🎙️ Bonus Episode: TSL Lab’s Notebook.AI Commentary on June 23, 2025, TSL Editorial!

Hey everyone, welcome to this bonus episode!

As you know, in this podcast we explore the future of law through engaging interviews with lawyers, judges, and legal tech professionals on the cutting edge of legal innovation. As part of our Labs initiative, I am experimenting with AI-generated discussions—this episode features two Google Notebook.AI hosts who dive deep into our latest Editorial: "Lawyers, Generative AI, and the Right to Privacy: Navigating Ethics, Client Confidentiality, and Public Data in the Digital Age." If you’re a busy legal professional, join us for an insightful, AI-powered conversation that unpacks the editorial’s key themes, ethical challenges, and practical strategies for safeguarding privacy in the digital era.

Enjoy!

In our conversation, the "Bots" covered the following:

00:00 Introduction to the Bonus Episode

01:01 Exploring Generative AI in Law

01:24 Ethical Challenges and Client Confidentiality

01:42 Deep Dive into the Editorial

09:31 Practical Strategies for Lawyers

13:03 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Resources:

Google Notebook.AI - https://notebooklm.google/

MTC: Lawyers, Generative AI, and the Right to Privacy: Navigating Ethics, Client Confidentiality, and Public Data in the Digital Age

Modern attorneys need to tackle AI ethics and privacy risks.

The legal profession stands at a critical crossroads as generative AI tools like ChatGPT become increasingly integrated into daily practice. While these technologies offer unprecedented efficiency and insight, they also raise urgent questions about client privacy, data security, and professional ethics—questions that every lawyer, regardless of technical proficiency, must confront.

Recent developments have brought these issues into sharp focus. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, was recently compelled to preserve all user chats for legal review, highlighting how data entered into generative AI systems can be stored, accessed, and potentially scrutinized by third parties. For lawyers, this is not a theoretical risk; it is a direct challenge to the core obligations of client confidentiality and the right to privacy.

The ABA Model Rules and Generative AI

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct are clear: Rule 1.6 requires lawyers to “act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against unauthorized access by third parties and against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure”. This duty extends beyond existing clients to former and prospective clients under Rules 1.9 and 1.18. Crucially, the obligation applies even to information that is publicly accessible or contained in public records, unless disclosure is authorized or consented to by the client.

Attorneys need to explain generative AI privacy concerns to client.

The ABA’s recent Formal Opinion 512 underscores these concerns in the context of generative AI. Lawyers must fully consider their ethical obligations, including competence, confidentiality, informed consent, and reasonable fees when using AI tools. Notably, the opinion warns that boilerplate consent in engagement letters is not sufficient; clients must be properly informed about how their data may be used and stored by AI systems.

Risks of Generative AI: PII, Case Details, and Public Data

Generative AI tools, especially those that are self-learning, can retain and reuse input data, including Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and case-specific details. This creates a risk that confidential information could be inadvertently disclosed or cross-used in other cases, even within a closed firm system. In March 2023, a ChatGPT data leak allowed users to view chat histories of others, illustrating the real-world dangers of data exposure.

Moreover, lawyers may be tempted to use client public data—such as court filings or news reports—in AI-powered research or drafting. However, ABA guidance and multiple ethics opinions make it clear: confidentiality obligations apply even to information that is “generally known” or publicly accessible, unless the client has given informed consent or an exception applies. The act of further publicizing such data, especially through AI tools that may store and process it, can itself breach confidentiality.

Practical Guidance for the Tech-Savvy (and Not-So-Savvy) Lawyer

Lawyers can face disciplinary hearing over unethical use of generative AI.

The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast Episode 99, “Navigating the Intersection of Law Ethics and Technology with Jayne Reardon and other The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page postings offer practical insights for lawyers with limited to moderate tech skills. The message is clear: lawyers must be strategic, not just enthusiastic, about legal tech adoption. This means:

• Vetting AI Tools: Choose AI platforms with robust privacy protections, clear data handling policies, and transparent security measures.

• Obtaining Informed Consent: Clearly explain to clients how their information may be used, stored, or processed by AI systems—especially if public data or PII is involved.

• Limiting Data Input: Avoid entering sensitive client details, PII, or case specifics into generative AI tools unless absolutely necessary and with explicit client consent.

• Monitoring for Updates: Stay informed about evolving ABA guidance, state bar opinions, and the technical capabilities of AI tools.

• Training and Policies: Invest in ongoing education and firm-wide policies to ensure all staff understand the risks and responsibilities associated with AI use.

Conclusion

The promise of generative AI in law is real, but so are the risks. As OpenAI’s recent legal challenges and the ABA’s evolving guidance make clear, lawyers must prioritize privacy, confidentiality, and ethics at every step. By embracing technology with caution, transparency, and respect for client rights, legal professionals can harness AI’s benefits without compromising the foundational trust at the heart of the attorney-client relationship.

MTC

MTC: Florida Bar's Proposed Listserv Rule: A Digital Wake-Up Call for Legal Professionals.

not just Florida Lawyers should be reacting to New Listserv Ethics Rules!

The Florida Bar's proposed Advisory Opinion 25-1 regarding lawyers' use of listservs represents a crucial moment for legal professionals navigating the digital landscape. This proposed guidance should serve as a comprehensive reminder about the critical importance of maintaining client confidentiality in our increasingly connected professional world.

The Heart of the Matter: Confidentiality in Digital Spaces 💻

The Florida Bar's Professional Ethics Committee has recognized that online legal discussion groups and peer-to-peer listservs provide invaluable resources for practitioners. These platforms facilitate contact with experienced professionals and offer quick feedback on legal developments. However, the proposed opinion emphasizes that lawyers participating in listservs must comply with Rule 4-1.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

The proposed guidance builds upon the American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 511, issued in 2024, which prohibits lawyers from posting questions or comments relating to client representations without informed consent if there's a reasonable likelihood that client identity could be inferred. This nationwide trend reflects growing awareness of digital confidentiality challenges facing modern legal practitioners.

National Landscape of Ethics Opinions 📋

🚨 BOLO: florida is not the only state that has rules related to lawyers discussing cases online!

The Florida Bar's approach aligns with a broader national movement addressing lawyer ethics in digital communications. Multiple jurisdictions have issued similar guidance over the past two decades. Maryland's Ethics Opinion 2015-03 established that hypotheticals are permissible only when there's no likelihood of client identification. Illinois Ethics Opinion 12-15 permits listserv guidance without client consent only when inquiries won't reveal client identity.

Technology Competence and Professional Responsibility 🎯

I regularly addresses these evolving challenges for legal professionals. As noted in many of The Tech-Savvy Lawyer.Page Podcast's discussions, lawyers must now understand both the benefits and risks of relevant technology under ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8. Twenty-seven states have adopted revised versions of this comment, making technological competence an ethical obligation.

The proposed Florida rule reflects this broader trend toward requiring lawyers to understand their digital tools. Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 advises lawyers to "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice," including technological developments. This requirement extends beyond simple familiarity to encompass understanding how technology impacts client confidentiality.

Practical Implications for Legal Practice 🔧

The proposed advisory opinion provides practical guidance for lawyers who regularly participate in professional listservs. Prior informed consent is recommended when there's reasonable possibility that clients could be identified through posted content or the posting lawyer's identit1. Without such consent, posts should remain general and abstract to avoid exposing unnecessary information.

The guidance particularly affects in-house counsel and government lawyers who represent single clients, as their client identities would be obvious in any posted questions. These practitioners face heightened scrutiny when participating in online professional discussions.

Final Thoughts: Best Practices for Digital Ethics ✅

Florida lawyers need to know their state rules before discussing cases online!

Legal professionals should view the Florida Bar's proposed guidance as an opportunity to enhance their digital practice management. The rule encourages lawyers to obtain informed consent at representation's outset when they anticipate using listservs for client benefit. This proactive approach can be memorialized in engagement agreements.

The proposed opinion also reinforces the fundamental principle that uncertainty should be resolved in favor of nondisclosure. This conservative approach protects both client interests and lawyer professional standing in our digitally connected legal ecosystem.

The Florida Bar's proposed Advisory Opinion 25-1 represents more than regulatory housekeeping. It provides essential guidance for legal professionals navigating increasingly complex digital communication landscapes while maintaining the highest ethical standards our profession demands.

MTC

🎙️ Ep. 113 - How Seth Price Scaled a 50-Lawyer Firm and Digital Agency: Tech, Cloud, and the Future of Legal Marketing!

Seth Price, founding partner of Price Benowitz LLP and CEO of BluShark Digital, shares deep insights on leveraging technology to scale law firms. He highlights Salesforce, Clio, and Smart Advocate as essential tools, discussing their specific roles in case management and marketing automation. Seth outlines the evolution of digital marketing for lawyers, stressing the importance of content, links, and local reviews in SEO strategy. He offers tips for interpreting Google Analytics and staying ahead of algorithm changes. Concluding with advice on future-proofing practices, Seth urges law firm leaders to invest in adaptive tech stacks and remain inquisitive amid rapid innovation.

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

1. What are the top three pieces of tech, software, or hardware you use to scale price benefits from a two-person firm to over 50 attorneys?

2. What are the top three ways you've seen digital marketing change for lawyers, and can you give us a tip for each one?

3. What are your top three tips for law firm leaders looking to future-proof their practices amid rapid technological change?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[01:23] Seth's Tech Setup

[09:50] Top Three Tech Tools for Scaling Price Benefits

[11:27] Detailed Explanation of Clio and SmartAdvocate

[12:40] Digital Marketing Changes for Lawyers

[16:09] Importance of Local Search and Reviews

[19:00] Tips for Understanding Google Analytics

[25:13] Final Tips for Future-Proofing Law Firms

Resources:

Connect with Seth:

• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/sethprice

• Website: pricebenowitz.com/

• Website: blusharkdigital.com/seth-price-law-firm-blueprint/

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

• Comcast Xfinity: www.xfinity.com/learn/internet-service

• Dell Computers: Dell.com

• Pixel: store.google.com/intl/en/ideas/google-pixel-phones/

• Verizon FiOS: verizon.com/home/internet/fios-fastest-internet/

Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

• Avvo.com: avvo.com/

• Clio Cloud: clio.com/

• Eva.ai: eva.ai/hr-4-0-eva-ecosystems-api-and-partners/

• HubSpot: hubspot.com/

• QuickBooks Online: quickbooks.intuit.com/global/

• Salesforce: salesforce.com/

• SmartAdvocate: smartadvocate.com/

• Supio: supio.com/

• TextExpander: textexpander.com/

• Yelp: yelp.com/

🚨 MTC: “Breaking News” Supreme Court DOGE Ruling - Critical Privacy Warnings for Legal Professionals After Social Security Data Access Approval!

Recent supreme court ruling may have placed every american’s pii at risk!

Supreme Court DOGE Ruling: Critical Privacy Warnings for Legal Professionals After Social Security Data Access Approval

Last Friday's Supreme Court ruling represents a watershed moment for data privacy in America. The Court's decision to allow the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unprecedented access to Social Security Administration (SSA) databases containing millions of Americans' personal information creates immediate and serious risks for legal professionals and their clients.

The Ruling's Immediate Impact 📊

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision lifted lower court injunctions that had previously restricted DOGE's access to sensitive SSA systems. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent warned that this ruling "creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans". The majority allowed DOGE to proceed with accessing agency records containing Social Security numbers, medical histories, banking information, and employment data.

This decision affects far more than government efficiency initiatives. Legal professionals must understand that their personal information, along with that of their clients and the general public, now sits in systems accessible to a newly-created department with limited oversight.

Understanding the Privacy Act Framework ⚖️

The Privacy Act of 1974 was designed to prevent exactly this type of unauthorized data sharing. The law requires federal agencies to maintain strict controls over personally identifiable information (PII) and prohibits disclosure without written consent. However, DOGE appears to operate in a regulatory gray area that sidesteps these protections.

Legal professionals should recognize that this ruling effectively undermines decades of privacy protections. The same safeguards that protect attorney-client privilege and confidential case information may no longer provide adequate security.

Specific Risks for Legal Professionals 🎯

your clients are not Alone Against the Algorithm!

Attorney Personal Information Exposure

Your personal data held by the SSA includes tax information, employment history, and financial records. This information can be used for identity theft, targeted phishing attacks, or professional blackmail. Cybercriminals regularly sell such data on dark web marketplaces for $10 to $1,000 per record.

Client Information Vulnerabilities

Clients' SSA data exposure creates attorney liability issues. If client information becomes publicly available through data breaches or dark web sales, attorneys may face malpractice claims for failing to anticipate these risks. The American Bar Association's Rule 1.6 requires lawyers to make "reasonable efforts" to protect client information.

Professional Practice Threats

Law firms already face significant cybersecurity challenges, with 29% reporting security breaches. The DOGE ruling amplifies these risks by creating new attack vectors. Hackers specifically target legal professionals because they handle sensitive information with often inadequate security measures.

Technical Safeguards Legal Professionals Must Implement 🔐

Immediate Action Items

Encrypt all client communications and files using end-to-end encryption. Deploy multi-factor authentication across all systems. Implement comprehensive backup strategies with offline storage capabilities.

Advanced Protection Measures

Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing. Establish data minimization policies to reduce PII exposure. Create incident response plans for potential breaches.

Communication Security

Use secure messaging platforms like Signal or WhatsApp for sensitive discussions. Implement email encryption services for all client correspondence. Establish secure file-sharing protocols for case documents.

Dark Web Monitoring and Response 🕵️

Cyber Defense Starts with the help of lawyers!

Legal professionals must understand how stolen data moves through criminal networks. Cybercriminals sell comprehensive identity packages on dark web marketplaces, often including professional information that can damage reputations. Personal data from government databases frequently appears on these platforms within months of breaches.

Firms should implement dark web monitoring services to detect when attorney or client information appears for sale. Early detection allows for rapid response measures, including credit monitoring and identity theft protection.

Compliance Considerations 📋

State Notification Requirements

Many states require attorneys to notify clients and attorneys general when data breaches occur. Maryland requires notification within 45 days. Virginia mandates immediate reporting for taxpayer identification number breaches. These requirements apply regardless of whether the breach originated from government database access.

Professional Responsibility

The ABA's Model Rules require attorneys to stay current with technology risks. See Model Rule 1.1:Comment 8.  These rules creates new obligations to assess and address government data access risks. Attorneys must evaluate whether current security measures remain adequate given expanded government database access.

Recommendations for Legal Technology Implementation 💻

Essential Security Tools

Deploy endpoint detection and response software on all devices. Use virtual private networks (VPNs) for all internet communications. Implement zero-trust network architectures where feasible.

Client Communication Protocols

Establish clear policies for discussing sensitive matters electronically. Create secure client portals for document exchange. Develop protocols for emergency communication during security incidents.

Staff Training Programs

Conduct regular cybersecurity training for all personnel. Focus on recognizing phishing attempts and social engineering. Establish clear protocols for reporting suspicious activities.

Looking Forward: Preparing for Continued Risks 🔮

Cyber Defense Starts BEFORE YOU GO TO Court.

The DOGE ruling likely represents the beginning of expanded government data access rather than an isolated incident. Legal professionals must prepare for an environment where traditional privacy protections may no longer apply.

Consider obtaining cybersecurity insurance specifically covering government data breach scenarios. Evaluate whether current malpractice insurance covers privacy-related claims. Develop relationships with cybersecurity professionals who understand legal industry requirements.

Final Thoughts: Acting Now to Protect Your Practice 🛡️

The Supreme Court's DOGE ruling fundamentally changes the privacy landscape for legal professionals. Attorneys can no longer assume that government-held data remains secure or private. The legal profession must adapt quickly to protect both professional practices and client interests.

This ruling demands immediate action from every legal professional. The cost of inaction far exceeds the investment in proper cybersecurity measures. Your clients trust you with their most sensitive information. That trust now requires unprecedented vigilance in our digital age.

MTC

MTC: Law Firm Technology Procurement Strategy During Trade Court Tariff Chaos: Buy Now or Wait?

Tariff chaos continues with recent ruling by US Court of International trade creating confusion for lawyers on how to address their office tech needs!

The recent ruling by the US Court of International Trade has thrown technology procurement strategies for law firms into unprecedented uncertainty. Legal practitioners nationwide face a critical decision that could significantly impact their operational costs and technological capabilities for years to come.

On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade delivered a landmark decision that struck down President Trump's sweeping tariff regime, ruling that the administration exceeded its constitutional authority by implementing global import duties under emergency powers legislation. The court determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs unilaterally, particularly the 30% tariffs on Chinese goods, 25% tariffs on certain imports from Mexico and Canada, and 10% universal tariffs on most other goods.

However, the victory for importers and businesses proved short-lived. The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision, and the Federal Circuit Court granted an emergency stay, allowing tariff collection to continue pending further legal proceedings. This legal ping-pong effect has created exactly the type of market uncertainty that makes technology procurement decisions particularly challenging for law firms.

The Technology Dilemma Facing Legal Practitioners

The smartphone and computer hardware that law firms depend on daily face significant price pressures under the current tariff regime. Industry analysts predict smartphone prices could increase by 4% in the US market due to tariff uncertainty. More dramatically, experts suggest that forcing iPhone production to move entirely to the United States could result in device prices reaching $3,500, several times the current prices. While such extreme scenarios may not materialize, the underlying message is clear: technology costs are likely to increase substantially if current trade policies persist.

For law firms, this creates a fundamental procurement dilemma. Should practices accelerate their hardware refresh cycles to avoid potential price increases? Or should they maintain their normal procurement schedules and hope that legal challenges will ultimately overturn the tariffs?

Understanding the Current Legal Landscape

lawyers struggle to balance timing of future tech purchases with the uncertainty the tariffs have created1

The Court of International Trade's ruling provides important guidance for understanding the likely trajectory of these trade policies. The judges specifically noted that tariffs designed to address drug trafficking and immigration issues fail to establish a clear connection between the emergency declared and the remedy implemented. The court emphasized that “…the collection of tariffs on lawful imports does not clearly relate to foreign efforts to arrest, seize, detain, or otherwise intercept wrongdoers within their jurisdictions".

This reasoning suggests that even if the Federal Circuit Court ultimately upholds some aspects of the administration's trade policy, the current broad-based tariff regime may face continued legal challenges. However, the court left intact Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, indicating that more narrowly tailored trade measures may survive judicial scrutiny.

Practical Procurement Strategies for Law Firms

Given this uncertain environment, law firms should consider a hybrid approach to technology procurement that balances risk management with cost efficiency. Rather than making dramatic changes to established procurement cycles, firms should focus on strategic timing and vendor diversification.

• Immediate Actions: Law firms with aging hardware that was already scheduled for replacement should consider accelerating those purchases slightly. Equipment approaching end-of-life status represents the highest risk category, as firms cannot afford to delay these replacements indefinitely. However, avoid panic purchasing of equipment that still has useful life remaining.

• Vendor Diversification: The current trade tensions highlight the risks of over-reliance on any single country's manufacturing base. Samsung smartphones, for example, may face fewer tariff pressures than Apple devices because Samsung shifted most production away from China to Vietnam, India, and South Korea. Law firms should evaluate whether their technology vendors have diversified supply chains that reduce exposure to specific country-based tariffs.

• Future-Proofing Without Overcommitment: Interestingly, recent surveys reveal that 73% of iPhone users and 87% of Samsung Galaxy users find little to no value in artificial intelligence features. This suggests that law firms should focus procurement decisions on proven functionality rather than cutting-edge features that may not provide practical value. Battery life, storage capacity, and build quality remain more important factors than AI capabilities for most legal professionals.

The Economics of Hardware as a Service

be the hero in your law office by having a solid understanding of where your tech comes from and how tariffs may impact your purchasing power!

The US Court of International Trade’s ruling and the ensuing tariff uncertainty underscore the need for law firms to reassess traditional hardware procurement models. Hardware as a Service (HaaS) offers a strategic alternative, shifting the financial and operational risks of ownership to specialized providers. Under HaaS, firms pay fixed monthly fees for enterprise-grade computers and devices, with vendors handling maintenance, upgrades, and supply chain disruptions—critical advantages amid fluctuating trade policies.

For small-to-midsize firms, HaaS mitigates two key risks: sudden tariff-driven price hikes and premature hardware obsolescence. By converting capital expenditures into predictable operational costs, firms avoid large upfront investments in equipment that may depreciate rapidly if tariffs escalate. Providers also absorb the burden of navigating geopolitical trade complexities, ensuring timely hardware replacements even if import restrictions tighten.

While many legal workflows rely on Software as a Service (SaaS), these cloud-based tools still require reliable hardware. Outdated computers struggle with modern SaaS platforms, leading to lagging performance, security vulnerabilities, and lost productivity. HaaS ensures firms maintain hardware capable of running current software efficiently, without the financial strain of cyclical refresh cycles.

Long-Term Strategic Considerations

Law firms must avoid knee-jerk reactions to tariff headlines. The legal challenges to presidential trade authority suggest broader import duties may face judicial limits, but appeals will prolong uncertainty. Instead, firms should build hardware procurement resilience through:

1. Vendor Diversification: Partner with HaaS providers and suppliers across multiple regions to reduce dependency on tariff-affected geographies.

2. Modular Budgeting: Allocate flexible funds for hardware upgrades, allowing adjustments as trade policies evolve.

3. Performance Benchmarks: Prioritize devices with proven durability and processing power over speculative AI features, as 73% of legal professionals report minimal use of smartphone AI tools.

Final Thoughts

THERE ARE MORE FACTORS THAT JUST THE TARIFF’S THEMSELVES FOR LAWYER TO CONSIDER WHEN PURCHASING THEIR NEXT OFFICE TECH DEVICE!

The tariff chaos demands measured action, not paralysis. Firms should:

• Replace aging hardware incapable of running current software and SaaS tools efficiently, as outdated devices increase security risks and hinder client service.

• Adopt hybrid procurement models, blending HaaS for high-risk devices (e.g., laptops, servers) with outright purchases for stable, long-use equipment (e.g., monitors, keyboards, etc.).

• Ignore speculative tech trends; focus on hardware that enhances core workflows, not flashy AI features with negligible practical value.

By anchoring decisions in operational needs rather than tariff panic, firms will balance cost efficiency with preparedness for any trade policy outcome.

MTC

BOLO: LexisNexis Data Breach: What Legal Professionals Need to Know Now—and Why All Lexis Products Deserve Scrutiny!

LAWYERS NEED TO BE BOTH TECH-SAVVY AND Cyber-SavvY!

On December 25, 2024, LexisNexis Risk Solutions (LNRS)—a major data broker and subsidiary of LexisNexis—suffered a significant data breach that exposed the personal information of over 364,000 individuals. This incident, which went undetected until April 2025, highlights urgent concerns for legal professionals who rely on LexisNexis and its related products for research, analytics, and client management.

What Happened in the LexisNexis Breach?

Attackers accessed sensitive data through a third-party software development platform (GitHub), not LexisNexis’s internal systems. The compromised information includes names, contact details, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and dates of birth. Although LexisNexis asserts that no financial or credit card data was involved and that its main systems remain secure, the breach raises red flags about the security of data handled across all Lexis-branded platforms.

Why Should You Worry About Other Lexis Products?

LexisNexis Risk Solutions is just one division under the LexisNexis and RELX umbrella, which offers a suite of legal, analytics, and data products widely used by law firms, courts, and corporate legal departments. The breach demonstrates that vulnerabilities may not be limited to one product or platform; third-party integrations, development tools, and shared infrastructure can all present risks. If you use LexisNexis for legal research, client intake, or case management, your clients’ confidential data could be at risk—even if the breach did not directly affect your specific product.

Ethical Implications: ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

ALL LawyerS NEED TO BE PREPARED TO FighT Data LeakS!

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to safeguard client information and maintain competence in technology. Rule 1.6(c) mandates that attorneys “make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” Rule 1.1 further obligates lawyers to keep abreast of changes in law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.

In light of the LexisNexis breach, lawyers must:

• Assess the security of all third-party vendors, including legal research and data analytics providers.

• Promptly notify clients if their data may have been compromised, as required by ethical and sometimes statutory obligations.

• Implement additional safeguards, such as multi-factor authentication and regular vendor risk assessments.

• Stay informed about ongoing investigations and legal actions stemming from the breach.

What Should Legal Professionals Do Next?

• Review your firm’s use of LexisNexis and related products.

• Ask vendors for updated security protocols and breach response plans.

• Consider offering affected clients identity protection services.

• Update internal policies to reflect heightened risks associated with third-party platforms.

The Bottom Line

The LexisNexis breach is a wake-up call for the legal profession. Even if your primary Lexis product was not directly affected, the interconnected nature of modern legal technology means your clients’ data could still be at risk. Proactive risk management and ethical vigilance are now more critical than ever.