MTC (Bonus): The Critical Importance of Source Verification When Using AI in Legal Practice 📚⚖️

The Fact-Checking Lawyer vs. AI Errors!

Legal professionals face an escalating verification crisis as AI tools proliferate throughout the profession. A recent conversation I had with an AI research assistant about AOL's dial-up internet shutdown perfectly illustrates why lawyers must rigorously fact-check AI outputs. In preparing my editorial for earlier today (see here), I came across a glaring error.  And when I corrected the AI's repeated date errors—it incorrectly cited 2024 instead of 2025 for AOL's September 30 shutdown—this highlighted the dangerous gap between AI confidence and AI accuracy that has resulted in over 410 documented AI hallucination cases worldwide. (You can also see my previous discussions on the topic here).

This verification imperative extends beyond simple date corrections. Stanford University research reveals troubling accuracy rates across legal AI tools, with some systems producing incorrect information over 34% of the time, while even the best-performing specialized legal AI platforms still generate false information approximately 17% of the time. These statistics underscore a fundamental truth: AI tools are powerful research assistants, not infallible oracles.

AI Hallucinations in the Courtroom are not a good thing!

Editor's Note: The irony was not lost on me that while writing this editorial about AI accuracy problems, I had to correct the AI assistant multiple times for contradictory statements about error rates in this very paragraph. The AI initially claimed Westlaw had 34% errors while specialized legal platforms had only 17% errors—ignoring that Westlaw IS a specialized legal platform. This real-time experience of catching AI logical inconsistencies while drafting an article about AI verification perfectly demonstrates the critical need for human oversight that this editorial advocates.

The consequences of inadequate verification are severe and mounting. Courts have imposed sanctions ranging from $2,500 to $30,000 on attorneys who submitted AI-generated fake cases. Recent cases include Morgan & Morgan lawyers sanctioned $5,000 for citing eight nonexistent cases, and a California attorney fined $10,000 for submitting briefs where "nearly all legal quotations ... [were] fabricated". These sanctions reflect judicial frustration with attorneys who fail to fulfill their gatekeeping responsibilities.

Legal professionals face implicit ethical obligations that demand rigorous source verification when using AI tools. ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) requires attorneys to understand "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology," including AI's propensity for hallucinations. Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Tribunal) prohibits knowingly making false statements of fact or law to courts. Rule 5.1 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) extends supervisory duties to AI tools, requiring lawyers to ensure AI work product meets professional standards. Courts consistently emphasize that "existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings".

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer should have AI Verification Protocols.

The legal profession must establish verification protocols that treat AI as sophisticated but fallible technology requiring human oversight (perhaps a comment to Rule 1.1(8). This includes cross-referencing AI citations against authoritative databases, validating factual claims through independent sources, and maintaining detailed records of verification processes. Resources like The Tech-Savvy Lawyer blog and podcast provide valuable guidance for implementing these best practices. As one federal judge warned, "the duty to check their sources and make a reasonable inquiry into existing law remains unchanged" in the age of AI.

Attorneys who embrace AI without implementing robust verification systems risk professional sanctions, client harm, and reputational damage that could have been prevented through diligent fact-checking practices.  Simply put - check your work when using AI.

MTC

MTC: Small Firm AI Revolution: When Your Main Street Clients Start Expecting Silicon Valley Service 📱⚖️

The AI revolution isn't just transforming corporate legal departments - it's creating unprecedented expectations among everyday clients who are increasingly demanding the same efficiency and innovation from their neighborhood attorneys. Just as Apple's recent automation ultimatum to suppliers demonstrates how tech industry pressures cascade through entire business ecosystems, the AI transformation is now reaching solo practitioners, small firms, and their individual clients in surprising ways.

The Expectation Shift Reaches Main Street

While corporate clients have been early adopters in demanding AI-powered legal services, individual consumers and small business owners are rapidly catching up. Personal injury clients who experience AI-powered customer service from their insurance companies now question why their attorney's document review takes weeks instead of days. Small business owners who use AI for bookkeeping and marketing naturally wonder why their legal counsel hasn't adopted similar efficiency tools.

The statistics reveal a telling gap: 72% of solo practitioners and 67% of small firm lawyers are using AI in some capacity, yet only 8% of solo practices and 4% of small firms have adopted AI widely or universally. This hesitant adoption creates a vulnerability, as client expectations continue to evolve at a faster pace than many smaller firms can adapt to.

Consumer-Driven Demand for Legal AI

Today's clients arrive at law offices with unprecedented technological literacy (and perhaps some unrealistic expectations - think a jury’s “CSI” expectation during a long trial). They've experienced AI chatbots for customer service, used AI-powered apps for financial planning, and watched AI streamline other professional services. This exposure creates natural expectations for similar innovation in legal representation. The shift is particularly pronounced among younger clients who view AI integration not as an optional luxury but as basic professional competence.

Small firms report that clients increasingly ask direct questions about AI use in their cases. Unlike corporate clients, who focus primarily on cost reduction, individual clients emphasize speed, transparency, and improvements in communication. They want faster responses to emails, quicker document turnaround, and more frequent case updates - all areas where AI excels.

The Competitive Reality for Solo and Small Firms

The playing field is rapidly changing. Solo practitioners using AI tools can now deliver services that historically required teams of associates. Document review, which once consumed entire weekends, can now be completed in hours with the assistance of AI, allowing attorneys to focus on high-value client counseling and strategic work. This transformation enables smaller firms to compete more effectively with larger practices while maintaining personalized service relationships.

AI adoption among small firms is creating clear competitive advantages. Firms that began using AI tools early are commanding higher fees, earning recognition as innovative practitioners, and becoming indispensable to their clients. The technology enables solo attorneys to handle larger caseloads without sacrificing quality, effectively multiplying their capacity without the need to hire additional staff.

Technology Competence as Client Expectation

Legal ethics opinions increasingly recognize technology competence as a professional obligation. Clients expect their attorneys to understand and utilize available tools that can enhance the quality and efficiency of their representation. This expectation extends beyond simple awareness to active implementation of appropriate technologies for client benefit.

The ethical landscape supports this evolution. State bar associations from California to New York are providing guidance on the responsible use of AI, emphasizing that lawyers should consider AI tools when they can enhance client service. This regulatory support validates client expectations for technological sophistication from their legal counsel.

The Efficiency Promise Meets Client Budget Reality

AI implementation offers particular value for small firm clients who historically faced difficult choices between quality legal representation and affordability. AI tools enable attorneys to reduce routine task completion time by 50-67%, allowing them to offer more competitive pricing while maintaining service quality. This efficiency gain directly benefits clients through faster turnaround times and potentially lower costs.

The technology is democratizing access to legal services. AI-powered document drafting, legal research, and client communication tools allow small firms to deliver sophisticated services previously available only from large firms with extensive resources. Individual clients benefit from this leveling effect through improved service quality at traditional small firm pricing.

From Reactive to Proactive Service Delivery

Small firms using AI are transforming from reactive service providers to proactive legal partners. AI-powered client intake systems operate 24/7, ensuring potential clients receive immediate responses regardless of office hours. Automated follow-up systems keep clients informed about the progress of their cases, while AI-assisted research enables attorneys to identify potential issues before they become problems.

This proactive approach particularly resonates with small business clients who appreciate preventive legal guidance. AI tools enable solo practitioners to monitor regulatory changes, track compliance requirements, and alert clients to relevant legal developments - services that smaller firms previously couldn't provide consistently.

The Risk of Falling Behind

Small firms that delay AI adoption face increasing competitive pressure from both larger firms and more technologically sophisticated solo practitioners. Clients comparing legal services increasingly favor attorneys who demonstrate technological competence and efficiency. The gap between AI-enabled and traditional practices continues widening as early adopters accumulate experience and refine their implementations.

The risk extends beyond losing new clients to losing existing ones. As clients experience AI-enhanced service from other professionals, their expectations for legal representation naturally evolve. Attorneys who cannot demonstrate similar efficiency and responsiveness risk being perceived as outdated or less competent.

Strategic Implementation for Small Firms

Successful AI adoption in small firms focuses on tools that directly enhance the client experience, rather than simply reducing attorney effort. Document automation, legal research enhancement, and client communication systems provide immediate value that clients can appreciate and experience directly. These implementations create positive feedback loops where improved client satisfaction leads to referrals and practice growth.

The key is starting with client-facing improvements rather than back-office efficiency alone. When clients see faster document production, more thorough legal research, and improved communication, they recognize the value of technological investment and often become advocates for the firm's innovative approach.

🧐 Final Thoughts: The Path Forward for Small Firm Success

clients who see lawyers using ai will be more confident that lawyers are using ai behind the scenes.

Just as Apple's suppliers must invest in automation to maintain business relationships, solo practitioners and small firms must embrace AI to meet evolving client expectations. The technology has moved from an optional enhancement to a competitive necessity. The question is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how quickly and effectively to implement it.

The legal profession's AI transformation is creating unprecedented opportunities for small firms willing to embrace change. Those who recognize client expectations and proactively adopt appropriate technologies will thrive in an increasingly competitive marketplace. The future belongs to attorneys who view AI not as a threat to traditional practice, but as an essential tool for delivering superior client service in the modern legal landscape.  Remember what previous podcast guest, Michigan Supreme Court Chief Judge (ret.) Bridget Mary McCormick shared with us in #65: Technologies impact on access to justice with Bridget Mary McCormick, lawyers who don’t embrace AI will be left behind by those who do!

MTC

MTC: Judicial Warnings - Courts Intensify AI Verification Standards for Legal Practice ⚖️

Lawyers always need to check their work - AI is not infalable!

The legal profession faces an unprecedented challenge as federal courts nationwide impose increasingly harsh sanctions on attorneys who submit AI-generated hallucinated case law without proper verification. Recent court decisions demonstrate that judicial patience for unchecked artificial intelligence use has reached a breaking point, with sanctions extending far beyond monetary penalties to include professional disbarment recommendations and public censure. The August 2025 Mavy v. Commissioner of SSA case exemplifies this trend, where an Arizona federal judge imposed comprehensive sanctions including revocation of pro hac vice status and mandatory notification to state bar authorities for fabricated case citations.

The Growing Pattern of AI-Related Sanctions

Courts across the United States have documented a troubling pattern of attorneys submitting briefs containing non-existent case citations generated by artificial intelligence tools. The landmark Mata v. Avianca case established the foundation with a $5,000 fine, but subsequent decisions reveal escalating consequences. Recent sanctions include a Wyoming federal court's revocation of an attorney's pro hac vice admission after discovering eight of nine cited cases were AI hallucinations, and an Alabama federal court's decision to disqualify three Butler Snow attorneys from representation while referring them to state bar disciplinary proceedings.

The Mavy case demonstrates how systematic citation failures can trigger comprehensive judicial response. Judge Alison S. Bachus found that of 19 case citations in attorney Maren Bam's opening brief, only 5 to 7 cases existed and supported their stated propositions. The court identified three completely fabricated cases attributed to actual Arizona federal judges, including Hobbs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., Brown v. Colvin, and Wofford v. Berryhill—none of which existed in legal databases.

Essential Verification Protocols

Lawyers if you fail to check your work when using AI, your professional career could be in jeopardy!

Legal professionals must recognize that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires attorneys to certify the accuracy of all court filings, regardless of their preparation method. This obligation extends to AI-assisted research and document preparation. Courts consistently emphasize that while AI use is acceptable, verification remains mandatory and non-negotiable.

The professional responsibility framework requires lawyers to independently verify every AI-suggested citation using official legal databases before submission. This includes cross-referencing case numbers, reviewing actual case holdings, and confirming that quoted material appears in the referenced decisions. The Alaska Bar Association's recent Ethics Opinion 2025-1 reinforces that confidentiality concerns also arise when specific prompts to AI tools reveal client information.

Best Practices for Technology Integration 📱

Technology-enabled practice enhancement requires structured verification protocols. Successful integration involves implementing retrieval-based legal AI systems that cite original sources alongside their outputs, maintaining human oversight for all AI-generated content, and establishing peer review processes for critical filings. Legal professionals should favor platforms that provide transparent citation practices and security compliance standards.

The North Carolina State Bar's 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion emphasizes that lawyers employing AI tools must educate themselves on associated benefits and risks while ensuring client information security. This competency standard requires ongoing education about AI capabilities, limitations, and proper implementation within ethical guidelines.

Consequences of Non-Compliance ⚠️

Recent sanctions demonstrate that monetary penalties represent only the beginning of potential consequences. Courts now impose comprehensive remedial measures including striking deficient briefs, removing attorneys from cases, requiring individual apology letters to falsely attributed judges, and forwarding sanction orders to state bar associations for disciplinary review. The Arizona court's requirement that attorney Bam notify every judge presiding over her active cases illustrates how sanctions can impact entire legal practices.

Professional discipline referrals create lasting reputational consequences that extend beyond individual cases. The Second Circuit's decision in Park v. Kim established that Rule 11 duties require attorneys to "read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely". Failure to meet this standard reveals inadequate legal reasoning and can justify severe sanctions.

Final Thoughts - The Path Forward 🚀

Be a smart lawyer. USe AI wisely. Always check your work!

The ABA Journal's coverage of cases showing "justifiable kindness" for attorneys facing personal tragedies while committing AI errors highlights judicial recognition of human circumstances, but courts consistently maintain that personal difficulties do not excuse professional obligations. The trend toward harsher sanctions reflects judicial concern that lenient approaches have proven ineffective as deterrents.

Legal professionals must embrace transparent verification practices while acknowledging mistakes promptly when they occur. Courts consistently show greater leniency toward attorneys who immediately admit errors rather than attempting to defend indefensible positions. This approach maintains client trust while demonstrating professional integrity.

The evolving landscape requires legal professionals to balance technological innovation with fundamental ethical obligations. As Stanford research indicates that legal AI models hallucinate in approximately one out of six benchmarking queries, the imperative for rigorous verification becomes even more critical. Success in this environment demands both technological literacy and unwavering commitment to professional standards that have governed legal practice for generations.

MTC

MTC: AI Governance Crisis - What Every Law Firm Must Learn from 1Password's Eye-Opening Security Research

The legal profession stands at a crossroads. Recent research commissioned by 1Password reveals four critical security challenges that should serve as a wake-up call for every law firm embracing artificial intelligence. With 79% of legal professionals now using AI tools in some capacity while only 10% of law firms have formal AI governance policies, the disconnect between adoption and oversight has created unprecedented vulnerabilities that could compromise client confidentiality and professional liability.

The Invisible AI Problem in Law Firms

The 1Password study's most alarming finding mirrors what law firms are experiencing daily: only 21% of security leaders have full visibility into AI tools used in their organizations. This visibility gap is particularly dangerous for law firms, where attorneys and staff may be uploading sensitive client information to unauthorized AI platforms without proper oversight.

Dave Lewis, Global Advisory CISO at 1Password, captured the essence of this challenge perfectly: "We have closed the door to AI tools and projects, but they keep coming through the window!" This sentiment resonates strongly with legal technology experts who observe attorneys gravitating toward consumer AI tools like ChatGPT for legal research and document drafting, often without understanding the data security implications.

The parallel to law firm experiences is striking. Recent Stanford HAI research revealed that even professional legal AI tools produce concerning hallucination rates—Westlaw AI-Assisted Research showed a 34% error rate, while Lexis+ AI exceeded 17%. (Remember my editorial/bolo MTC/🚨BOLO🚨: Lexis+ AI™️ Falls Short for Legal Research!) These aren't consumer chatbots but professional tools marketed to law firms as reliable research platforms.

Four Critical Lessons for Legal Professionals

First, establish comprehensive visibility protocols. The 1Password research shows that 54% of security leaders admit their AI governance enforcement is weak, with 32% believing up to half of employees continue using unauthorized AI applications. Law firms must implement SaaS governance tools to identify AI usage across their organization and document how employees are actually using AI in their workflows.

Second, recognize that good intentions create dangerous exposures. The study found that 63% of security leaders believe the biggest internal threat is employees unknowingly giving AI access to sensitive data. For law firms handling privileged attorney-client communications, this risk is exponentially greater. Staff may innocently paste confidential case details into AI tools, potentially violating client confidentiality rules and creating malpractice liability.

Third, address the unmanaged AI crisis immediately. More than half of security leaders estimate that 26-50% of their AI tools and agents are unmanaged. In legal practice, this could mean AI agents are interacting with case management systems, client databases, or billing platforms without proper access controls or audit trails—a compliance nightmare waiting to happen.

Fourth, understand that traditional security models are inadequate. The research emphasizes that conventional identity and access management systems weren't designed for AI agents. Law firms must evolve their access governance strategies to include AI tools and create clear guidelines for how these systems should be provisioned, tracked, and audited.

Beyond Compliance: Strategic Imperatives

The American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 512 established clear ethical frameworks for AI use, but compliance requires more than policy documents. Law firms need proactive strategies that enable AI benefits while protecting client interests.

Effective AI governance starts with education. Most legal professionals aren't thinking about AI security risks in these terms. Firms should conduct workshops and tabletop exercises to walk through potential scenarios and develop incident response protocols before problems arise.

The path forward doesn't require abandoning AI innovation. Instead, it demands extending trust-based security frameworks to cover both human and machine identities. Law firms must implement guardrails that protect confidential information without slowing productivity—user-friendly systems that attorneys will actually follow.

Final Thoughts: The Competitive Advantage of Responsible AI Adoption

Firms that proactively address these challenges will gain significant competitive advantages. Clients increasingly expect their legal counsel to use technology responsibly while maintaining the highest security standards. Demonstrating comprehensive AI governance builds trust and differentiates firms in a crowded marketplace.

The research makes clear that security leaders are aware of AI risks but under-equipped to address them. For law firms, this awareness gap represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Practices that invest in proper AI governance now will be positioned to leverage these powerful tools confidently while their competitors struggle with ad hoc approaches.

The legal profession's relationship with AI has fundamentally shifted from experimental adoption to enterprise-wide transformation. The 1Password research provides a roadmap for navigating this transition securely. Law firms that heed these lessons will thrive in the AI-augmented future of legal practice.

MTC

🎙️ Ep. 114: Unlocking Legal Innovation: AI And IP With Matthew Veale of Patsnap

Our next guest is Matthew Veale, a European patent attorney and Patsnap's Professional Systems team member. He introduces the AI-powered innovation intelligence platform, Patsnap. Matthew explains how Patsnap supports IP and R&D professionals through tools for patent analytics, prior art searches, and strategic innovation mapping.

Furthermore, Matthew highlights Patsnap's AI-driven capabilities, including semantic search and patent drafting support, while emphasizing its adherence to strict data security and ISO standards. He outlines three key ways lawyers can leverage AI—note-taking, document drafting, and creative ideation—while warning of risks like data quality, security, and transparency.

Join Matthew and me as we discuss the following three questions and more!

  1. What are the top three ways IP and R&D lawyers can use Patsnap's AI to help them with their work?

  2. What are the top three ways lawyers can use AI in their day-to-day work, regardless of the practice area?

  3. What are the top three issues lawyers should be wary of when using AI?

In our conversation, we covered the following:

[01:07] Matthew Tech Setup

[04:43] Introduction to Pat Snap and Its Features

[13:17] Top Three Ways Lawyers Can Use AI in Their Work

[17:29] Ensuring Confidentiality and Security in AI Tools

[19:24] Transparency and Ethical Use of AI in Legal Practice

[22:13] Contact Information

Resources:

Connect with Matthew:

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

🎙️ Ep. 107: AI Demand Pro Co-Founder Travis Easton on Fast, Effective Settlement Drafting!

My next guest is Travis Easton, Co-Managing Partner of Easton & Easton LLP and CEO of AI Demand Pro, Inc. We discusses how AI is transforming legal workflows. Travis outlines three benefits of AI: boosting efficiency, revenue, and work quality. He also explores real-world uses of ChatGPT and Claude for tasks like drafting emails while stressing data privacy and accuracy. Furthermore, Travis warns of pitfalls like AI hallucinations and over-reliance, underscoring that lawyers must always review and finalize AI-assisted work to ensure integrity.

All this and more!

Enjoy!

Join Travis and me as we discuss the following three questions and more!

  1. What are your top three AI strategies for enhancing daily legal tasks, and how can lawyers integrate them seamlessly?

  2. How does AI Demand Pro leverage AI to streamline legal processes more effectively than traditional methods, and what are the key benefits of this approach?

  3. What are the top three potential pitfalls or red flags that users of AI tools like AI Demand Pro should be aware of to ensure responsible and effective use?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[00:56] Travis's Tech Setup

[06:29] AI Strategies for Enhancing Legal Tasks

[11:55] Real-Time Examples of AI Use in Legal Practice

[14:54] Potential Pitfalls of AI Tools in Legal Practice

[20:14] Ensuring Responsible and Effective AI Use

[22:33] Contact Information

Resources:

Connect with Travis:

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/travis-easton

Website: demandpro.ai/

Email: mailto: travis@demandpro.ai

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

  • AI Demand Pro: https://www.demandpro.ai

  • Apple iPad: https://www.apple.com/ipad/

  • Apple iPhone: https://www.apple.com/iphone/

  • Apple Keyboard: https://www.apple.com/keyboards/

  • Apple MacBook Air: https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/

  • Apple Pencil: https://www.apple.com/apple-pencil/

  • Apple TV: https://www.apple.com/tv/

  • CasePeer CRM: https://www.casepeer.com

  • ChatGPT: https://chat.openai.com

  • Claude AI: https://claude.ai

  • DocReviewPad: https://www.litsoftware.com/docreviewpad

  • ExhibitsPad: https://www.litsoftware.com/exhibitspad

  • LIT Software Suite: https://www.litsoftware.com

  • Microsoft Word: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/word

  • TimelinePad: https://www.litsoftware.com/timelinepad

  • TranscriptPad: https://www.litsoftware.com/transcriptpad

  • TrialPad: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/trialpad-trial-presentation/id1319316401

  • WordPerfect: https://www.wordperfect.com 

Transcript

[00:00:00]

Introduction

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Episode 107. AI Demand pro. Travis Easton on fast, effective settlement drafting.

Our next guest is Travis Easton personal injury journey and co-founder of AI Demand Pro. Travis shares with us his groundbreaking insights on leveraging AI for settlement demands, essential legal tech tools and practical strategies that transform law firm efficiency. We discuss this and much more.

Enjoy.

Ad Read #1: Consider Giving The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast A Five-Star ⭐️ Review!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Have you been enjoying the Tech Savvy lawyer.page podcast? Consider giving us a five star review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast feeds.

Introducing Our Guest!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Travis, welcome to the podcast.

Travis Easton: Thanks, Michael. Nice to be here. Appreciate it.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I appreciate you being here. And to get things started, please tell us what your current tech setup is.

Our Guest's Tech Setup!

Travis Easton: Yeah, so we're a personal injury law firm here, and so [00:01:00] we've been with Case Peer, which is a CRM that we actually were one of their initial customers of, I think seven, eight years ago.

So that's what we used to kind of run our law firm, and it's been great. And then we use AI Demand Pro to write mm-hmm. Settlement. Mm-hmm. Cool. They've been awesome that, and we're gonna talk a little bit more about that since we're one of the founders of that. So a company called Alert, which helps us with, it's not really necessarily tech, but that's what brings in a lot of our leads and things like that.

Cool. So we can

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: get more cases. Well, tell us about your hardware. What kind of computers are you using today? What's on your desk there?

Travis Easton: We're Apple people.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Okay. Oh, you know Max. Excellent. Do you know what you're using? A Mac Mini. A Mac Studio. I have a, I have a

Travis Easton: MacBook Air. I just got the new MacBook Air that came out this year.

So

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Nice.

Travis Easton: We usually upgrade every couple years. Me and my brother are pretty attuned to all the new Mac products that come out every year.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Excellent. And do you have any other devices, like for instance, with your smartphone,

Travis Easton: iPhone,

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: and do you keep up to date on that?

Travis Easton: I'm a part of the yearly renewal program, [00:02:00] yes.

So, yep. Every year. Same here, A new iPhone.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Same here. It's interesting, I was at the A BA tech show recently and they talked about how only 6% of law firms use Apple computers, which seems a little bit weird to me, but other hand here I am listening to you. It's like we're an Apple computer office.

Travis Easton: Yeah, no, I think we are one of the rare ones.

I would say there's more and more that are switching over. But when we did initially make the switch over a number of years ago, the biggest thing was my dad who had started our law firm, was still on Word perfect. And so having, I don't, you know, I wasn't at the firm at that time. I think I was still in college, but having to go from word perfect to word.

That there was some transformation conversion process and it was pretty terrible. So I think that was the hardest part when they, they switched over from PCs to Max. But since then it's been great.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I think a lot of the older attorneys, they had macros already built forward. Perfect. And they didn't wanna reinvent the wheel.

Travis Easton: Yeah.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And so, well, I mean, I think

Travis Easton: when my dad started, it was a [00:03:00] typewriter, to be honest. So I, I know it was for sure. But I'm saying even when we started our firm and kind of went out on his own, we definitely had a typewriter in the office. So that's just, it's pretty crazy to think how far we've come.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I tell everybody that the best class I took in high school typing.

Travis Easton: Yeah,

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: because I've gotten, be able to get so much done because I can type.

Travis Easton: Makes a huge difference. That's for sure.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Are there any other tech devices that you use that help you in your day-to-day work?

Travis Easton: Yeah. I mean, it's kind of related, but Apple TVs right? For demonstrations. Yeah. Things like that. When I'm, when I'm giving demos or have a group setting and we want to mm-hmm.

Present something that's kind of how we use it. We use an Apple TV and flash it up onto the computer. iPads are also very big as well. We're a trial attorney firm. Mm-hmm. And so we use some technology that, there's an app called Trial Pad and we've utilized that at trial and it's great with iPads and just kind of as far as your exhibits and everything you wanna present.

And so just makes your life a lot easier in that regard.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So you know Brett Bernie, right?

Travis Easton: I don't know Brett, to be honest.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: You need to talk to Brett [00:04:00] Bernie. Who does in the news podcast with Jeff Richardson. They are all in on. That software package, and I know Brett, and someone from Lit Software came and did a presentation or two at the a BA tech show this year, so I know how well regarded that product is. Do you use an Apple pencil to help you with that or is it all,

Travis Easton: I mean, sometimes my brother, to be honest, is better with the Apple pencil.

I'm mm-hmm. I'm usually a finger type guide, but I know you can use it with that as well. But yeah, I'm usually, I'm not as adept with the Apple Pencil.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Using an Apple keyboard?

Travis Easton: I have, yeah. It depends on what, on the task I'm doing, but yeah, for things like trial padd, I'll usually throw the keyboard on there.

Cool.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: How do you like that in comparison when you're using your Mac Air versus your, your iPad?

Travis Easton: I almost always use a computer for things. You can't use the trial, at least the last time we used it a little bit ago, it was just an iPad app you couldn't do it on. Mm-hmm. I don't know if they have plans to change that at any point, but anything else I'm doing, I try to always use a computer.

I'm just more familiar with that for things like typing and stuff like that.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, [00:05:00] actually, let me rephrase the question a little bit. How do you like using the Mac error versus the iPad? In the sense of typing and data input

Travis Easton: I'm much quicker on the computer, on the Mac and book error. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

I'm much more familiar with that and for what I do. Mm-hmm. The things I do on a daily basis, the computer is much quicker and better.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I tried shifting over to the iPad a little more and it's just not the same. Yeah. I want the power of a computer or I'm multitask a little bit more and I just feel a bit naked when I'm trying to use the iPad.

Travis Easton: The computer, it just works a lot better.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yeah. Yep. Yep. Same here. Well, let's get into the questions.

Question #1:  What are Travis' top three AI strategies for enhancing day-to-day legal tasks? How can lawyers integrate them seamlessly into their workflow?

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Question number one, what are your top three AI strategies for enhancing day-to-day legal tasks? How can lawyers integrate them seamlessly into their workflow?

Travis Easton: Alright, well let's get into it. So to me, what, as I kind of thought about this and have pondered it, I think that the way that AI should be looked at and utilized in the legal field can help in kind of three ways. One, you wanna make life easier. Two, you want to see if you [00:06:00] can utilize it to increase revenue.

And three, you want to use it to improve your work product. Right? To me, as a lawyer. If you can have an AI product that can capture all three of those, or at least some of 'em. Mm-hmm. And I think it's a winner. And that's something that should definitely be looked at and explored to see how you can utilize it and put it into your practice.

So going to the first one, right? How do you make life easier? And like I mentioned earlier, we've created an a company called AI Demand Pro. Mm-hmm. That's why the main that we utilize in our practice right now that relates to ai. So I am gonna reference that from time to time throughout these things.

Absolutely. Sure. So forgive me if I kind of talk about it quite a bit, but that's my best example of how I can kind of explain these things to you. So our firm is a personal injury law firm. We've been around for 30 plus years. My dad and three brothers and I work together here. We have, I think, seven associates now that work for us.

With us and they're great. And then we have a demand writing department. And so the [00:07:00] way that our firm is made up is, you know, in a personal injury case, you sign up the client, they go and do their medical treatment, and then from there you gather all the documents, you gather the photographs, you gather all the data, and you would have your demand writing department summarize all of that and put it together in what is called the demand package.

Once that is ready, then it goes to the attorney's desk. He reviews it, edits it, makes it better, and then talks it over with the client, and then when it's ready, it goes out the door and you send that to the insurance company. And that's kind of the lifeblood of a personal injury law firm. Or at least for the majority of 'em, some just go straight to litigation.

But the majority, this is kind of the crucial first step. The insurance company responds and accepts your offer, or you enter into negotiations and you're able to, you know, resolve it and settle the case is done. If you're not able to, that's when you would then file the lawsuit and go into what we refer to as litigation, right?

What we've been able to do in our practice is create this company called AI Demand that we basically built in-house for our firm, and it takes all of those [00:08:00] components. We put it into our software, and then the AI basically writes a settlement demand. In less than 30 minutes. So it's taking what would've taken hours to days for that demand, right?

Or an attorney and turns it into a 30 minute to a couple hour process, depending on, you know, the size of the demand. And so when you have that in mind, right, when we talk about this first one, making it easier. My sister is our head demand writer and has been leading that department for the past 15 years.

It's amazing that she stuck with that job because it's a very tedious, it's a very boring job. You're literally just summarizing medical records and typing them into a computer all day, and so it was our highest turnover position at our firm. It's usually college graduates, and then they try for a little bit, and then they're like, I want to go do something else, and so it was just a tough position to keep fill.

So what has happened since we've installed this program and created this, you know, AI Demand Pro within our business is not a single [00:09:00] demand writer has left because the process is so much easier, it's so much more rewarding for the demand writers. And so it took it from them having to summarize hundreds to thousands of medical pages on each case down to now they are reviewing the output, they are reviewing the document.

They're just cross referencing, checking it. And so it just has made their life much more enjoyable. And so I think when you're looking at an AI product, whether it's for discovery, whether it's, you know, for depositions, what, there's so many different products out there, those are kind of the ones that really touch home to personal injury.

You want to look for a product that can make your life easier, right? Mm-hmm. Make it, you don't have to do as much, because I think that's one of the beautiful things of machine learning. Right?

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, I think one thing that you keep. Saying that I really wanna emphasize to the listeners that you do have to review your work

Travis Easton: a hundred

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: percent and make sure that you don't make any mistakes.

And you know, quite honestly in our conversation here, you've sort of just automatically bled into question number two. You know, how [00:10:00] does AI de demand pro leverage ai, streamline legal processes more effectively than traditional methods? And what are the key benefits of this approach? I think you answered that beautifully.

That being said, I'm gonna take it back a step. Yep. Going back to question number one, can you give us any examples of how you do use ai? I mean like actual real time examples in the sense of, you know, particular product to do x, Y to Z.

Travis Easton: I guess regarding your question, you know, I mean, you mean apart from like AI Demand Pro or something like that?

That,

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I didn't know if you had any other examples or is your Bailey with AI really focused on AI demand Pro.

Travis Easton: The majority of it is I will use chat GBT or Quad if I have a specific question or if I have a specific task, I'll use it for email. Sometimes I'll use them for those things.

But the majority of our focus has been mm-hmm. Developing this and on utilizing this AI because it's so encompassing within the personal injury law firm. Right. And the other thing that, you know, we can reference this later when we talk about the pitfalls, [00:11:00] but you have to be very careful. Not only, like you said, to review your work, but before you upload any sensitive data, right, that in return have like medical records or things should not be uploading anything like that just into Chad gbt, right?

That's on the internet, right? What we've been able to do is safeguard to set up so many privacy blockades and just things like that within our site when we developed AI Demand Pro so that you can take those medical records and upload them and they're still HIPAA compliant, they're still safe ever. All of your data is double encrypted, and so for that reason, I, to be honest, I am very cautious utilizing AI for anything that.

Would, I would deem clients sensitive, or that should not just be uploaded to an nor ordinary site like chat, GBT or Claude.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, could you give us an example of how you might use one of those two AI to help you write an email? For what purpose might you do that?

Travis Easton: Yeah, so what I would usually do [00:12:00] is I would take the reply, the response from the person, you know?

Mm-hmm. If it's, if I'm responding to someone, I might take the response, put it in there, and then. Either put a little thing, like a little response of what I'm thinking I want it to be. Mm-hmm. Or I would give it a prompt, right? Like, Hey, I'm looking to respond in this way to this email. Could you drop to, for me, I think the, one of the best ways is that you, it just saves you so much time.

And to be honest, brain power. Right? And having to really focus in, because we only have so much brain power, we can right muster up throughout the day. And so if you can unload some of that off onto the AI model. I think it helps tremendously. And so basically you can get the gist and the tone of what you're trying to say and put it in there, and then it can spit out its first version and then you can either, you know, give it some more prompting and tweak it further from there.

Or you can just take it and then you edit it and finish it up and make sure it's the tone and the work, you know, the verbiage that you want.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So I'm assuming that you take out any PII from the response email [00:13:00] that you get before you pop it into

Travis Easton: Yes.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Claude or chat bt. Yeah, yeah,

Travis Easton: yeah. No personal information or anything like that.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yep.

Ad #2: Consider Buying The Tech-Savvy Lawyer a Cup of Coffee ☕️ or Two ☕️☕️!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Pardon the interruption. I hope you're enjoying the Tech Heavy Lawyer page podcast. As much as I enjoy making them consider buying us a cup of coffee or two to help toray some of the production costs. Thanks and enjoy

and. I've received emails from a handful of parties over the years where quite honestly, , their communication may not have made sense or wasn't very clear.

And I will copy that. I will take out the p if there's any pi, I'm say, can, can you one tell me what is this person trying to convey to me? And two, draft an appropriate response. And it saves me some brain power there. 'cause sometimes. You get from certain parties, emails that really aren't clear, and that's me being polite.

Yes.

Travis Easton: A hundred percent.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, let's get into our last question.

Q?#3:  What are the top three potential pitfalls or red flags that users of AI tools like AI Demand Pro should be aware of to ensure responsible and effective use?

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: What are the top three potential pitfalls or red flags that users of AI tools like AI Demand Pro should be aware of to ensure responsible and effective [00:14:00] use?

Travis Easton: Yeah, so there's several. We've kind of referenced a couple of up to date. So the first one I wanted to talk about was, no AI company should be using the data that you are feeding it to learn from it.

So that should be the red flag when anybody is looking to sign up, you know, for an AI service mm-hmm. Or an AI connect. One of the questions you should be asking is, do, are you using my data to train your AI model? The biggest thing there is the privacy, right? If you know, if they are using their data. To train their AI model, and let's say they put in something about Joe fracturing his leg.

Then what happens is now that LLLM model will have that data that Joe fractured his leg actually baked into it. And so you're just giving up that privacy of that client or that person of whatever you fed into it and it's going into the system and now it's there forever. I think first thing is just make sure that no one is using your data to train their model off of first and foremost.[00:15:00]

Yeah. Did you have a question?

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, so like I'm looking at your website and I see, you know, there's a clear chart here that says HIPAA compliant, which I'm presuming is in part, you know, not training off of the data that you put into it. Correct. Is there anything that you can think of that the listeners should be aware of and looking for when they review a site like AI Demand Pro?

Like what key? Bits should they be seeing that says this is going to be something that is not gonna be learned from.

Travis Easton: I don't think anybody is necessarily gonna say that specific thing on the website. When you're in a demo. When you're in a conversation. Mm-hmm. Looking to use it. Or maybe the frequently asked questions.

That is when you would want to bring it up. The HIPAA compliance, of course, is, that's kind of a separate topic. That just means that your medical data is safe and secure and, and being safeguarded according to the HIPAA compliance rules. But whether they're using it, it could be unrelated to medical data, right?

And so, right. You just wanna make sure they're not utilizing your [00:16:00] data. To train their AI model. And so I would just make sure you're asking that question.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So the reason why I asked you specifically about HIPAA was because going through your site, and I've seen others and I don't, products and companies like yourself say, Hey, we're not gonna learn from your data, or The AI we use is not gonna learn.

Travis Easton: We probably should. We should probably put that on there, but I think it's because most people don't even know to ask that,

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: which quite frankly, don't You think that kind of violates, was it model Rule one, common eight, that they'd be reasonably up to date on the technology that they use? Probably, yeah. I mean,

Travis Easton: yeah.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I mean,

Travis Easton: they should, right? They should. But such a new frontier. I mean, if you go to any of these conferences, everything is ai. It seems like a quarter of the talks and the, the speeches are on AI or something related to it. Right. Everybody is just trying to get a grasp around it as best they can. But yeah, I think the common lawyer still is.

Very uneducated regarding these things.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: The problem is they [00:17:00] need to be better educated because the excuse of like the attorney outta the Southern District of New York of using Chachi BT to help draft his response brief without checking it. Yeah. And then, hey, the judge is like, are you sure these legit, these cases?

And he goes back and asks Chachi, BT, are these legit? Of course Chechen, he says, of course they're legit. Why would I not tell you the truth?

Travis Easton: Yeah.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So that was one.

Travis Easton: So that, so your, your great example there brings us to hallucinations, which is what happened in that case, right? Right. And so you need to be aware of hallucinations and so going out and asking Chad, GBT, Claude, any of these things, you are at significant peril of it hallucinating.

And so when we built AI Demand Pro, we have done as much work as we possibly can to make sure that we are not hallucinating. I'm not the engineer behind it, right? When we built this, but the way I explain it to people that probably aren't the most tech-minded either, is we have built a, what I call a closed.

[00:18:00] System. Right? And so we are not going out into the internet when the medical records say, this person's gonna get a back surgery, right? And saying, Hey, WebMD, can you tell us what you know about the back surgery? And that's where people get into trouble when they go into chat GBT, and they ask it things related to legal questions.

It's going out to the internet and gathering all of that information and stuff. And sometimes it's gonna be accurate and sometimes it won't be. And sometimes it's gonna what we call a hallucinate, just make things up. That's very scary if you are an attorney, and it goes back to your earlier about always double checking the work and not double checking it with chat GBT when you get called out on it.

Right? And so our system is closed. It does not go out and find any of that information, and it only has. We have put in there, which are things like the California vehicle codes and the other state vehicle code sections and things like that, that we need it to just gather the information if it pertains to that specific case.

Right. And so I would just say you need to always be aware of hallucinations [00:19:00] and ask them, you know, does your product hallucinate and things like that, and you know, try to get an understanding of how often is it hallucinating. And so I would say that's pitfall number two that people need to watch out for a hundred percent.

Did you have any questions regarding that, Michael?

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Nope. I think he did a great job explaining that. So I'm gonna say number three.

Travis Easton: Yeah, so I would just say that, to be honest, it kind of goes back to what we talked about earlier. Avoid outsourcing your legal responsibilities to AI companies in their totality, right.

AI is meant as a tool to make it more efficient. Yeah, to make it faster and potentially cheaper. But you are the lawyer, you the listener. If you are a lawyer, you are the lawyer and you are ultimately responsible for your legal work product that you put out on behalf of your client. Whether that's legal research.

Whether that's, in this case, writing settlement demands. And so there are models out there where you send in your demand documents, the company puts it together and they put it all together [00:20:00] and then they send it back. And unfortunately, I know law firms that just rubber stamped that, right? Review it and send it out as the work product.

And in some cases it might be. Totally satisfactory, but what if they missed something? What if it was wrong? And so right. We were aware of some things like that, and ultimately that just wasn't the best model that we saw. And so that was one of the reasons why we created AI Demand Pro was just so that we're getting the demand created so quickly that we then can take that time in-house to have our demand writing department that we still have.

Right to review, edit it, right. Make it better if it needs to be. And then it still goes to the attorney who puts his finishing touches on it. Right. Right. And because I like to think that every attorney kind of has their own little style, right? Yeah. And so what we've done is we've taken the tedious and longest part of it, of really reviewing those medical records and shortened it down to 15 to 30 minutes so that you can take the time to review that, make it better, and put your finishing touches on it.

Instead of that process [00:21:00] taking hours and days, it's now going out in an hour or so. And it just make everything so much more efficient. And so I just think that with every AI product out there, they're just getting better and better, which is great and will continue to get better and better as they're fine tuned and things like that.

But we're still the lawyers. We still have the obligation to review everything, and so I would just be caution everybody before you're just rubber stamping something that AI produced. Make sure you're reviewing it and you are happy and you feel satisfactory with the work product that's put together for you.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Excellent, Travis, I really appreciate you sharing all that.

Where You Can Find Our Guest!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Tell us where can people find you?

Travis Easton: Yeah, so our website is Demand pro.ai. And then my email isTravis@demandpro.ai. And feel free to reach out with any questions or inquiries or any, anything I can do to help.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Excellent. I'll be sure to have that in the show notes and more.

And Travis, again, I want to thank you for being a guest today.

Travis Easton: Thanks, Michael, I appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Thanks.

See You in Two Weeks!

Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Thank you for joining me on this episode of the Tech Savvy Lawyer Page podcast. Our [00:22:00] next episode will be posted in about two weeks. If you have any ideas about a future episode, please contact me at Michael DJ at the Tech Savvy Lawyer page.

Have a great day and happy Lauren.