the next illustration). It also offers you the ability to set up free e-alerts to receive updates about a particular case.

To use Scotusblog's archive, choose a Term to view the list of cases for that Term. They will be listed in sitting order, so click the link View this list sorted by case name to find your case alphabetically. Once you find the case, click on its title. Then you will see a docket sheet displaying the Proceedings and Orders, listed from oldest to newest, as shown in the above illustration. You can choose any of the briefs to view full-text.

As for posting amicus briefs quickly, neither site is quite as up-to-date as we would have hoped, but they're close. For example, on January 5, 2016, we were able to locate, on each site, an amicus brief filed just the day before (January 4, 2016), but we were unable to locate a particular one filed on the same day we were searching (January 5, 2016). By performing a Google search, we successfully located the amicus brief we were looking for - posted by a non-profit agency that was interested in the case, but not a party or one of the amicus curiae. So for very recent (same day) amicus briefs, your best bet is to Google it.

The post Update to “Dear U.S. Supreme Court Web Site: Where are Your Briefs?” appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The site allows you to search its collection of Tentative Rulings simultaneously through multiple counties. It allows you to further refine your search with filters, by county, judge, or tag. The cost to access the collection is $39.00 per month. Since most Tentative Rulings are not available anywhere else, Bench Reporter has the potential to be a very useful site. **Readers of this site can save $10 off their first month's subscription using the discount code ifl.

Coverage: Dates and Geographic

The site is vague about its date coverage range, saying, “We began collecting tentative rulings many years ago. Having invested countless resources over that span, we amassed more than 10,000 tentative rulings.*” The asterisk leads to a disclaimer that reads, “not all 10,000 rulings are available at this time, but more are added nearly every day.” Most of the Tentative Rulings we found are from recent years. We did retrieve a few from as far back as 2008.

Bottom of Form

Currently, the site includes Tentative Rulings from the following California counties:

·      Contra Costa County Superior Court

·      Los Angeles County Superior Court

·      Orange County Superior Court

·      Sacramento County Superior Court

·      San Diego County Superior Court

·      San Francisco County Superior Court

·      Santa Clara County Superior Court

·      Sonoma County Superior Court

Why Tentative Rulings Could Be Useful

As most California attorneys know, it is NOT acceptable to cite to a Tentative Ruling, absent exceptionally rare circumstances. So if Tentative Rulings cannot be cited as authority (and might not even become the final ruling), why research them you might ask, as I did in an e-mail interview with the co-founder of the site, Benjamin Berger (from the law firm of Berger Harrison, APC in Irvine, California)? He explained that:

·      The purpose of studying tentative rulings is to gain insight as to how judges evaluate certain issues.  Whether a tentative becomes final or not, it will provide insight you cannot get anywhere else. [Note from author: Bench Reporter does not indicate whether a Tentative Ruling became the final ruling.]

·      While a tentative ruling will set forth the court’s analysis, a final ruling (even where the tentative is adopted) is often boiled down to a short and simple order.  For example, a judge may issue a tentative ruling that spends several pages examining the facts and law, then issue a final ruling as short as this:  “Motion granted as to the 3^rd and 4^th cause of action.  20 days leave to amend.”  Critically, in most counties, the tentative ruling vanishes soon after the hearing and is not available anywhere thereafter (except for Bench Reporter).  For this reason, far more can be learned from the tentative ruling than from the final ruling. 

·      Most tentative rulings do become the final ruling.  For the small minority of instances where the tentative was not adopted, it is unlikely that the change would upset the analysis set forth in the tentative.  All this being said, our site provides a supplemental method of research. 

In addition, the site explains the usefulness of Tentative Rulings this way:

•  illustrate how a particular judge has handled specific issues in the past

•  reveal which cases your judge finds most persuasive on a given topic

• address issues for which there is little or no appellate authority

•  provide a quick overview of issues you’re not familiar with

•  help you prepare an opposition to a motion you’ve never faced

•  lead you to copies of moving papers that will be vital to your research

•  provide insight regarding a judge’s interpretation of ambiguous precedent

How To Search

The site is best-formatted for use from a desktop/laptop computer or some larger tablets. It’s not made for small screens. The search panel is divided vertically, with the search column on the left and the list of search results in the right-hand column. The search panel allows you to set a variety of search criteria which can be mixed and matched. For example, you can search using free-text, and/or you can filter by judge/county, and/or tags (e.g., demurrer), and/or date. 

Full-Text “Search Term” Search

The search function searches the body of the rulings, as well as the case names. It works similarly to the Google Web Search. You can search with one or more words, or exact phrases, or you can search by mixing an exact phrase and one or more additional words. The default will be to connect multiple words with an “AND” Boolean connector, so the site will return rulings which contain all of the words.  

Judge/County Filters

If your goal is to read every available ruling by a particular judge, regardless of topic, you could search without any search terms by filtering first by county and then by selecting a judge from the list. To search rulings on a particular topic by a particular judge, enter words/phrases into the “Search term” Search box and filter by judge. Sometimes a ruling may be attributed to a judge who did not actually write the ruling; this would happen when another judge fills in for a vacationing judge.  

Tag Filters

You can also filter by Tags, which are pre-defined labels assigned by the site owners to help you locate a ruling when the judge hasn’t used the same word or phrase that you are using in your search.  As explained by the site owners, “Ideally, tags categorize rulings which may be hard to find otherwise.  A ruling may deal with a topic but never use the term or phrase you might search for. For example, a ruling may say ‘slip and fall’ or ‘landlord liability’ but never use the term ‘premises liability.’  By tagging the ruling with ‘premises liability,’ the user is more likely to find it.”  The tags that apply to each ruling can be viewed in the footer of each ruling.

The Bench Reporter site owners note that, “Tagging rulings takes a great deal of attorney time.  We’d like to crowdsource this task.  If you think one or more tags are appropriate for a given ruling, please enter your suggestions in the comments section of that ruling (found at the bottom of the page for every ruling).” The site owners also welcome submissions of Tentative Rulings from other lawyers, which they will add to the database.

Date Filters

You can enter a specific range of dates by entering dates into both the Start box and the End box. If you enter a date into only the first box, it will return rulings dated that date and later and if you enter a date into only the second box, it will return rulings dated that date and earlier. Once you retrieve your list of results, you can sort alphabetically or by date.

Will Tentative Rulings Be Useful To You?

Bench Reporter’s founders explain that, “No matter what county you are in, there is much to be learned from trial court judges applying California law.  Much like sitting through several hearings waiting for your own case to be called, a California litigator simply cannot explore these rulings without gaining valuable insight.”

**Internet For Lawyers does receive a commission for each subscription started using this doscount code. However, this article was written prior to this arrangement being reached and in no way influenced the content of this article.

The post Bench Reporter Archives California Tentative Rulings Into a Searchable Database appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

We track new developments like these to insure that our in-person CLE seminars on Internet investigative and legal research are as up to date as they can be. We have compiled the new features we include in this white paper based on our own usage of Casemaker for legal research. This white paper is designed to explain the new additions we've identified - including original screen shots to illustrate many of those features.

Due to the material's length and complexity, we are offering the white paper as a free download.

Complete the form below to download your free copy of this report.

The post The Unofficial User Guide to New Casemaker Features appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Subsequent Case History Feature Introduced For Texas Cases Only…But Coming Soon for Others

A subsequent case history feature has been introduced for Texas cases. When viewing a Texas Court of Appeals case, a click of the “Subsequent Case History” button brings the user links to any subsequent history. This refers only to whether petitions or writs for review were granted or denied. Casemaker will be extending this feature to other jurisdictions.

Copy and Paste Feature Now Includes the Case and Statute Citation and the Case Pin Citation

When you highlight a portion of a case or statute’s text because you plan to copy it and then paste it into another document, be sure to right click to take advantage of the Copy pop‐up menu. This menu now offers you the choice to automatically insert the full Citation or the Pin Citation to the end of your highlighted text selection when you paste it into a document. For example, if you highlight the paragraph from 224 P.3d 437 (shown in the next screen shot) and then right click the highlighted paragraph, you can choose Copy with pin citation.

This will paste the highlighted paragraph into your Word document, with the Pin Citation 224 P.3d at 442 appended at the end of your pasted selection (see next screen shot).

If you right-clicked the highlighted paragraph and instead chose Copy with citation, then the full citation (which includes the case title, reporter name/volume/beginning page number, court, and date) would be appended to your pasted selection like this: 

Burbach v. Canwest Investments, LLC, 224 P.3d 437 (Colo.App.Div. 5 2009)

The post The Unofficial User Guide to New Casemaker Features appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Recently, Internet For Lawyers principals Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch shared some of their favorite secret Google search tips and ways to access expensive research databases for free with Sam Glover over at the Lawyerist Podcast.

In his introduction to the interview, Glover says:

I’ve written before about the really amazing internet research tips Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch have been teaching to lawyers for years.

If you’re thinking “hey, I know how to use Google so I’m good,” think again. You don’t know anything. You can find out just about anything you might want to find out about a client, opposing party, lawyer, or judge if you know how to look for it.

After you listen to the podcast, you will want to get one of their books. I would start with the Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet. And if you ever get a chance to go to one of their seminars (or to book them), do it. You’ll be glad you did.

The interview offers a preview of the types of research methods and resources Levitt and Rosch discuss in their live MCLE seminars and webinars.

Their interview begins at the 5 minute 22 second mark.

The post Internet Ninja Research Tricks | Lawyerist Podcast Interview With Carole Levitt & Mark Rosch appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Today, we have learned that LexisNexis has emailed contacts asking “Are You a Loislaw^® customer?”, with an offer to match your current Loislaw pricing for a new Lexis Advance subscription that matches the “equivalent information” of your Loislaw subscription.

In the message we saw, a Lexis Account Representative characterized Fastcase’s acquisition as “the pending Loislaw^® shutdown,” while touting “Exclusive access to Shepard’s Citations Service, the industry standard,” among other advantages of Lexis Advance. Restrictions apply.

The full-text of the message we saw is included below.

The post LexisNexis Offering to Match Loislaw Subscription Pricing for “Equivalent Information” appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.