Summary

This TechInLaw seminar focused on navigating the complexities of non-tangible assets like cryptocurrencies and social media accounts in estate planning. This discussion was moderated by Professor Mark Glover and featured insights from Jessica Shultz Ferguson, an attorney specializing in estate planning and probate, and Professor Tessa Davis, an expert in taxation and tax policy. The session examined these digital assets from both estate planning and tax perspectives in great depth. Some of the highlights of this session include, but are not limited to, recommendations such as using password manager software, with options like LastPass, 1Password, BitWarden, and NordPass being mentioned to preserve access to these digital assets, whether that be cryptocurrency or even social media accounts.

Whilst doing this, the speakers also clarified the distinct differences between cold and hot wallets, and the effect this has on families planning their estate and, importantly, selecting their personal representative. Additionally, the presenters explained Blockchain, analogizing it to a deed registry relevant to the land of cryptocurrency. Defining it as a system that traces and tracks every transfer of cryptocurrency online. Further, information was shared about the IRS classification of digital assets like Bitcoin as property, not currency, and the impact this has on taxation. Furthermore, they explored the valuation of cryptocurrencies, acknowledging that the volatility of the market, the timing of the valuation, and triggers for realization all interact to make this new space a complex niche within the law. Accordingly, the panel ultimately closed the discussion, stressing the importance of staying updated on adapting legislation or changes that may arise within this field in the coming years.

Faculty

Mark Glover, Professor of Law, USC Rice School of Law

Qualifications: Current Joseph F. Rice Professor of Law specializing in Wills, Trusts, and Estates and Property, with a scholarship focusing on the law of succession, employing economic analysis and original empirical research. Former professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, visiting professor at Boston College, and teaching fellow at Louisiana State University. Before academia, Glover also practiced commercial law in New York at Weil, Gotshal, & Manges.

Overview: Professor Glover framed the discussion by noting the seminar would approach digital assets from two distinct but related perspectives: estate planning and taxation. He initiated the conversation by inviting a definition of digital assets, particularly cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Throughout the seminar, he guided the discussion on critical issues, including the IRS's approach to identifying Bitcoin in estates and the potential challenges posed by the lack of voluntary disclosure.

Professor Glover also raised the complex issue of valuing volatile assets like Bitcoin for estate tax purposes, questioning how the market value at the date of death is calculated given the “stepped up basis,” as well as the continuous 24/7 nature of cryptocurrency markets. Professor Glover further facilitated a discussion on practical considerations for selecting personal representatives or trustees for estates containing digital assets, emphasizing the need for fiduciaries with a basic understanding of these assets. Finally, he provided a rather all-encompassing list of realization events, as well as providing a simplified explanation of Bitcoin mining, and highlighted password management as a key tool for addressing access issues.

Tessa Davis, Professor of Law, USC Rice School of Law

Qualifications: Professor of law specializing in taxation and tax policy at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law. Before joining the University of South Carolina, Professor Ferguson was a visiting professor at Tulane University Law School. Additionally, she earned her LLM in Taxation from New York University School of Law and her JD from Florida State College of Law, graduating Order of the Coif.

Overview:  Professor Davis began by addressing the fundamental issue of how digital assets, such as Bitcoin, are classified for tax purposes. She explained that the IRS has taken the position since 2014 that these types of assets should be considered property, not currency. This classification has several important implications:

• It creates the concept of basis, which is a tool to track the historic cost or investment in an asset over time, necessary to determine if there is a gain or loss upon sale.
• It raises valuation issues, particularly due to the volatility of assets like Bitcoin. Professor Davis noted that the foundational approach is to look at the reasonable value on the date of the decedent's death for estate tax purposes.
• It creates a challenge of determining value as a continuous trading asset, and further suggests that an approach like marketable securities, including averaging the high and low prices on the date, seems defensible.
• It brings up the concept of characterization, specifically regarding capital gains. She explained that gains from the sale of property held for a certain period might be taxed at lower capital gains rates compared to ordinary income.

Professor Davis also clarified the distinction between the U.S. estate tax and an inheritance tax, explaining that the tax is on the value of the estate, not the individual inheritance. She confirmed that the stepped-up basis rule applies to inherited digital assets, meaning the recipient's basis is the reasonable value on the date of the decedent's death.

Jessica Shultz Ferguson, Attorney, Turner Padget

Qualifications: Attorney with her practice focused on estate planning and probate, helping individuals and families through protecting their assets, navigating estate administration, and resolving probate disputes. Committed to educating the community on the importance of estate planning and offers workshops to achieve such frequently. Before her current role, she was the lead attorney for estate administration for South Carolina Legal Services.

Overview: Prefaced this discussion by acknowledging the practical aspects of handling digital assets within estate plans. She emphasized the need for estate planners to constantly adapt to new asset types that are being created. She defined digital assets broadly, focusing primarily on cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, describing it as an online digital asset that functions as money. She noted its incredible value, finite nature, and volatility, mentioning examples like Dogecoin. She explained that the value of non-tangible currency is based on supply and demand. Beyond cryptocurrency, she also included social media accounts as digital assets, highlighting their significant intrinsic value, even if they lack extrinsic market value, unless they are monetized. These were the key issues Ms. Ferguson identified that digital assets pose for estate planning:

• The core issue with digital assets is how they are held and accessed. She explained the difference between hot wallets (internet-connected, less secure, easy for transactions) and cold wallets (not internet-connected, accessed via password/key phrase). She stressed that these passwords are among the most important.
• A critical problem is that if crypto is held in a cold wallet and the password is unknown upon the owner's death, the currency may be completely inaccessible and "dies with you". Unlike a safe deposit box, you cannot obtain a court order to access a cold wallet. She cited the example of a hard drive containing a large amount of Bitcoin being inaccessible due to a lack of a password, illustrating the significant potential loss.
• Current practice is to include a "memorandum of crypto passwords" with the will. She clarifies that this memorandum is not attached to the will and is not filed publicly to maintain Its purpose is to ensure the passwords are accessible to the personal representative or trust

The transfer of Cryptocurrency from an estate of trust can be achieved by:

• Transferring from the decedent's wallet directly to the beneficiary's wallet
• Liquidating the crypto into cash within the estate/trust and then distributing the cash

For social media accounts, she noted that platforms like Meta (Facebook) offer a legacy contact feature, allowing a designated person access upon death for things like downloading photos or managing monetized accounts. She recommends clients write down their social media passwords and keep them with their estate planning documents if these accounts are important. Further highlighting that Meta does not respond to subpoenas or court orders for access.

• If a legacy contact isn't set up and passwords aren't available, social media accounts can become inaccessible, like a cold wallet. She suggested that an inaccessible social media account, if it had intrinsic value, might be listed on Schedule F (all other personal property) on the inventory and appraisement, but this listing does not guarantee access.

Impactful Quotes

“Technology is changing. The law’s regulation of it will change as well.” -Glover

“If you pass away and there is no one else that knows your login, that currency dies with you. There is no one to subpoena and you would have no way to actually access it.” -Ferguson

“We do not have an inheritance tax in this country; we have an estate tax.” -Davis

“The Blockchain... essentially traces and tracks every crypto transfer that’s ever happened on the internet.” -Ferguson

Key Takeaways

When selecting fiduciaries (personal representative or trustee) for estates with digital assets, pick someone who has at least a basic understanding of how to handle these assets, including how to inventory them, work with a CPA for valuation, and access wallets. For larger estates, a corporate trustee may be preferable due to their resources.

Lawyers can no longer forget to ask clients about their digital assets. Implementing questions into estate planning surveys and being willing to dig deeper by asking about specific apps used for investing are steps to ensuring you have the full picture of your client's potential estate prior to providing advice.

Realization of events for digital assets: Using Bitcoin to purchase an asset, receiving it as compensation, mining Bitcoin, or engaging in a property-for-property swap are standard events that can trigger gains or losses. As people often think of Bitcoin as currency, they may not realize that using it can create a taxable event, potentially leading to unintentional noncompliance. CPAs are increasingly including crypto on checklists to help address this and prevent such errors.

Taxpayers must file forms reporting gains or losses from crypto transactions. There are proposals for increased information reporting requirements, like 1099 forms, to help the IRS track crypto transactions and income. However, tracing assets, especially in cold wallets, remains difficult. If one inherits inaccessible Bitcoin, they would not be taxed on the gains because they cannot access or realize them, but the estate might still owe estate tax on the theoretical value at the date of death.

Summary

This TechInLaw seminar featured Christopher Church discussing topics and helpful resources related to the mental health and wellness of legal professionals, more specifically focused on the significant impact of technology on mental health, exploring both its negative and positive aspects.  Mr. Church presented resources for improving mental health through utilizing technology and other strategies and supported this methodology with evidence and examples. Further, this seminar included a discussion of daily practices he tries to incorporate and has found to be effective. However, a central theme was understanding how ubiquitous technology is in lawyers' lives and the importance of being intentional about managing its effects on one’s mental health and home life.

The presentation emphasized a portfolio approach to wellbeing, encouraging individuals to assess different areas of their lives, which Mr. Church likened to "checking in on your soil”. He went on to establish that this form of review allows individuals to determine what needs attention and in turn make an intentional effort to do such, showcasing the benefits that could derive from such. This discussion highlighted proven strategies for improving mental health, such as exercise, healthy nutrition, mindfulness, restricting distractions, and engaging with music and art. While he expressed the harmful effects on mental health often facilitated by technology, Mr. Church also provided ample resources that individuals can use to turn this distraction into an accountability partner. Adding that through altering one’s notifications or downloading applications that assist in ensuring we are taking breaks and fueling ourselves properly we can yield favorable outcomes.

Mr. Church also discussed the importance of setting and revisiting boundaries, especially concerning work-related technology, and discussed combatting psychological phenomena like the "ding and dopamine" effect that drive compulsive checking as well as the “phantom ring” effect that results in unnecessary pickups throughout the day. He provided listeners with some of the benefits that can derive from practicing gratitude and mindfulness. Establishing that gratitude is free to practice and has been shown to increase happiness, sleep quality, resilience to stress, and productivity. Further, through Mindfulness you will see an increase in creativity, memory recall, focus, and relationship satisfaction. The central theme that remains throughout this seminar is that you must be intentional with your attention to truly foster a high level of mental health, especially when operating in the legal profession.

Faculty

Christopher Church, Senior Clinical Fellow and Director of the Appeal for Youth Clinic at Emory University School of Law

Qualifications:  Experience in legal advocacy for youth and child welfare, including roles as Senior Clinical Fellow and Director of the Appeal for Youth Clinic at Emory University School of Law, Senior Director for Strategic Consulting at Casey Family Programs, and former Staff Attorney at the Champ's Clinic at USC School of Law.

Overview:  Christopher opened up this conversation by acknowledging the dichotomy of technology, which has created more access to care and resources regarding mental health, while simultaneously causing ample mental harm when overused. This discussion contained suggestions for a number of apps which can aid lawyers and individuals in managing their mental health through intentionality. These included but were not limited to: Smiling Mind, MyFitnessPal, Randomly RemindMe, and StandUp; As well as potential adjustments such as the Do Not Disturb feature on iPhone and the ability to turn off notifications upon leaving the office. Further, a recommendation was placed on prioritizing well-being through using a portfolio approach, which establishes different categories to check on related to one’s personal well-being and identify areas that need attention. This discussion featured an explicit example of a framework known as PERMA, which included five building blocks:

• POSITIVE EMOTION: Are you experiencing things daily that bring you joy?
  • Levels can be increased by thinking about past and present experiences in a more positive light, and by recognizing the potential for hope in the future. Further, through seeking more of the activities that bring us joy we can balance having positive emotions without engaging in pleasure seeking that can bring harmful effects. Avoid seeking euphoria through increased consumption, mindfulness is essential in doing this successfully.
• ENGAGEMENT: Are you connected to the world, and in turn thoughtfully participating in activities with others?
• RELATIONSHIPS: Do you have positive relationships in your life? Are there individuals that love and are good for your life on a consistent basis?
  • The connection between positive relationships and improving mental health in the legal field is essential. In Church’s capacity, he witnessed that practicing attorneys will sacrifice their relationships for their career first, even before sacrificing things such as routines. Clarifying that the ability to unplug after leaving the office or providing your partner and friends with the level of attention they deserve will actually be beneficial for owns one mental health.
• MEANING: Are you contributing to something greater than yourselves? Do you have a day-to-day purpose?
• ACCOMPLISHMENT: Are you pursuing things for their own merit? Are you seeking to master things for the sake of mastery and improvement?

Impactful Quotes

“Technology can have a big impact on our mental health, especially the overuse of technology” 

“The largest predictor of health later in life was stable relationships in midlife”

“Happiness is the absence of desire”

“Between stimulus and response there is space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom -Victor Frankl

“Try on each other’s ideas... Keep what you like and let go of the rest... Stay engaged. Don't start forming your rebuttal while the other person is saying something you disagree with" - Church, referencing the Multicultural Guidelines for Communicating Across Differences

Key Takeaways

Relationships are critical for overall health. Stable, positive relationships are the single largest predictor of physical health later in life. Lawyers, despite recognizing their importance, often sacrifice relationships first when faced with professional demands.	Intentional practices and technology tools can enhance wellness. Engaging in activities like exercise, healthy nutrition, mindfulness, and appreciating music/art are proven ways to improve mental health. Technology provides numerous resources and tools, including apps for workouts, nutrition tracking, and meditation, as well as features like "Do Not Disturb,"
Technology has a profound, dual impact on mental health. While offering benefits like increased access to care and connectedness, overuse can lead to negative outcomes such as compulsive behavior, loneliness, physical strain, and difficulty focusing.	The importance of setting boundaries and being intentional about honoring those boundaries by considering why you wanted to create them initially. Further that it is important to revisit boundaries and access their effectiveness or impact.

How have newly developed internet technologies impacted child exploitation crimes, and  where do we go from here?

Summary

This TechInLaw seminar informed practicing attorneys and law students about the rapidly evolving landscape of Child Exploitation. Both as it relates to the internet entirely, but more specifically how new technologies are altering the legal field. Through discussion from two well-informed speakers, an emphasis was established on how internet jurisdiction enables federal prosecutors to effectively pursue these digital child exploitations in spite of cross border concerns. However, the speakers did not shy away from how the rapid development of artificial intelligence has presented new challenges. One challenge is there are currently no South Carolina State laws that address the barring of created or manipulated child exploitative material. A central theme throughout this conversation was the struggle of legislative and policy efforts to keep up with this ever-changing technology, and the innovation and risks that follow. Moving forward, a high level of importance was placed on collaboration and discipline from all avenues of the judicial and legislative system to update these frameworks and safeguard future generations.

Faculty

Katie Orville: Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of South Carolina

Qualifications: Specializes in prosecuting child exploitation and human trafficking cases, experience in Special Victims unit of 14^th Circuit Solicitors office.

 Overview:  Katie opened up this discussion by providing background information into all of the current federal statutes related to this realm of child exploitation and the internet. Further, she divulged the challenges faced by emerging technology even at the federal level and how they combat encrypted applications, service of process, and data concerns across both state and even federal borders. The current tools at the Federal Governments disposal to combat this include:

• 18 USC 2256: A statute which defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct where a minor is involved. Further acknowledging through subsection 8(c) that this extends to include depictions created/adapted/modified to appear as an identifiable minor is engaged in conduct deemed explicit.
• 18 USC 2252: A statute that covers the possession and distribution of content that satisfies the 18 USC 2256 standard, this statute extends to include receiving such content also.
• 18 USC 2252A: A distinct statute from 2252, which covers the possession and distribution of content that satisfies the 18 USC 2256 standard, this statute extends to include receiving such content also.
• 18 USC 2251: Criminalizes both the person who produces any CSAM material and holds Parents or Legal guardians accountable who knowingly permitted this to take place. This extends to content produced outside of the US intended to be used or sold in the US.
• 18 USC 2259: The mandatory restitution statute, which ensures that victims are likely to have ongoing costs like therapy and are entitled to restitution for the abuse they suffered.
• 18 USC 2422: A statute that bars coercion and enticement of any individual both 18 and above (A) and Under 18 (B) to engage in any sexual activity or prostituition
• 18 USC 1466: The federal obscenity statute which criminalizes production, distribution, reception, and possession of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, OR an image that appears to be of a minor engaging in these acts

Tools:

• 2703D orders: A middle ground between a subpoena and search warrant, which allows federal prosecutors to get some pieces of content without satisfying the requirements of a search.

Truxtun Umsted III:  Assistant Legal Counsel to South Carolina House of Representatives Judiciary Committee

Qualifications: Manages legislative subcommittees, including those on AI and cybersecurity, providing legal guidance in the house on complex policy issues.

Overview: Truxtun focused heavily on ensuring the viewers were informed about steps being taken in the house to try and replicate the federal standards for this inappropriate child-based content. Highlighting the states attempts to pass bills to address even images generated completely by AI or other computer processes. Further acknowledging that there are real challenges in crafting clear legislation on this subject matter but emphasizing the importance, we continue to work towards a standard of accountability.

• HB 3046/SB 29 (Morphed Images): An Attempt from the house to create a prosecutable legal framework for content when that content involves an identifiable victim even if it is through alteration that the material becomes inappropriate. The bill attempts to bar creation, distribution, and knowing possession of this form of content.
• HB 3045/SB 28 (Obscene Depictions): The house borrows a SC code standard to mirror the federal This holds individuals accountable even in the absence of an identifiable minor through barring content that is:
  • Offensive to community standards
  • Appealing to prurient interests
  • Lacking real scientific or artistic value
  • Not Constitutionally protected
• HB 3049: Establishes civil cause of action for victims of unauthorized disclosure of intimate images, with an amendment to make this applicable to artificial intelligence altered or deep fake images.

Impactful Quotes

“Technology is moving, I feel like at the speed of light these days, and that is really tricky to handle in the legal realm because the law is slow” -Orville

“We are trying to construct laws that are not constitutionally overboard, but that are broad enough to capture a whole lot of conduct, some conduct that we can’t even contemplate exactly what it is yet” -Orville

“The State’s New Bill is trying to close that loophole where you have to depict a child or real victim” -Umsted III

“The growing problem of revenge porn, South Carolina is one of the only states in the country that doesn’t have laws combating against disclosing these intimate images, and this is the legislature’s attempt to do so” -Umsted III

Key Takeaways

Shift from term “child pornography” to CSAM: (Child Sexual Abuse Material) which reflects the abusive nature that any non-consensual encounter entails and includes content derived from images of a child then altered by AI	There remains a conflict when trying to apply federal laws to AI generated content due to Supreme Court case Ashcroft v Free Speech creating precedent separating virtual CP not depicting real children from physical CP with relation to holding individuals liable.
Federal prosecutors can use administrative subpoena power under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2703d to obtain subscriber information and content from models and more.	AI’s role in enabling hyper-realistic CSAM which blurs traditional legal lines, and the importance of regulating this space quickly through collaboration in the profession.

Summary

This TechInLaw seminar featured Tom Scott, CEO and founder of CyberSherpas, discussing business email compromises, defining the phrase, and discussing the implications it can have on business. Initially, Business Email Compromise was established fundamentally about fraud and impersonation, as individuals seek to convince somebody they are interacting with a person they should take instructions from, for financial transactions, or disclosing information. This process relies heavily on social engineering, or "people hacking," which is defined as the use of deception to manipulate individuals into divulging confidential or personal information that may then be used for fraudulent purposes. Accordingly, these hackers use social engineering because it is often easier to trick a person into taking action than to breach a system. Further, the negative implications for businesses are significant, including financial loss, loss of data, loss of confidence, and loss of reputation. Businesses, both small and medium-sized, are increasingly in the crosshairs, facing risks from growing cyberattacks and increasing regulations.

Organizations typically manage risk by accepting it, mitigating it, and often, transferring it, which can be done through insurance. Specifically, Scott explains that cyber insurance is unique because the necessary actuarial data is not well-developed, and insurers have made many payouts, contrary to the typical insurance model. Accordingly, due to this lack of understanding and organizations not being sufficiently secure, insurers are becoming much more restrictive, requiring significantly more detailed applications; what had been a 5-question process is 150 questions today. These companies may deny coverage if security measures, such as an incident response plan, are not in place. Importantly, a cyber incident can make an organization uninsurable in the future. Notably, cyberattacks can cause additional costs such as lawsuits, stock value, cleanup and sanitization, theft of intellectual property or data, compromise of financial systems, and forensic investigations. For law firms, specific risks include attackers infiltrating real estate transactions or forcing the mishandling of client funds.

Importantly, these cybercriminals are sophisticated and organized, and view business email compromise as one of the most lucrative business models in the criminal underworld. 

Faculty

Tom Scott, CEO and Founder, CyberSherpas

Qualifications: Tom Scott is the CEO and Founder of CyberSherpas, a virtual Chief Information Security Officer (vCISO) cybersecurity consulting firm. Scott is a seasoned expert with over 30 years of cybersecurity experience, and he has been a key leader in cyber protection efforts across the Nation. He currently serves as the Executive Director of the South Carolina Cybersecurity Association and Foundation (CyberSC). Further, his expertise is supported by certifications in information security, information auditing, and security leadership, and Scott holds multiple leadership roles, such as serving on the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center Executive Committee and the USC School of Law’s Cybersecurity Task Force.

Overview: Expert Tom Scott’s seminar focused on Business Email Compromise but also provided an overview of various cyberattacks and discussed multiple real-world examples. These acknowledgements included phishing attacks, ransomware, data loss, and penalties for non-compliance with regulations like those from the SEC. The specific incidents mentioned in the discussion included the SolarWinds compromise, a $50 million settlement paid by Blackbaud, and the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, which targeted their accounting system. To illustrate the true risk, Scott provided the statistic that 60% of all small and medium-sized businesses will go out of business within 6 months of a cyber-attack, as they cannot absorb losses like larger companies.

Case Study

Importantly, Scott highlighted a case study to showcase Business Email Compromise:

• Enter Crystal, an administrative lead in her mid-60s, whose tech-savviness was affected by her age and the speed of technological change. Crucially, her email account lacked Multi-Factor Authentication because her boss found it inconvenient and instructed IT to disable it. Additionally, Crystal was allowed to opt out of security training, missing valuable awareness of education that had significantly reduced the organization's phishing failure rate for others.
• The compromise occurred on a Sunday evening when Crystal received a seemingly legitimate phishing email asking her to update her credentials, which she entered into. Within seven minutes, an attacker logged into her email from Arizona and set up a malicious email rule to hide communications from the company's bank.
• Within 24 hours, there were two more logins from Quebec, Canada. The attackers then created a fraudulent domain similar to the company's actual domain. Impersonating Crystal, they contacted a bank representative, provided poor quality fake IDs for supposed new finance team members, and were on the verge of gaining access to 28 different company accounts.
• Fortunately, the incident was discovered late on a Thursday afternoon when an email from Natalie sent to Crystal’s secondary address had bypassed the malicious rule, revealing the deception. While the organization took immediate steps like changing passwords and contacting forensics and SLED, the speaker noted law enforcement has limited resources and tends to prioritize cases with significant financial loss over potential losses.
• The resolution involved the forensics firm identifying the breach details by Sunday night, a takedown order for the fraudulent domain being secured because it was proven to be used for fraud, and the company purchasing similar domains to prevent future impersonation attempts.

Impactful Quotes

“In today's digital 1st business environment. Every business is a technology company.” 

“If we take a look at our digital landscape, we're continuing to see a dramatic increase in the risks that businesses are facing, as it relates to cybersecurity and protecting their data.” 

“It is much easier for me to hack a person than it is a system.” 

“It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Having an incident response plan in place is going to be the best thing that you can do once something bad happens.” 

Key Takeaways

Implement Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for email accounts, utilize email filtering to block spam and malicious links, and configure sender authentication protocols like SPF (Sender Policy Framework), DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail), and DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) to validate email legitimacy and prevent impersonation. Importantly, parties should continuously monitor systems for suspicious activity.

Establish strict internal approval processes for financial transactions, especially wire transfers. Implement policy requiring verification via a different communication method before processing significant payments or changes to financial accounts. Conduct regular audits and risk assessments. Provide regular, effective training to employees on recognizing phishing attempts and other cyber threats. Educate them on what suspicious emails look like and the proper procedure for reporting them. Increased awareness can significantly reduce the click-through rate on malicious links.

Recognize that it's a matter of when, not if, a cyber incident might occur. A well-defined incident response plan in place allows for a quicker, more effective reaction, limiting potential damage. This includes knowing who to call (Ex: Law enforcement, Forensics Firm), steps for recovery, and reliable backups are all essential and helpful.

Law enforcement agencies have limited resources due to the high volume of cybercrime complaints. They often prioritize cases based on the level of financial loss, so incidents without significant documented monetary loss may not receive extensive investigation. Filing a local police report and an IC3 complaint is still recommended.

Importantly, seminar moderator Assistant Dean for Academic Technology Gary Moore also provided the audience with the NIST PHISH SCALE, which is a guide to help individuals know what to see and look for in phishing attempts, which includes a scale and other prompts to look out for in phishing email attempts. Further, this resource is utilized in the USC Rice School of Law class “Technology and the Practice of Law” and is available at this link to review: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.2276.pdf.

Summary

This TechinLaw seminar featured David Sella Villa, an assistant professor of Law at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice Law School, outlining ethical obligations for lawyers using generative AI. The seminar begins by covering what generative AI is, defining it as technologies producing human-like answers from limited input by learning patterns from data, involving concepts like machine learning and natural language processing. Sella-Villa emphasizes that this technology generates new text rather than simply performing a search. The seminar also covers the current landscape for sources of guidance from other state bars, citing opinions, reports, and guidelines from various states, and examines specific generative AI technologies like ChatGPT. For example, ChatGPT's function is described as breaking down words into tokens and analyzing relationships, noting its lack of true understanding of meaning beyond token proximity, and the issue of "hallucinations," where it generates plausible but untrue information.

Further, the presentation notes that inputs and outputs in basic ChatGPT may be viewed by OpenAI staff unless specific settings are enabled. Other tools discussed include CaseText/Co-Counsel, which is trained on legal databases and maintains similar confidentiality standards to Westlaw, but it doesn't eliminate hallucinations. Additionally, insight is provided on Microsoft Copilot, which integrates with a user's files on OneDrive, operating on a model similar to how large law firms are developing internal AI systems. Accordingly, the seminar explains how the presented approach, focusing on understanding the technology and managing its use, can help with other generative AI issues, such as navigating data discoverability concerns, including the challenges of subpoenaing AI providers like OpenAI and the difficulty in explaining the inner workings of complex AI systems. Finally, it also touches upon the emergence of AI-specific laws in various jurisdictions like California and the European Union, as well as the possibility of training smaller, subject-specific AI systems within a firm, yet this is noted as not eliminating the need for human expertise and review throughout.

Faculty

David Sella-Villa, Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina, Joseph F. Rice School of Law

Qualifications:  David Sella-Villa is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, specializing in teaching Data Privacy Law and Cybersecurity. Before this, Sella-Villa served as the Chief Privacy Officer for the State of South Carolina, where he headed the state’s enterprise privacy office. Further, Professor Sella-Villa has authored law review articles that deal with both privacy and emerging technologies and holds several privacy certificates.

Overview:  Professor Sella-Villa's seminar looks at usage issues that lawyers might face, with a focus on drafting documents for external use, and other potential uses like e-discovery, patent prosecution, legal research, chatbots, evidence analysis, and even attorney training being mentioned. Following this, the presentation expands on the ethical considerations and practical steps for dealing with them, including the need to research the technology to understand how it receives, stores, and manages data by reviewing its terms of service and privacy policies, and the importance of developing internal firm guidelines regarding its authorized use and data management controls like encryption.

Most importantly, his analogy for how lawyers should relate to generative AI under the rules of professional conduct is explored, and he concludes that the best fit is a non-lawyer assistant. This classification places a duty under RPC 5.3 on the supervising attorney to 1) review and adopt the AI's work, then 2) investigate the AI for potential ethics violations.                  

Accordingly, Sella-Villa highlighted these three Major Cs relevant to Generative AI:

• Competence (Model Rule 1.1): Competent representation when using generative AI involves two distinct elements. First, you must maintain subject matter competence in the law to adequately review and adopt the AI's output. This is essential because AI models predict word relationships rather than truly understanding the meaning. Additionally, you need competence in the technology itself, specifically understanding how it receives, stores, and manages data well enough to explain it to a client. Lacking this technological understanding indicates incompetence in using the tool.
• Confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6): This rule requires lawyers to make reasonable efforts to protect client information. Using generative AI demands understanding how prompts and the generated responses are used by the system. For standard public models like ChatGPT, inputs and outputs can potentially be viewed by the AI provider's staff, which approaches being non-confidential. Lawyers must ensure the technology provides adequate security, as insufficient security is equivalent to having no confidentiality. Investigating your selected AI's privacy policies and terms of service is a necessary step.
• Conflicts (Model Rule 1.8): Attorneys must avoid conflicts of interest. This rule implies you cannot use client data in a manner that could harm them. A potential issue is the risk of inadvertently learning information inputted by an opposing party if both sides use the same generative AI tool. The duty to investigate the AI for potential ethical pitfalls, stemming from treating it as a non-lawyer assistant, also ties into avoiding conflicts.

Other Important Considerations (Including other "Cs" and UPL)

• Cost (Model Rule 1.5): When using generative AI, lawyers cannot charge clients for time saved compared to performing the task manually. Approaches permitted by the Florida opinion consistent with Rule 1.5 include incorporating system training costs into the firm's overhead or utilizing fee arrangements where both the lawyer and client benefit from efficiency gained.
• Candor (Model Rule 3.3): Generative AI's tendency to "hallucinate", or create convincing but false information, directly impacts this duty. The New York report suggests that hallucination is a per se violation of the duty of candor to the tribunal. Further, some courts even mandate that lawyers using generative AI sign a certification, ensuring an additional layer of the candor requirement.

Unauthorized Practice of Law (Model Rule 5.5): As AI outputs can closely resemble legal work, lawyers must carefully delegate tasks to the machine to avoid assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. If there isn't a lawyer actively supervising and reviewing the AI's work, then the lawyer may be assisting in UPL. The question of AI "personhood" is significant and dynamic in this context, particularly concerning how the tool might be sanctioned if misconduct occurs.

Impactful Quotes

“Whatever information you put into ChatGPT and whatever comes out of ChatGPT can be viewed by the people who work at OpenAI....That's pretty close to being considered non-confidential.” 

“You have to investigate the AI as for what would be potential ethics violations.”

“If you get the client's informed consent before the engagement about the fact that you're going to use it right, then you can get informed consent about the potential risk.” 

“Your job won't be taken by generative AI. Your job will be taken by somebody who's using generative AI in their work.” 

Key Takeaways

Different generative AI tools handle data processing and storage with varying levels of confidentiality and security. While standard public models may expose inputs/outputs to provider staff, some specialized legal AI tools are designed with enhanced privacy features akin to traditional legal platforms. Investigating specific tool policies to understand these crucial differences is key.	Subject matter competence requires directly engaging with raw legal information, which is key to competently reviewing and adopting the AI's output as your own. Without this competence gained through direct interaction with legal concepts and materials, it becomes challenging to fulfill the ethical duty to adequately review and adopt the AI's assistance, undermining competent representation.
Beyond ethics opinions, some courts are imposing direct requirements on generative AI use, including mandating certifications about its use in filings submitted to the tribunal. These orders reinforce the duty of candor and highlight the increasing focus on the responsible use of these tools in litigation.	The inner workings of generative AI models, even for their developers, can be complex and difficult to fully explain, potentially limiting transparency and accountability in legal contexts. This explainability challenge makes verifying AI outputs and understanding their source a significant hurdle.

Summary

This TechInLaw seminar featured a panel discussion focusing on the necessity of cybersecurity insurance for small businesses. The panel included Charles Howard ,Jr., Colton Driver, Gary Moore, and was moderated by USC Rice School of Law Assistant Professor of Law David Sella-Villa. The central theme was that cyber-attacks, such as business email compromises featured in this seminar, are a significant, ever-present risk for any business using connected technology. When this risk materializes, it can cause substantial financial loss, reputational damage, disruption to operations and supply chains, and erosion of customer trust. Importantly, the discussion clarified fundamental cybersecurity concepts, such as an “event,” a situation where cybersecurity system functions as intended, like successfully responding to an attempted intrusion, which are considered normal occurrences.

However, an “incident” is more serious where an event progresses to the point of compromising or accessing data, indicating the security system failed to prevent unauthorized access. Similarly, a “breach” is a subset of incidents that meet specific legal definitions and trigger obligations, notably the requirement to notify affected individuals. Further, Businesses were encouraged to identify the data they require to protect, such as intellectual property, confidential business information, and personal data belonging to employees or customers.

Speakers stressed that even businesses without sensitive personal data are vulnerable to system disruption or ransom demands that halt operations. Importantly, cyber insurance was presented as a component of a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy, serving as a layer to manage risks that cannot be entirely mitigated through preventative efforts. While potentially preventing a business from going bankrupt after a major incident, insurance is not a replacement for fundamental security measures. Insurers often evaluate a business's existing security practices when underwriting policies, and since policies are not standardized, there is a need to carefully review coverage details, including potential exclusions or specifics regarding ransom payments.

Accordingly, the market has become more costly and stringent in past years, influenced by a surge in incidents, particularly during the increase in remote work.

Faculty

Charles Howard, Jr, President, Chase Oil Company

Qualifications: Charles Howard, Jr. is the President of Chase Oil Company, a third-generation family-owned business that started in 1946. Mr. Howard's qualifications are directly relevant as the head of this business; that was the victim of a major cybersecurity incident, a business email compromise, about six years ago. He has personal experience navigating such an attack and highlighted the instrumental role the company’s cyber insurance policy played.

Overview: Howard shared the incident cost their small business a total loss of $400,000, and without the insurance policy obtained just weeks prior, he likely wouldn't be in business today. His experience demonstrates the real-world impact of cyberattacks on small businesses and the potential lifesaving role of insurance.

Colton Driver, Special Privacy Counsel, Nissan North America Inc.

Qualifications: Colton Driver is the Special Privacy Counsel at Nissan North America, Inc. Prior to leaving private practice to go in-house, he advised clients across multiple different industries on a broad range of privacy and cybersecurity issues. As a privacy attorney, he has experience helping clients establish data privacy and security compliance programs, manage regulatory issues, and address incident response strategies. He holds the IAPP’s CIPP/E certification and is the Chair of the Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee for DRI. 

Overview: Driver highlighted cyber insurance’s role in helping businesses contain and mitigate costs and potentially accessing resources like panel counsel. Further, he stressed the importance of understanding what data a business handles and the need to carefully read and understand cyber policy details, as certain types of provisions are not standardized.

Gary Moore, Assistant Dean for Academic Technology & Executive Director of the Technology, Innovation, and Law Collaborative, University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law.

Qualifications: Gary Moore is the Assistant Dean for Academic Technology and Executive Director of the Technology, Innovation, and Law Collaborative (TechInLaw). Additionally, he is responsible for the law school's academic technology strategy and overseeing IT systems. With 30+ years of experience in academic technology in law schools, Moore has advised various organizations on cybersecurity issues in a prior role.

Overview: Moore emphasizes that the importance of fundamental technical safeguards is applicable to businesses of any size, including encryption, password managers, multi-factor authentication, limiting user administrative access, and regular backups. Further, he added that having a cybersecurity policy is very important and noted that cybersecurity firms look to see if businesses are implementing such due diligence measures.

David Sella-Villa, Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law

Qualifications: David Sella-Villa is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, specializing in teaching Data Privacy Law and Cybersecurity. He previously served as the Chief Privacy Officer for the State of South Carolina, where he focused on cybersecurity insurance. Additionally, he holds several privacy certifications. Further, Professor Sella-Villa also has hands-on experience as a business owner, having been General Counsel for a private aviation company. His background provides expertise in both the legal and policy aspects of cybersecurity and privacy, and the practical considerations for businesses          

Overview:  Sella-Villa moderated the discussion, as well as emphasized that for any business using connected systems, cybersecurity is a risk affecting the bottom line and reputation, and that cyber insurance is only one piece of the puzzle.

Impactful Quotes

Regardless of what business you are in, if you are using connected technology, then cybersecurity is a risk for your business” -David Sella-Villa

“The majority of small business people are not thinking about this, and they need help, and you guys are going to be there to help them.”  -Charles Howard, Jr

“There is AI Insurance now, so read the (Cybersecurity) policy because it might not cover all of your AI stuff, [AI] is going to create coverage gaps, and you want to be sure.” -Colton Driver

“Do the due diligence and control the stuff that you can. Make sure you have off-site backups. If something happens, then you can restore from there. Another thing that is low cost: limit your user administrative access so that it is a special admin account for administrators to set up software.” - Gary Moore

Key Takeaways

Preventative strategies to these new age attack vectors include deploying technology safeguards like using password managers, data encryption, implementing multi-factor authentication, and restricting user administrative access.	Accordingly, employee awareness training is vital, as a business is only as secure as its weakest member. On that same note, vetting third-party vendors with system access and maintaining off-site data backups is also highly recommended.
Businesses, including law firms, have been identified as significant targets, and must be vigilant. Further, with the evolving threat landscape, including the use of Generative AI to create more convincing phishing attempts, deep fakes, and voice replications, businesses must adapt their defenses continuously.	The cost of cyberattacks is significant; Axios reported the average cost of data breaches between 2023 and 2024 was $4.8 million. For small businesses, while the average ransomware attack might be in the $10,000 range, there is no upper limit as attackers will continue to extort if possible. A major cyber incident can devastate or completely destroy a small business.

Summary

This TechInLaw seminar featured Matthew Jay offering a detailed examination of the current, rapidly evolving cyber threat landscape and its specific relevance to legal professionals. Jay emphasized the immense scale of the cybercrime economy, which reached $10.5 trillion globally and is projected to grow dramatically, potentially even exceeding $23 trillion by 2027, partly propelled by advancements in AI. Further, he noted that the criminal business model has become more accessible, which simplifies the commission of cybercrime for various actors, including large organizations and nation-states. Adding that this escalating threat landscape underscores the urgent need for legal firms to establish a robust cyber strategy, even treating it with the same emphasis and importance as a sales strategy.

Next, he highlighted two case studies: first, The Kirkland & Ellis case involved a breach exploiting a vulnerability in the firm's third-party file transfer software; its significance lied in the ensuing legal action which criticized the substantial delay of almost a full year in notifying affected clients, emphasizing that such prolonged notification timelines are now unacceptable. Second, the Oric Harrington case, where hackers accessed client data for two weeks, eventually led to an $8 million settlement, partly because the firm repeatedly revised its reporting on the number of affected individuals over many months, highlighting the critical need for accurate and timely communication to those impacted. Further, he stressed legal professionals must adhere to ABA Model Rules regarding competence, communication, confidentiality, and supervision to protect client data.

Additionally, he shed light on implementing security frameworks like the simplified NIST 2.0, which includes identifying, protecting, detecting, responding, recovering, and even governing cybersecurity strategy, alongside having a crucial incident response plan, as instances which demonstrate the due diligence necessary to meet these ethical obligations and mitigate severe legal and reputational consequences.

Faculty 

Matthew Jay, Chief Operating Officer, PC Techware

Qualifications: Matthew Jay is a Partner and Chief Operating Officer at PC Techware, a cybersecurity and IT firm. He is a seasoned executive with 20 years of progressive responsibility and leadership across Sales, Operations, Marketing, and e-Commerce, with a background in scalability and leadership development. At PC Techware, he spearheads the integration of AI into cybersecurity services, helping small to medium-sized businesses protect their data and optimize their security infrastructure. Matthew has become a thought leader in AI implementation, regularly consulting executives and organizations on how to strategically leverage AI to drive business growth and operational efficiency. His work makes AI accessible and practical to help organizations innovate with confidence. 

Overview: Matthew Jay’s seminar is informative about the current landscape of being an Attorney in our technological world, and the protections necessary to do this effectively. He warns that Attorneys are specifically targeted because they hold sensitive client data, intellectual property, and financial information, which is attractive to cybercriminals. Additionally, firms also face unique threats like direct retaliation from opposing parties involved in contentious cases. Accordingly, he stresses that in today's environment, a cyber strategy is essential. Adding this needs to be just as important as a firm's sales strategy. Further, many firms are vulnerable simply because they "don't know what they don't know" about their risks.

However, simply ignoring cybersecurity threatens the loss of client business, causes real downtime, and incurs significant recovery costs. Beyond financial costs, cyberattacks damage client trust and harm a firm's reputation, which, for small firms, whose growth is often built on reputation and word of mouth, can have devastating long-term consequences.

Importantly, Matthew Jay highlighted these relevant ABA requirements for Cybersecurity:

• Duty of Competence (Model Rule 1.1): This rule requires attorneys to provide competent representation to clients. In the context of technology and cybersecurity, this duty extends to having the necessary technological skills and knowledge to protect clients' information. This implies that attorneys must understand cybersecurity risks and how to implement appropriate safeguards.
• Duty of Communication (Model Rule 1.4): This rule covers general communication about representation, but it specifically applies to the attorney's use of technology. Most critically, it requires notice to a client of a compromise or unauthorized access to confidential information relating to that client. Recent case studies, particularly Oric Harrington, demonstrate that delays in notification of breaches are "no longer tolerated" and can lead to significant legal ramifications and settlements.
• Duty of Confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6): This fundamental rule mandates that lawyers make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of or unauthorized access to information relating to the representation of a client. Implementing cybersecurity measures, such as encrypting data or using strong credential management, are examples of taking "reasonable efforts" to meet this duty.

• Duty of Supervision (Model Rules 5.1, 5.2, 5.3): Attorneys are required to employ reasonable safeguards and due diligence to ensure that both they and their staff comply with ethical duties, including those related to protecting client data. This means establishing and enforcing security protocols within the firm.

Legal Ramifications of Non-Compliance: Recent case studies demonstrate that failing to have security frameworks in place and failing to meet these ethical obligations can lead to legal ramifications and significant costs, including multi-million-dollar settlements. Adherence to frameworks like NIST 2.0 and implementing measures like incident response plans are crucial for demonstrating compliance and due diligence.

Impactful Quotes

“You're not too small to get hacked. You're just too small to make the news.” 

“You could get away with not having much thought behind cybersecurity 10 years ago. Today, it's got to be as important as your sales strategy.” 

“Attorneys have ethical and common law duties to take competent and reasonable measures to safeguard information relating to clients and often have contractual and regulatory duties to protect confidential information.” 

“One of the big drivers is that the criminal business model has been commoditized. So, this means it's easier to commit Cybercrime than in the past.”

Key Takeaways

A concerning statistic shows that 32% of firms do not have an incident response plan. This plan is vital for knowing exactly what steps to take during a cyber incident, such as containing the damage, contacting experts, notifying insurers and law enforcement, and informing affected parties. Having a plan demonstrates due diligence and helps prove that a firm "did all the right things when the bad thing happened.”

Adhering to cybersecurity frameworks like the new NIST 2.0 is crucial. This is significant as it is the first major update in 10 years and was designed to be a clear guide for making cybersecurity decisions, breaking down complex concepts into understandable components. Its core functions are: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover, and Govern, with a new emphasis on continuous review that helps organizations establish and maintain a risk management strategy.

While external threats like phishing, ransomware, and vulnerabilities in third-party software are dangerous, common internal threats can also be critical. These include employee negligence or mismanagement and the possibility of bribing insiders. Information attackers gathered from sources like social media can be used to identify vulnerable individuals within a firm who might be willing to compromise data.

Legal professionals have ethical and common law duties to protect client information. This is codified in ABA Model Rules, which require competence (including technology skills), communication (mandating client notification of compromises), confidentiality (requiring reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access), and supervision to ensure staff compliance. As such, failing to implement security frameworks can lead to legal ramifications.

Summary

This TechInLaw seminar featured Brandon Huffman, whose seminar is intended to equip attorneys with an overview of the legal issues involved in tech and IP licensing transactions. He provides insight and lessons learned from practice in the field of video game law. The presentation starts with the basics of intellectual property, such as copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. However, it also covers rights like privacy, publicity, and moral rights. He divides the world of Intellectual Property law into three groups: Soft IP, which includes copyrights and trademarks, Hard IP, which specifically references patents, and then Related Rights, which includes trade secrets, privacy rights, publicity rights (NIL), and moral rights.

Additionally, key terms in licensing, including scope, exclusivity, territory, term, and permitted use, are discussed. During this, he stresses that “Scope” is potentially the most important factor in the world of licensing. Further, the economics of licensing, such as royalty or revenue share basis and audit rights, are covered. Important contractual terms like confidentiality, IP protection (license vs. sale, restrictions), warranties, and indemnities are detailed. Importantly, regulatory issues, including privacy laws, consumer protections, anti-money laundering, and export controls, are also addressed. Finally, Huffman shares lessons learned from the games industry, including leverage in negotiations and the complex flow of IP in game development and publishing, providing practical insights.

Faculty

Brandon Huffman, Founding Attorney, Odin Law and Media

Qualifications: Brandon Huffman is an experienced attorney focused on representing technology and media clients. His practice areas include business, intellectual property, content clearance, privacy, commercial contracts, employment, and internet regulatory matters. He is driven by a passion for creativity and technology and has over a decade of experience in the video game industry and the general software industry.

Before that, he worked in general corporate transactions and litigation. Currently, he is the founding attorney of Odin Law and Media, a boutique, fully remote law firm. Further, he volunteers as general counsel to the International Game Developers’ Association and has been in that role since 2016.

Overview: Brandon Huffman's program is digestible for individuals seeking to get a better baseline understanding of intellectual property, but also informative enough to provide helpful aid to individuals interested in the game industry in specific ways. Huffman stresses that working in game law benefits from interdisciplinary knowledge across areas like corporate, IP, employment, and privacy law. Additionally, while specialization exists, a broader skill set is often more valuable for serving the smaller to medium-sized studios that make up much of the industry Further, Huffman establishes that Networking is paramount for getting into the game law field, which is a relatively small community despite the industry's large economic size. He advocates on behalf of attending industry-specific events, which allows lawyers to build connections and gain exposure.

Further, he delves into the nitty gritty of his experience in the field and some of the biggest issues he deals with, as discussed below:

• User Generated Content: When advising clients who create user-generated content (UGC) on a third-party platform, attorneys must emphasize the practical limitations, even if the user legally owns the IP. If the UGC is derivative of or dependent on the platform's underlying intellectual property, the user's ability to exploit their creation is fundamentally tied to the platform's continued existence and terms, much like "living in someone else's sandbox."
• Difference Between License and Right of Access: Attorneys should recognize that providing access to software via a web browser ("a right to access") is legally and practically distinct from granting a traditional license to install the software locally ("a license to make a copy"). This distinction is critical because the vendor's remedies differ significantly; ending a customer's access to a SaaS product is often as simple as "pushing a button," whereas stopping a user from continuing to use locally installed software licensed to them can be practically harder for the vendor, even if contractually barred. Defining this impacts the enforcement of the agreement.
• Dispute Resolution: It is crucial to specify the governing law and the location where disputes will be resolved. When negotiating, you want to ensure that you are not committing to the law of a country you do not understand or a venue that would be inconvenient. Agreements often include provisions for ADR, such as mediation or arbitration. Arbitration is frequently chosen, often to preserve confidentiality or perceived benefits in cost, or to streamline compared to court litigation. However, the economic advantages of arbitration may have lessened in recent years, particularly with larger arbitration providers. Mediation provisions are sometimes included. One perspective is that they can simply cause delays, as courts may order mediation even if it's already contractually required
• Mass Arbitration Risk: For software licenses that are public-facing and distributed to many users (thousands or millions), attorneys must be aware of the risk of mass arbitration. Plaintiffs' lawyers have developed strategies (Ex, social media marketing) to trigger large numbers of individual arbitrations, potentially imposing significant initial arbitration fees on the company, even just to start the process, which can be used to pressure settlements.

Impactful Quotes

“Video games by the Copyright Office are considered video games, both audiovisual works and computer programs.”

“The other copyright nuance in video games is that games are often dependent on other copyrighted works.”

“Narrow licenses preserve future exploitation.”

“Economically, the games industry is larger than music, film, TV combined.”

Key Takeaways

Drafting and negotiating the economic terms of a license requires meticulous attention to the definitions of revenue (gross versus net), as deductions can significantly reduce the actual royalty payment. Licensors receiving royalties should always include audit rights to verify reports, especially as revenue from complex sources like subscriptions or bundles can be difficult to track accurately.	Software and technology products are subject to a complex and ever-changing array of regulations, encompassing diverse areas such as an "alphabet soup" of privacy laws (state, federal, and international), consumer protection requirements, and export controls. Attorneys must stay current on these regulations and ensure compliance, as violations can lead to civil or criminal penalties.
Success in negotiating tech and IP licenses, particularly publishing deals in the video game industry, often hinges on understanding the leverage dynamics between parties, influenced by factors like repeat relationships, relative need, and alternatives (BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement).	When drafting license agreements, it is paramount to define the scope of licensed rights with precision and narrowness. Doing so allows licensors to preserve valuable future exploitation opportunities for their intellectual property on platforms or in mediums that may emerge later and were not initially contemplated.

Summary

This TechInLaw seminar featured Jessica Harrison, highlighting the video game industry and how it has quickly become an economic powerhouse, bridging the gaps between technology, art, and entertainment. According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the U.S. industry directly or indirectly supports over 350,000 jobs across all 50 states, with employees earning an average compensation of $168,000 annually. In 2019, U.S. revenue reached a record-high $90.3 billion, with $35.8 billion coming from content like games and subscriptions. Projections estimate worldwide growth to $307-583 billion by 2029-2032. Specifically, in South Carolina, Harrison establishes that while there are fewer than fifteen active companies, the field still has an economic impact of over 120 million dollars in the state, with six hundred and eighty jobs supported by this industry. Facing this growth and adapting to such requires legal expertise in various areas, including intellectual property law, which is crucial for content protection.

This discussion established how video game law encompasses multiple legal specialties, with intellectual property law being key to content protection. The primary forms of IP protection discussed are Copyright, Trademark, Patent, and Trade Secrets. In addition to these, Harrison highlighted that a video game company has to consider so many aspects of the law including jurisdictional gaming laws, the wire act, the FTC act, privacy, banking, NDA, employment law, licensing and contract law, data privacy and security law, as well as indemnifications, and rating regulations. After diving into detail on many of these areas of protection, she ended this discussion by posing issues to watch as they continue to adapt such as the growing realm of streaming video games for financial gain, the ethical debate of loot boxes within video games and their relationship to gambling, as well as the nuances that artificial intelligence is sure to create through its substantial advancement and growing involvement in this space.

Faculty

Jessica Harrison, Counsel, Sterne Kessler Goldstein and Fox

Qualifications: Jessica Harrison is counsel at Sterne Kessler’s Electronics Practice Group. She boasts over three decades of patent practice experience, from 25 years at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including supervisory roles in the Central Reexamination Unit, and a decade in private practice. She received her law degree from the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, a Certificate in Intellectual Property, and was named the Franklin Pierce Intellectual Property Scholar. Further, she holds master's and bachelor's degrees in electrical and computer engineering from the University of South Carolina.

Overview: Jessica Harrison first began this conversation by establishing the sheer mass of the video game industry, a billion-dollar industry that encompasses legal challenges in a vast array of legal fields. Further diving into the struggle courts faced in applying known laws to the emerging video game industry. In addition to this, she shared her personal experience as a patent examiner in the video game area and her time as the examiner who issued the patent on the iconic Game Boy. Further highlighting how her examination of a slot machine patent (Aristocrat) influenced the requirement for disclosing algorithms in software patents. Importantly, Harrison established a baseline understanding and the effects of case law on the following protections for games:

• COPYRIGHT: Copyright is currently the primary form of IP protection for video games. It is exclusively federal law, governed by Title 17 of the United States Code. Copyright protects a work of original authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It provides the author a bundle of exclusive rights, including the rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, display, distribute, and perform the protected work
• TRADEMARK: Trademarks are territorial and codified by the Lanham Act federally, requiring use in interstate commerce for registration. Trademarks protect the goodwill developed between the product's source and the consumer, helping consumers associate quality games with their producers. Further, company names (Nintendo) and game names (Pac-Man) should be trademarked. Additionally, game characters (Pokémon) can also be trademarked if used in commerce, such as on merchandise
• PATENTS: Patents protect various aspects of video games, including hardware, accessories, and improvements. Previously, software-driven functional aspects were more readily patentable. However, after the Alice case and subsequent interpretations of 35 USC § 101, only certain specific software functions are currently held as patentable subject matter if they improve the operation of a computer. Functional aspects that used to be patentable, like showing arrows in a driving game to indicate direction or real-time graphical changes for sun setting, are now more questionable. Post-Alice, courts at times view video games as abstract ideas for patent purposes.
• TRADE SECRETS: Trade secrets are often an overlooked form of IP protection; however, they encompass 1) information that derives actual or potential independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by others, that 2) has value to others who cannot obtain the information legitimately and is 3) subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Importantly, all three of these elements must be met for information to be classified as a trade secret. Additionally, unlike other IP forms, there is no limit to protection opportunities. Remedies for misappropriation include damages for loss of secrecy and potential injunctive relief.
  • The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DSTA) provides economic relief for trade secret misappropriation. Protecting trade secrets requires business policies, procedures, non-disclosure/confidentiality clauses in agreements and employment contracts, and educating employees.

Impactful Quotes

“Over the past 50 years, the video game industry has created an art form that has consistently pushed the boundaries of intellectual property law.”

“Patents protect things... Copyrights protect expressions... Trademark protects the business.”

“Like many areas of law, the characterization of the case often determines outcomes.”

“The use of a trademark in an artistic work is actionable only if the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work or explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work.”

Key Takeaways

Trademarks are crucial for protecting company and game names, characters (when used in commerce), and preventing cloning. The use of trademarks within games involves balancing artistic freedom and trademark rights through the Roberts Test. This test balances creative expression against the potential for explicitly misleading consumers about the source or content of the work.	The industry continues to face unanswered legal questions and new challenges, including the IP implications of AI-generated games, the copyright status of streaming gameplay in the background by "Twitchers," and challenges to game monetization methods like "loot boxes," which are being debated as potential gambling, opening new ethical considerations.
While patents historically protected aspects of video game hardware and accessories, and previously certain software-driven functions, the patentability of software has become more questionable "post-Alice". Courts may view video games more as abstract ideas for patent purposes, contrasting with their treatment as expressions for copyright.	Video game software, games, and titles are treated as an exception, allowing trademark protection despite being single creative works, because they function as products in commerce. Trademark registration is a tool to fight against "game clones" that intentionally use similar names to exploit market share, Ex, Flappy Bird.

Summary

Professor Adam Wandt detailed the transformative impact of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, artificial intelligence (AI), and quantum computing on society and the legal field. He highlighted how IoT data, generated by everyday devices, is becoming a powerful tool for law enforcement, potentially making it "impossible to commit the perfect crime" by aiding criminal investigations and disproving alibis. Nonetheless, Professor Wandt also discussed the "dark side" of AI, noting its potential for misuse by criminals and foreign nation-states for activities like scams and social engineering. This underscores a critical need for regulation and legislation. He posed the crucial question of whether to deal with AI and quantum computing proactively, setting ground rules to prevent catastrophic outcomes, rather than reactively, emphasizing that industry leaders should not dictate ethical rules.

In the legal profession, AI is expected to significantly impact tasks such as contract, brief writing, and research functions. However, its adoption presents malpractice implications for lawyers. Wandt referenced an attorney filing an AI-fabricated brief, excusing such cases as a new impression, and discouraging sanctions. He added that utilizing AI currently should raise "a giant red flag" and requires parallel human work to verify accuracy. Wandt predicted that within two decades, lawyers would routinely rely on AI outputs, similar to how computer-based legal research replaced physical books, but cautioned against over-reliance, leading to a loss of critical problem-solving skills. While AI may affect a percentage of legal jobs, aspiring lawyers are encouraged to specialize and incorporate AI into their expertise to ensure future relevance. Further, he stated that AI could improve access to justice issues.

Finally, Wandt established that quantum computing presents severe risks, including the ability to break current encryption, but new quantum encryption methods are expected to emerge as powerful nations secure their data. The combined changes from AI and quantum computing are anticipated to be larger and quicker than the smartphone revolution, bringing both unlimited opportunity and severe risk to the legal landscape and society.

Faculty:

Adam Wandt, Tenured Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Qualifications: Professor Adam Wandt is a tenured associate professor of public policy and the vice chair for technology of the Department of Public Management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, where he is also a graduate faculty member for public administration, digital forensics, and cybersecurity programs. Further, he is a practicing attorney and counselor at law, and Professor Wandt co-chairs the New York City Bar Association's Committee on Technology, Cyber and Privacy Law.

He possesses two decades of experience in developing custom investigative, forensic, educational, and data management solutions for various government agencies. His primary research and consulting interests include technology law and policy, information security, investigative and surveillance technology, cryptocurrency, darknet markets, and social engineering. Professor Wandt has engaged in sponsored research with numerous law enforcement institutions, including the FBI, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Interpol, and in 2022 and 2023. Over the past few years, he was awarded more than $4.5 million in U.S. Department of Justice grants to educate and train U.S. law enforcement personnel on cyber-related issues and provide advanced cyber forensic investigation tools.

Overview: Professor Adam Wandt's seminar fundamentally addresses the evolving landscape of technology in law, stressing how attorneys must adapt to rapid advancements. He asserts that understanding the intersection of AI, quantum computing, and vast data is paramount for future legal relevance, framing challenges as "opportunities.” Drawing on his two decades of developing investigative and forensic solutions for government agencies, Wandt highlights practical applications of his research in areas like information security and cryptocurrency. Further, he emphasizes attorneys should integrate technological understanding into their specializations, like a minor, to become experts. Importantly, Wandt advocates for proactive engagement, encouraging lawyers to influence legislation by running for office.

Wandt maintains his current position is that congress should not be actively trying to regulate AI at this specific time, as he feels congress does not understand the issues and the issues are evolving too rapidly for federal legislation. Importantly, he highlights that we are also in a AI war with China that we must win to ensure our economic future. Noting that there will be a time for federal legislation and regulation on the issue but not believing that day is today. Today, he encourages states and local governments to consider action, as needed by their communities such as San Francisco banning facial recognition cameras.

Impactful Quotes

“This is an opportunity for you to find people who have the legal skill set that you want, and bring to them the technical skill set that they don't have.”

“Understanding how AI will affect that area of the law could be your ticket to a really nice, successful future if you're a young attorney trying to figure out what to do and where to go.”

“I am perfectly okay using AI to drive a car when you have the person sitting behind the car with their hands on the wheel, and that's what you need for lawyers today.”

“The consequences could be disastrous, but the opportunities are also plentiful.”

Key Takeaways

The discussion emphasizes the ridiculous amount of data generated by everyday Internet of Things (IoT) devices, from smartphones to refrigerators, making it impossible to commit the perfect crime in the near future. Law enforcement is increasingly adept at using this information to rip apart alibis in criminal investigations.	AI is turning our world upside down by enabling pattern recognition in massive amounts of data and impacting every industry from education to law. While offering unlimited opportunity, it will also radically change entire job sectors like transportation, creating significant economic shifts, potentially faster than the smart phone revolution.
The dark side of AI involves its misuse by criminals and foreign nation-states for scams and attacks, necessitating urgent intervention. It creates an easy way to expand these illicit industries and is a fear. Society must choose proactive regulation over reactive legislation, with public discourse dictating ethical rules rather than industry leaders.	Currently, using AI in legal practice presents a giant red flag, requiring attorneys to maintain parallel human verification to avoid malpractice, as AI can fabricate legal precedents. However, in 20 years, AI outputs are predicted to become reliable and a standard legal practice, like computer-based research, is now trusted.

 

Summary

This Tech in Law seminar featured Justin Kahn, a seasoned civil litigator with extensive experience and national recognition in advocacy, procedure, evidence, ethics, technology, and persuasion, highlighting the intersection of these fields in modern legal practice. His seminar emphasized that today's audiences, including jurors, process information visually and expect constant engagement, much like they do with smartphones and social media. Further, Kahn establishes that effective persuasion hinges on understanding attention and managing cognitive load. Accordingly, he demonstrates that busy screens with text divide attention, thus decreasing learning. He advocates rather for a simplified slide design utilizing a PIE framework - point, image, emphasis. Additionally, some key principles discussed include the multimedia principle, which entails combining pictures and words for better learning.

Likewise, through segmenting complex ideas into digestible pieces and strategically ordering the facts of a case, attorneys can influence audience interpretation. Kahn stresses the importance of showing, not telling, by showcasing storyboarding trials visually from the outset and then using impactful images to convey a desired narrative quickly. Following such, Kahn provides practical examples of using visuals in motion hearings and mediations, such as corporate structure diagrams and case comparison grids, which pit precedent against the facts of a specific case. Importantly, the seminar transitioned into technology, which was acknowledged as a powerful tool (EX, embedding images in briefs, metadata analysis, even AI for image generation), should not be seen as the solution but as an aid. Stressing that lawyers must always be preparing for potential failures and maintain physical backups. Ultimately, Kahn asserts that effective modern legal persuasion hinges on a continuous commitment to pushing boundaries, strategically integrating technology such as Curio or OneNote, and diligently practicing these evolving skills to resonate with modern, visually focused audiences.

Faculty

Justin S. Kahn, Lawyer, Kahn Law Firm, LLP

Qualifications: Justin Kahn is a distinguished civil litigator with extensive experience in legal practice and litigation, notably handling professional liability and personal injury cases His expertise in the seminar's core themes of persuasion and technology is profoundly shaped by his Bachelor of Science from Tulane University in Psychology and Communication, which created a basis for his multidisciplinary study of graphic design, psychology, and neuropsychology, fueling his passion for persuasion and technology. Kahn is highly qualified to discuss litigation skills and legal practice, having authored the South Carolina Rules Annotated and the South Carolina Rules of Evidence for over 30 years. He is on the National Board of Trial Advocacy, practices in state and federal courts nationwide, and is also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court.

Overview: Justin Kahn's seminar fundamentally reframes legal persuasion for the modern, typically visually-driven audience. He presents that nowadays traditional, text-heavy presentations are ineffective, as they impose high cognitive load and hinder learning amongst juries and judges. Instead, Kahn champions a strategic approach which integrates insights from psychology and design, emphasizing the importance of visual storytelling.

Essential to his methodology is the principle of compelling visuals to prompt intrigue and convey complex narratives in a manner that is easily followed. Likewise, Kahn demonstrates how technology, such as embedding images in briefs or using digital tools for evidence organization, can assist in effective visual communication. Kahn stresses that the objective is to make information easily accessible and persuasive, whether for judges or juries, across all stages of litigation, including motions and mediations. Finally, this requires addressing challenges for admissibility from the outset of discovery, and ensuring judicial reception to aids by showing efficiency and utility.

Importantly, Kahn provided this list of tools identified as beneficial for different areas of legal work:

• Multimedia Principle: Combining pictures and words for optimal learning and persuasion, emphasizing the power of the verbal voice over using images to create compelling narratives
• Coherence & Segmenting: To reduce "cognitive load" and enhance learning, minimize words on screen, relying on a strong verbal voiceover. For complex ideas, minimize them to ensure understanding, as attorneys often forget the jury's unfamiliarity with intricate concepts
• Speaker Presence: Replicate Steve Jobs's big blank screen and open pose, which focuses attention on the speaker, rather than Bill Gates's busy, text-heavy slides. Kahn states that bullet points are boring and distracting, allowing audiences to jump ahead or form premature conclusions, hindering explanation.
• Start Strong & Follow the Action: Begin presentations by immediately capturing attention with a compelling image or "central theme" to "prompt intrigue" and create an unforgettable impression. Use visuals like dashcam or police body cam footage with overlays to help the jury follow the action and emphasize show, don't tell, over mere verbal descriptions.
• Juxtaposition & Choice Architecture: Juxtaposition persuades by visually highlighting differences, such as comparing a "normal back" with an injured spine or contrasting corporate and customer entrances. Employ Choice Architecture by structuring facts to be easily accessible and convenient for the audience to adopt, recognizing that presentation order influences decisions.
• Power of Silence: Utilize the absence of noise to create a feeling that can be persuasive. Kahn demonstrated this in a deposition by strategically employing silence after evasive answers from a doctor, which prompted the doctor to concede the surgery was a "precipitating factor" of the infection/
• Continuous Learning & Purposeful Practice: Kahn urges continuous learning by reading beyond legal texts, including graphic design, psychology, and neuropsychology, for a multidisciplinary approach to advocacy. Further, he stresses "purposeful practice" for presentations, meticulously rehearsing by speaking the words out loud and pressing the buttons to ensure verbal and visual alignment. This dedication extends to simulating practice environments, underscoring the need to constantly try to push the bounds, and that excellence requires practice.

Impactful Quotes

"In order to persuade, you're going to have to practice this crazy skill, which is turning off the screen so that you can look people in the eyes and be able to convince them.”

“Each slide should be as easy as PIE and not dump a whole bunch of information and  thoughts or ideas onto a slide in general, because it decreases the cognitive load and makes it easier for you all to understand.”

“The absence of noise or sound can itself create a feeling which can be persuasive.”

“You have to constantly try to push the bounds, and that requires practice, and you must just sit down and practice these skills. Don't be afraid of pushing the boundaries.

Key Takeaways

Audience Adaptation is Paramount: Modern legal audiences, including judges and juries, are accustomed to visual and concise information from screens and social media. Adapting presentation style to communicate effectively with "screen-oriented" demographics, move away from text-heavy approaches to maintain attention and comprehension

Minimize Cognitive Load for Max Learning: Overwhelming an audience with too much new information or simultaneous visual and verbal input significantly decreases learning and persuasion. Strategic presentation involves using fewer words on screen, combining images with verbal explanations, and breaking down complex ideas into smaller, digestible segments

Strategic Visual Storytelling Transforms Advocacy: Advocacy benefits immensely from visual thinking and planning, akin to movie storyboarding. By focusing on impactful images, juxtaposing contrasts, and carefully ordering facts, lawyers can tell compelling stories that quickly elicit belief and make complex information, like corporate structures or injury impact, more understandable and persuasive.

Technology Enhances, but Doesn't Replace, Core Skills: While digital tools offer powerful new avenues for presentation, they are aids, not substitutes for fundamental advocacy skills. Lawyers must purposefully practice their presentations, anticipate technological failures with physical backups, and ensure that the human element of persuasion remains central.

 

Summary

This TechInLaw seminar featured Colin Levy, Lawyer and Legal Technologist, establishing a baseline understanding of generative AI's potential and limitations within the legal domain. Initially, the seminar set the stage by explaining that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not a new concept, dating back to the 1950s. What is new is the accessibility of generative AI tools to a broader audience without requiring coding expertise. From there, the conversation shifted to the basics of Large Language Models (LLMs), which are at the heart of generative AI. Unlike traditional AI, which mostly analyzes data, LLMs are trained on huge amounts of text and can generate new content in natural, human-like language.

A big part of the seminar also focused on the risks that come with this technology, like built-in bias, hallucinations, and the threat of deepfakes. These risks make it especially important for legal professionals to understand how an AI tool was trained and what data it learned from. Levy also shared practical advice on how to safely use AI without compromising confidential client information. He explicitly warns against using general models like ChatGPT for confidential legal work due to data sharing risks, citing the Samsung incident.

Levy also proposed some practical solutions, like developing in-house proprietary models in collaboration with LLM providers. This approach can help firms meet confidentiality requirements while still benefiting from AI tools. He went on to call out what he described as “innovation theater” in some law firms, where titles like Chief Innovation Officer exist, but there’s little real investment or follow-through. Too often, innovation becomes a branding exercise rather than an effort to modernize. According to Levy, this surface-level change only reinforces the outdated image of lawyers as resistant to change and overly cautious. He advises being as generic as you can be when sharing information with public AI tools. Accordingly, the session concluded by providing guidance on identifying the right generative AI tools, particularly those trained on legal data, and reiterated that AI is an augmentation tool for legal practice rather than a replacement for lawyers, shifting focus to strategic tasks.

Faculty

Colin Levy, Lawyer and Legal Technologist, Director of Legal and Evangelist, Malbek

Qualifications: Colin Levy is a lawyer, author of The Legal Tech Ecosystem, and a prolific writer and speaker. He serves as the Director of Legal and Evangelist at Malbek. Throughout his career, he has seen technology as a key driver for improving how legal services are delivered. With experience across multiple industries, he’s witnessed common hurdles like weak due diligence processes, outdated or underused tech, and a general sense of hesitation or overwhelm when it comes to adopting new tools. His mission is to close the gap between the legal and tech worlds by helping professionals navigate legal technology and advocating for its role as a vital asset in every lawyer’s toolkit.

Overview: Colin Levy emphasized that generative AI is unique due to its newfound accessibility and ability to produce diverse content, and that it functions as another set of tools in the lawyer's toolbelt, designed to augment practices rather than replace lawyers. Levy strongly advised using AI tools trained on case law or legal data, as generalized models like ChatGPT are prone to hallucinations and bias, not from malice but from their vast and often imperfect training data. He feels that this technology will shift lawyers' roles by automating time-consuming, repetitive, standardized, routine tasks, allowing more of their focus to valuable strategic things, with broader risks.

 Levy emphasized how important it is for legal professionals to truly understand these tools, their strengths, their limitations, and the data they’re built on to use them responsibly and effectively. He also pointed out that most law schools still fall short in preparing students for the tech-driven future of legal practice. While AI has the potential to expand access to justice by offering self-service legal resources, Levy stressed that this promise won’t be fully realized unless we also tackle bigger issues like the digital divide, which still leaves many people without reliable access to technology. The digital divide references the unequal access to reliable internet, especially in rural areas, and how this can hinder the broader benefits of AI and automation for all.

Importantly, Levy provided this list of tools identified as beneficial for different areas of legal work:

CaseText: This tool helps lawyers to quickly find relevant case laws, statutes, and precedents. It aims to streamline the legal research process for practitioners.	CoCounsel: Reviews documents and answers questions based on extensive document data sets. It is trained on case law and legal data to provide more accurate information and cases, unlike generalized AI.	UniCourt: Provides data analytics to assist lawyers in understanding existing case law and formulating more effective arguments. Assesses the probability of an argument's success based on prior similar cases.
Diligence: This tool specializes in document analysis and contract review, aiming to enhance both the accuracy and efficiency of examining legal documents.	Spellbook: Utilizing various large language models integrated with legal data, Spellbook is designed to review contracts and suggest appropriate terms. Conveniently, it functions as an add-on for Microsoft Word, a widely used legal document tool.	Patent Pal: This specialized tool assists in the drafting of patents and the creation of diagrams. It significantly simplifies the typically complex and detailed patent application process.
Terms Scout: This tool leverages AI and a comprehensive database of publicly available agreements to identify commonly negotiated terms in contracts. It helps lawyers determine whether specific clauses are "in market" and provides data-backed support for negotiation strategies.	Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) Companies/Tools: These companies use AI, including generative AI, to automate various stages of contract management, from drafting to negotiation and ongoing administration. They facilitate the drafting of clauses and contracts and can inform negotiation strategies	Clio: This is one of several tools for document and matter management that uses automation and generative AI. It helps generate analysis and analytics, improving the management of time, workflows, and potentially outside vendors.
CasePeer: As a document and matter management tool, CasePeer incorporates automation and generative AI to streamline administrative tasks. It supports the generation of analytics and better management of workflows for legal professionals.	MyCase: Like other management tools, MyCase aids in managing diverse documents and legal matters. It leverages generative AI to help generate insights and optimize time and workflows.	Proxy: This tool is another example of a document and matter management solution that integrates automation and generative AI. It focuses on helping users generate analysis and analytics, thereby enhancing the management of time and overall workflows.

Impactful Quotes

“Generative AI is rapidly transforming the legal landscape, offering unprecedented capabilities for drafting documents, conducting research, and even predicting legal outcomes. However, harnessing this power responsibly requires a nuanced understanding of its inherent risks.”  

“Anything that is built by humans is going to be two things. Number one, it's going to be imperfect because humans are imperfect inherently, and two, they're likely to include some form of bias or prejudice.”

“Generative AI or AI in general, is not the answer to every question is not going to solve your every problem. It cannot solve every problem. And in addition, it's not here to get you, is not here to take over your job. It is not here to replace you.”

“So really, these lawyers, you know, got into trouble not necessarily for using AI, but really for frankly, just not being competent to check their work.

Key Takeaways

Generative AI is a transformative force in law, but its responsible adoption hinges on a thorough understanding and mitigation of its inherent risks. These risks include inaccuracy (hallucinations), bias from training data, and the potential for misuse, such as deepfakes. Lawyers must exercise extreme caution and "trust but verify."	For legal professionals, the choice of AI tool is paramount; general-purpose AI models like ChatGPT are wholly unsuitable for legal research or confidential work due to their untrained data and propensity for fabricating information. Instead, lawyers should prioritize GenAI tools trained on legal data to ensure accuracy and relevance.
Generative AI isn’t here to replace lawyers; it is here to support them. Its real value comes from handling the repetitive, time-consuming parts of legal work so attorneys can focus more on strategy, complex problem-solving, and the kinds of decisions that need human judgment and awareness.	While the legal industry is evolving, legal education is struggling to keep up. Most law schools still aren’t doing enough to prepare students for a tech-driven profession. There’s a growing need for better training in legal technology and clearer ethical guidance on how tools like AI should be used.