There are a few ways students can improve their legal tech skills. As a student myself, I have always learnt a lot from just reading around. There is so much great information available online for free, such as through Wired, Business Insider, Financial Times technology section, TechCrunch, The Verge, Engadget, Legal IT Insider, all of which can enable students to get informed on the extent to which technology becomes increasingly important across different industries, including the legal industry. There are also several Legal Tech blogs that post views and news about tech in law, such as Legal Tech Blog, or the Lawformer Blog. 

Social Media

Next, social media also enables students to find more information on topics of their interest. For example, following legal tech accounts or hashtags on LinkedIn or Reddit can be a great way to stay up to date. You can also post interesting legal tech-related media yourself and make connections, and grow your professional network at the same time. If you learn best by experimenting, many platforms can help build knowledge and develop skills. For example, Lawformer helps students and lawyers develop practical skills in contract drafting. It uses legal tech to enhance contract drafting skills and offers a library of legal term definitions and clauses enabling the user to draft a contract independently, while understanding the contract drafting process. 

Free  and Affordable Training Courses

Education programmes, such as Lawtech UK, provide free programmes, including “Lawtech Fundamentals”, a self-paced online course for anyone interested in lawtech startups or in the ideation process, and “Lawtech Bridge” which aims to bring together startups and established legal market players together to share and build the tools, insights and mindsets that drive innovation within the legal sector. There are several platforms which provide free or low-cost online courses to expand your knowledge on legal tech. For example, Coursera provides a course entitled ‘Legal Tech and the Digital Transformation of Law’ offered by Universidad Austral, which offers an overview of the legal tech market and its key actors, teaches about the key market trends to guide your career towards the future of the legal industry, and explains the impact of new digital technologies on law firms, in-house lawyers, and justice systems. 

Next, Udemy offers a course titled ‘Technology and Innovation for Legal Professionals’ which takes you through the foundations of technology and its application to the legal profession, explores why and how technology is essential to legal service providers, the legal implications of using technology, how to become a legal tech professional, to name a few. The University of Law also offers a course such as ‘Introduction to Innovation and Technology in Legal Services’ which aims to develop your understanding of how technological innovation is transforming the way lawyers work, and the tools and ideas that are driving these big changes.

Legal Tech Events

Finally, there are several Legal Tech events where people can find out more about legal tech and emerging solution. For example, LexisNexis collaborated with the International Law Book Facility (ILBF) for an online session on legal tech. Linklaters also put together a list of the legal tech events, conferences, and awards for the year 2023-24 occurring around the world. Lawformer also provides a free online community on Slack titled ‘LegalTech Connect’, where we share various resources such as news articles, legal events, career tips, jobs, podcasts, which enables you to learn more about legal tech.

I hope you found these resources useful. We also recommend reading our previous article on why legal tech matters to law students, which is available here. Additionally, you can join our Slack Legal Tech Community through this link.

Author: Dalia Saffideen

Thank you for reading this blog and attending our webinar. We will be back with part two, so stay tuned. In the meantime, you can watch the full recording of the webinar here. And follow our Knowledge Management experts to learn more: Yesenia Santiago Egner, Jack Shepherd, Greg Lambert.

Legal technology, or ‘legal tech’ as commonly referred, has been somewhat of a buzzword for a while. What does it actually mean? Legal tech typically refers to any use of technology for the provision of legal services. It encompasses various forms of contributions made by technology, software and artificial intelligence in the legal field. Advancements in technology have impacted every industry, including some of the more traditional ones like the legal industry, as these advancements have affected how we communicate, work, or obtain information. Legal technology has modernized the traditional practices of law by, for example, streamlining case management, legal drafting, providing electronic payment options, or online document storage, among other things. Most of this technology is designed to help attorneys and firms practice law more efficiently on one hand, and on the other hand, to enable individuals to access legal services in a fast, cost-effective manner. 

Advantages of Legal Technology in the Workplace

Legal technology provides several advantages to the private practice space. It allows smaller firms and sole practitioners to automate tasks, leverage powerful research tools, perform more efficiently and by doing so compete with the leading names in the field. Even back in 2015, a PwC report showed that improving the use of technology was the top priority in law firms, especially in the following five areas: 

Increased geographical reach: legal technology is helping law firms go global. The commercialization of some legal services is making it possible for firms to promote their work across borders and diversify their portfolio.

Transparency: through legal technology, clients can now have a clearer view of their case progress, fees and other pertinent information, which thus enables the industry to have a more client-centric approach.

Better use of resources: with legal technology, human resources can be deployed for other tasks. For example, rather than having paralegals working on monotonous document management, legal technology can automate this task thus enabling them to spend more time on more strategic, meaningful work, such as legal research or client work.

Faster processing and time management: it is no surprise that technology is faster and more efficient than the human worker in performing most of the tasks. AI solutions can analyze documents and deliver research results faster, making the overall process more resource efficient.

Error reduction: legal technology and AI are extremely helpful at reducing errors. This is important as such errors can be quite costly in the legal space, especially in cases when we deal with documents to be submitted to courts, or contracts that involve big transactions.

Why Does It Matter to Law Students?

As mentioned earlier, legal tech benefits law firms and is expected to be deployed more widely in the future. Technology has managed to penetrate every industry, making technology-related skills crucial for successful employment. With more businesses becoming reliant on technology, there is no doubt that being ‘tech savvy’ can help students access better job opportunities and have a competitive edge in the market. 

According to a survey by Robert Half Legal, more than 6 in 10 lawyers (62%) that were surveyed said that their hiring decisions are influenced more by job candidates’ technical abilities than their soft skills. As explained by Rob Marrs, after meeting people across the legal profession, most legal businesses will become technology businesses in the medium term. If major clients are moving in that direction, then law students need to be aware of this so they can advise properly in the future. The buzz word prior to training contract interviews is ‘commercial awareness’. 

As suggested by Marrs, commercial awareness increasingly includes the need to understand technology: how will technology affect law firms and in-house organizations in the coming years? How will lawyers utilize technology to serve clients? Legal tech may thus give you a bonus if you talk about it in any training contract or vacation scheme interviews, according to James Yang.

This therefore demonstrates that legal tech skills are not only desirable but will soon be crucial.

Since the pandemic, there has been an increase in virtual and hybrid work environments, which enhances the need for lawyers to be reliant on technology, but also to be trained on effectively leveraging digital solutions.  As demonstrated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, 44% of firms use technology to allow staff to work more flexibility, and solicitors who were required to have law tech skills were paid on average 13% more than those without lawtech skills.

According to Oxford University, 56% of solicitors agree with this statement: ‘lawyers need to become familiar with multiple non-legal specialisms, such as data science, project management, and design thinking’. As a graduate recruitment manager from Clifford Chance, Yasmina Kone explains, people with a technology background or lawyers with an interest in technology is becoming more important in the legal sector for two reasons: (1) the world is becoming more technology-focused and it is great to have trainees join who are already skilled in using technology to solve business problems and have an interest in the legal issues surrounding technology; and (2) having a different background ensures different perspectives, more creative solutions, and thus best client service. 

Ellen Lake, a senior associate at Clifford Chance and involved in the recruitment process echoes this need, by stating that ‘the modern lawyer is expected to have a desire to explore and be open to using legal technology where appropriate in matter delivery. Our recruitment process reflects this.’ This shows that law firms are more interested in recruiting individuals with tech skills as they are believed to be more efficient, proficient, and adapt to meeting the requirements of the ever-growing legal industry.

As we have now discussed the significance of acquiring legal tech skills for law students and entry-level legal professionals, stay tuned for our upcoming blog post that will provide practical tips and guidance on how to actually improve these skills.

Author: Dalia Saffideen

Broadly, alternative legal services are those divergent from the traditional method of hiring attorneys from conventional law firms. Over the past decade, ALSPs have become more prominent, delivering an array of services from document review, legal research, to litigation support. Even though often branded as “New Law,” this term may be a mismatch given how entrenched these services have become, especially considering their decade-long presence in the UK and robust establishment in the US and elsewhere.

What sets ALSPs apart is their offer of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and niche expertise, making them an increasingly attractive option for clients. Initially perceived as competitors, many law firms have now evolved to view ALSPs as collaborators, best exemplified by QuisLex's experience. With over 15 years of operation, QuisLex recalls the early days of competition with traditional firms but notes how proven reliability led to mutual trust and partnership. The driving force behind this shift? Clients' increasing demand for value and efficient management of intricate legal matters, claim ALSPs.

The Array of Services Offered by ALSPs and the Evolving Landscape

The span of services that ALSPs provide has been broad, covering tasks conventionally managed by law firms or internal legal teams. The 2023 Thomson Reuters Report delineated the top ten tasks ALSPs offer corporations in the US, which include: regulatory risk and compliance, legal research, contract management, document review, legal drafting, among others.

Considering the diverse  legal work offered by ALSPs, the industry is transitioning from merely a cost-saving entity to a reliable partner offering expertise and tech-driven solutions. Valued at nearly $14 billion, the ALSP market has seen significant growth over the past six years, with the majority of law firms and corporate law departments employing their services.

Interestingly, the landscape is not homogenous. The report breaks down ALSPs into three distinct types: independent ALSPs, captive ALSPs (internal to law firms), and the Big Four legal service providers. Captive ALSPs, while having the smallest market share, are witnessing the most significant growth, percentage-wise.

Another noteworthy trend is the shift from viewing ALSPs merely as tech solutions providers to consultants on legal technology, underscoring their expanding expertise. This growing sense of collaboration between law firms and ALSPs is palpable.

Glimpsing the Future

As we cast our gaze into the horizon, attempting to decipher the shape of things to come, a few trends seem to emerge in the legal industry. There is a growing sentiment towards collaboration. One can anticipate an era where traditional law firms, ALSPs, and technology vendors come together in seamless partnerships, harmonizing their strengths. The way services are provided might also evolve. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, there will be a shift towards crafting tailored services, laser-focused on addressing specific client needs. And while we are on the topic of tailoring, major corporations might not always look outside for solutions. They could very well cultivate their own ALSP capabilities in-house, weaving a self-reliant fabric for their legal needs.

Implications for the Market 

Stepping back to view the broader market, the implications of these changes become even clearer. In a diversified and tech-driven landscape, standing out won't be a choice, but a necessity. Firms and ALSPs will have to carve out unique value propositions, distinct identities that distinguish them from the rest. And for those firms rigid in their ways, averse to adaptation? Their journey will be a challenging one. The market will not be forgiving, and resisting change could equate to signing one's own obsolescence. Meanwhile, clients, ever more informed and empowered, will no longer be content with just 'good enough'. They will demand innovation, crave speed, and insist on cost-effectiveness. The benchmarks are being raised, and the industry must rise to meet them.

Therefore, while traditional law firms still have their space, ALSPs are carving a niche by offering cost-effective and specialized solutions. Their rise, in collaboration with evolving law firms, is reshaping the legal landscape, ensuring that client needs are met timely and efficiently.

OpenAI's ChatGPT has taken the world by storm, captivating over 100 million users and drawing a staggering 1.8 billion monthly visitors. From paraphrasing to grammar-checking, summarizing to content-writing, AI has revolutionized various industries, and the legal field is no exception. In the legal realm, however, where precision is paramount, ChatGPT's uncanny ability to fabricate facts raises a red flag. After the infamous litigation fiasco surrounding the case Mata v. Avianca, Inc., it is crystal clear that legal professionals cannot and should not place absolute trust in the tool. 

The Case Unveiled

Alleging a knee injury caused by a metal serving cart during a 2019 flight, Robert Mata's case takes a dramatic turn. Avianca swiftly moved to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the expiration of the statute of limitations. However, Mata's legal team submitted objections, in which they cited a series of court decisions to support their argument. But here's the twist: most of the cases in Mata's reply brief were entirely fictional. It was revealed that the research behind the inaccurate brief was not conducted by the lawyer representing the plaintiff, Peter LoDuca, but by his colleague Steven A. Schwartz. A seasoned attorney with over three decades of experience, Schwartz turned to ChatGPT as a tool for finding relevant legal precedents. However, he expressed deep regret over relying on the chatbot, as he was unaware of its potential for generating false information. This way, a New York lawyer found himself entangled in a court hearing due to his firm's use of ChatGPT for legal research.

The Perils of Blind Trust

ChatGPT, while capable of generating text on request, comes with warnings that it may produce inaccurate information. In this case, although the lawyer asked the ChatGPT about the validity of the cases cited, he mistakenly trusted the AI tool's responses without verifying their authenticity – an act, which is definitely reckless for a lawyer. The incident raises concerns about the dangers of accepting AI-generated content without corroborating it through traditional legal research methods.

Lessons Learned

The incident once again shows that legal research is a complex and nuanced process that requires a deep understanding of legal precedent and the ability to navigate a variety of legal databases. Therefore, while AI can be a valuable resource, it should always be used as a supplement rather than a replacement for verified and authentic sources.

The incident serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of blind reliance on artificial intelligence, as the tool's output referenced non-existent legal cases. This is not to say that AI chatbots have no place in legal practice, rather the use of AI chatbots in the legal industry should be approached with common sense. It can certainly increase efficiency and productivity, but it can also lead to unintended legal consequences. Lawyers and legal professionals should exercise caution and vigilance when using these tools, and should always prioritize accuracy and validity when submitting legal documents to the court. Thus, while these tools may have their uses, they cannot replace the expertise and judgment of a skilled legal professional.  

In the fast-paced legal tech landscape, staying up-to-date with the latest trends, innovations, and industry changes is crucial for legal professionals. Attending legal tech conferences provides an invaluable opportunity to remain in sync with the ever-evolving legal tech scene. These conferences serve as a hub where cutting-edge technologies, tools, and services are showcased, discussed, and analyzed. By actively participating in these events, you gain access to firsthand information about emerging trends, innovative solutions, and disruptive advancements, allowing you to stay ahead of the curve.

Skills Development

Legal tech conferences go beyond just keeping you updated on industry trends; they also provide a valuable platform for skills development. These conferences typically offer a range of interactive sessions, including workshops, demos, and hands-on activities that can help enhance your tech skills and deepen your understanding of new tools and technologies. By actively participating, you gain practical experience and insights that directly translate into improved work productivity and the ability to better serve your clients with the most efficient and cost-effective legal solutions.

Meeting partners and investors

Exhibition areas and investor lounges at conferences provide a valuable platform to connect with potential investors, fostering meaningful interactions and expanding the visibility of your company or service. These dedicated spaces offer a secure environment where entrepreneurs can showcase their offerings, engage in productive discussions, and establish valuable connections. By participating in such events, businesses can seize the opportunity to pitch their ideas, attract investment, and gain valuable insights from industry experts. Maximizing the exposure through these venues enables companies to amplify their reach, build credibility, and potentially secure the resources needed for growth and success.

If you're aiming to expand your career opportunities, attending legal tech conferences is a definitive step in the right direction. Our upcoming webinar brings together legal professionals, entrepreneurs and marketing specialists who will provide insider tips and strategies for leveraging such events. Join us on June 1, 11:00 AM ET and receive exclusive discount codes for two prominent legal tech conferences - Legal Innovators California and Legal Geek North America. Don't miss out on some of the biggest legal tech parties of the year.

A class action lawsuit has been initiated against PayPal after a cyber-attack resulted in the exposure of personal and financial information belonging to approximately 35,000 customers. The lawsuit alleges that PayPal, the leading online payment services provider, failed to adequately protect the private information of its users, leaving them susceptible to identity theft and other associated harms. 

PayPal released an official statement shortly after the cyber-attack, which revealed that the incident occurred during the period of December 6 to December 8, 2022. According to the statement, the attackers employed a technique called "credential stuffing" where they used login credentials acquired from one organization to gain unauthorized access to accounts at another entity. Although the company maintains that there is no evidence of personal information misuse or unauthorized transactions, it cannot completely rule out the possibility of third parties accessing and potentially acquiring users' personal information. 

Despite PayPal's attempts to downplay the extent of the potential harm, the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit argue that the company violated the guidelines established by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) by neglecting to implement fundamental security practices and comply with industry data-protection standards. PayPal is facing nine different accusations, including charges of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and negligence per se. The latter refers to a failure to fulfill a duty that is mandated by law, rather than a general legal duty of care, which is typically associated with a standard negligence claim. The claimants seek unspecified monetary damages for breach of several consumer protection laws and request equitable relief in the form of lifetime credit monitoring and identity theft insurance.

In response, PayPal has offered affected users a two-year free subscription to Equifax, a leading consumer credit reporting agency. The subscription includes up to $1,000,000 of identity theft insurance coverage, identity restoration assistance, and other valuable features. The company has further advised users to utilize different passwords for different accounts and turn on two-factor authentication as a precautionary measure to avoid future security incidents.

As PayPal continues to grapple with the aftermath of the cyberattack, the class action lawsuit serves as a stark reminder of the far-reaching consequences of data breaches. With personal and financial information at risk, consumers expect more robust security measures from service providers. As the case unfolds, it remains to be seen how the courts will weigh in on the matter. However, it is clear that the need for adequate cybersecurity measures has never been more pressing, and all organizations should prioritize safeguarding the sensitive information of their users.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is said to be preparing an antitrust lawsuit seeking to block Adobe Inc.’s acquisition of Figma Inc. for $20 billion. The deal is predicted to be one of the largest takeovers of a software startup after Meta Platforms Inc. procured Instagram, a small but rising competitor to Facebook, in 2012.

Figma Inc. is a startup that has rapidly seized a significant market share for designing app and website interfaces. Its popularity can be attributed to its extensive prototyping features, which reduce the amount of manual work involved in creating interface designs. Before Figma was launched, designers usually had to go through multiple iterations of visual assets until finalizing the interface design, but the rising startup introduced tools that facilitate the process more efficiently. In particular, Figma allows designers to animate buttons and perform other tasks, such as resizing ads, without manual coding.

Thanks to these novelties, Figma was on a fast growth trajectory until Adobe – a corporate giant with market capitalization of over $175 billion - announced the proposed acquisition in the years of 2020 and 2021. Although the offers were initially declined, in 2022, Figma decided to accept an offer from Adobe that was double its valuation. This move has been regarded by Wall Street analysts as a sign of intense competitive pressure on Adobe.

The proposed acquisition has raised concerns about its impact on competition in the creative software market, as it would further strengthen Adobe's already dominant position. The Department of Justice has been among the most vocal critics of the deal and is reportedly considering taking a more aggressive approach by filing an antitrust lawsuit. The Biden Administration shares the concern that the acquisition could reduce options for design software used by creative professionals. This is particularly concerning given the increasing importance of digital design in many industries, including technology, advertising, and e-commerce. As a result, the DOJ is closely scrutinizing the deal and weighing its potential impact on competition and innovation in the market.

Despite the criticism and the anticipated lawsuit hurdles, Adobe expects to complete the acquisition of Figma this year and is currently engaging in "constructive and cooperative discussions" with various stakeholders. The spokesperson of Adobe has been relentlessly advocating the deal, claiming that Adobe and Figma have divergent areas of focus. “Figma is a leader in interactive product design, focused on building a collaborative web platform. Adobe is a leader in the creative tools space, helping millions of users create amazing visual content. Together, our vision will help enable millions of consumers to transform their productivity with creativity. We are engaged in constructive and cooperative discussions with regulators in the US, UK and EU, among others,” said the spokesperson. Additionally, Adobe has promised to keep the free-use tier in the program in order not to disrupt Figma's existing development strategy.

While Adobe claims that the deal is harmless, acquiring Figma - a tool that companies use for designing apps and websites and collaborating on ideas - is an audacious step to take a growing competitor off the market, which could result in higher prices. As the lawsuit is yet to be filed, only time will tell how this saga will play out, and whether Figma's acquisition will ultimately benefit or harm the design industry.

The European Commission's proposed Data Act is a highly anticipated legislative initiative aimed at regulating non-personal or industrial data within the European Union (EU). The Act is based on the idea that sharing non-personal data can create a positive cycle within the data economy, which can result in substantial advantages for startups. Greater capacity to generate economic value and to respond to consumer needs right from the outset are a few examples of the benefits the Data Act is expected to bring about.

The Data Act initiative aims to eliminate barriers to data access. It establishes common rules for sharing data from connected products and services, and facilitates data transfers among companies, individuals, and the public sector. It enables customers to easily switch between cloud data-processing service providers, and provides users of connected devices access to data that is often solely collected by manufacturers.

Thierry Breton, the Commissioner for Internal Market, has shed light on the anticipated positive impact the Data Act will bring about. He believes the legislation will unlock a vast trove of industrial data within Europe and help establish a more innovative and prosperous digital economy. Breton emphasized that the Data Act's implementation will ensure that industrial data is shared, stored, and processed in full compliance with European regulations. “So far, only a small part of industrial data is used and the potential for growth and innovation is enormous.” Said Breton. “It [the Data Act] will form the cornerstone of a strong, innovative and sovereign European digital economy.”

While the Data Act is indeed an ambitious goal that startup associations share, there are concerns that several provisions, in their current form, present significant technical and legal challenges. These concerns are centered on the fact that these provisions could create legal uncertainty in how data should be handled and potentially have a negative impact on the quantity and quality of data that startups can gather and process. In order to ensure that the Data Act fosters innovation and growth, startup communities have provided thorough recommendations balancing the incentives and costs involved in the value chain of dataset creation and maintenance. They are recommending that policymakers apply a "litmus test" to the Data Act to assess whether it will attract more entrepreneurs to create and develop their data-intensive startups within the EU.

One of their recommendations is to provide clarity and proportionality on product definition. The startup community believes that the Data Act should remain to exclude products that are primarily designed to display, play, record, or transmit content, such as personal computers, servers, tablets, smartphones, cameras, webcams, sound recording systems, and text scanners. These products require human input to produce various forms of content, such as text documents, sound files, video files, games, and digital maps. The Commission's initiative, as it stands, will offer legal clarity to startups and investors and foster innovation within the EU.

Another recommendation is to provide data sharing obligations in line with the technical and financial realities of startups. The startup community suggests policymakers clarify key concepts to limit the legal burden for startups. For instance, the vast majority of datasets are mixed, containing personal and non-personal data. Policymakers are encouraged to take into account the complexity of designating what is personal or non-personal and applying the respective legal requirements accordingly.

So, although there are several concerns that need further contemplation, it is clear that startups stand to benefit from simplified data access and transfers. To ensure success, policy makers are expected to focus on fine-tuning the data-sharing environment, narrowing the scope of the legislation, and providing clear definitions. Doing so will provide startups with the necessary legal certainty and flexibility to compete and innovate, while also achieving the EU's goal of stimulating a competitive data market, fostering data-driven innovation, and making data more accessible for everyone.

If you're interested to learn more about how the EU is working to protect personal information in the digital space, be sure to check out our blog post on the Digital Services Act. It provides a brief overview of the legislation aimed at ensuring online safety and privacy for all users within the EU.

Since the legal ecosystem is evolving rapidly, it's fundamental to keep up with the latest trends and technology. One of the most significant changes in the legal industry is the use of artificial intelligence and automation to streamline legal processes, such as contract analysis, legal research, and document review. Work towards acquiring new skills and stay updated with emerging technologies to remain competitive. Utilizing tools such as ChatGPT can help you escape from repetitive tasks, increase productivity, and improve efficiency in your work. If you don’t know where to start and what skills are relevant to your field, go on LinkedIn and find job postings that you could be interested in. Take a look at their required skills section and find out which technical skills are the most frequently mentioned. This will give you an idea on what market requirements exist in your industry.

Select the optimal institution for your legal education

Choosing the right legal education plays a big role in succeeding in the legal industry. Apart from acquiring a degree in law, it's essential to focus on developing skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication. Joining a reputable law school can help you gain valuable experience, learn from experienced professionals, and develop essential skills. It is also equally important to seek out internships, volunteer opportunities, and other relevant experiences that can help you build a strong foundation for your career.

Therefore, while starting a career in law can seem intimidating, it can be a rewarding and exciting experience. With the right mindset, education, and skills, you can achieve success in the legal industry and strike the right balance between law and life.

If you want to gain more insights into the intricacies of the legal field, take a look at our recent legal talk hosted by Lawformer, where accomplished legal professionals divulge invaluable hacks and tricks on how to successfully navigate the dynamic legal ecosystem.

The legal industry has witnessed a significant development in the Akin Gump v Xcential lawsuit, as the US court denied Akin Gump’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims filed by Californian legal technology company Xcential Legislative Technologies. The lawsuit centers around who really invented a piece of bill-drafting software, and the recent ruling by D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna is a major victory for Xcential.

Background of the story

Akin Gump had claimed that Xcential's Bill Synthesis software was invented by Louis Agnello, Counsel at Akin Gump. In October, they filed a lawsuit against Xcential claiming damages, alleging that Xcential incorporated a concept presented to them under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) by Agnello into their existing LegisPro software. This idea, as claimed by Akin Gump, involves utilizing suggested redline modifications to an existing legislation to produce a draft bill that complies with the appropriate format for Congressional submission, thereby speeding up the bill drafting process, improving precision, and reducing costs.

In its lawsuit, Akin alleged that Xcential failed to provide a prototype despite numerous discussions and demonstrations. Instead, its CEO and founder Grant Vergottini submitted a patent application for a renamed version of Akin's product called 'Bill Synthesis.' For these reasons, Akin is now seeking damages for various claims, which, among others, include misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of a contract, unjust enrichment, and replevin, which allows for the recovery of wrongfully taken goods.

In response, Xcential filed five counterclaims, and the court dismissed the petition with regard to only one of them. The court found that Xcential had adequately asserted the grounds for a breach of contract (count one); sufficiently alleged all elements in support of a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information (counts two and three); adequately pled a breach of implied contract that would entitle them to relief if proved to be true (count four).

The ruling represents a significant win for Xcential, which claimed it invented the bill-drafting technology alone. Xcential’s Co-founder and CEO, Grant Vergottini, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling and his commitment to protecting the rights of inventors to patent and market their innovative products. “Only Xcential has created software that functions as described in the patent application for Bill Synthesis. We will not be intimidated into surrendering our know-how and intellectual property to a giant law firm like Akin Gump. This litigation should be a warning to all innovative legal technology providers,” said Vergottini.  

Why is this ruling important?

This lawsuit is a reminder of the importance of protecting intellectual property in the legal industry, particularly as technological innovations become increasingly prevalent. With the increasing use of legal technology, it is essential for firms to protect their inventions from misappropriation.

The case also highlights the need for careful consideration of intellectual property ownership when collaborating on new projects. And since the legal industry continues to embrace technological innovations, it is essential for parties to have clear agreements in place regarding ownership and use of intellectual property before beginning any collaborative projects.

The rise of AI technology has captivated the public's imagination, with companies like OpenAI leading the way in creating software that can answer complex questions, produce content and generate art. However, as the technology evolves, so do the potential threats of unregulated AI. In a recent interview with TIME, OpenAI's Chief Technology Officer (CTO), Mira Murati, discussed the limitations and challenges of working with AI, the software's untapped potential, and the need for proper regulations to govern its use.

ChatGPT, OpenAI's AI chatbot, has caused significant hype for its ability to answer questions and engage in conversations that are eerily human-like. In fact, the newly-released GPT-4 scores in the top ranks for at least 34 different tests in fields such as macroeconomics, writing, math, and virology, exhibiting human-level performance on the majority of these professional and academic exams.

However, as with all AI technologies, ChatGPT has its limitations. Murati explains that ChatGPT is essentially a large conversational model that may make up facts in a very confident way, which presents a core challenge. Nevertheless, she is confident that it can revolutionize the way people learn, making education more personalized and accessible.

Murati further acknowledges that it is important to consider the ethical and philosophical questions that arise with its use. “This is a unique moment in time where we do have agency in how it shapes society. And it goes both ways: the technology shapes us and we shape it,” said Murati. This includes questions about how to govern the use of AI in a way that is aligned with human values and how to prevent malicious actors from exploiting the technology. 

The CTO further believes that companies like OpenAI have a responsibility to bring these issues to the public consciousness in a controlled and responsible way. However, she acknowledges that more input is needed from regulators, governments, and other stakeholders to ensure that AI is used safely and responsibly. While there is always a fear that government involvement can stifle innovation, Murati believes that “it is not too early” for policymakers and regulators to get involved and contribute to an effective governance of the AI.

So, stemming from the interview with Mira Murati, we come to understand that AI’s impact will only continue to grow in the future. While there is still uncertainty regarding how AI will be regulated, we should welcome this transformative technology with open arms while also exercising caution. It is essential to recognize that although AI can bring tremendous benefits to society, we should be proactively taking steps to mitigate its potential negative consequences.

The controversy surrounding TikTok began in 2019 when the U.S. government launched a national security review of the app. The review was prompted by concerns that TikTok could be used by the Chinese government to spy on American citizens or influence political discourse. Due to these concerns, the Trump administration tried to ban TikTok in the U.S. in 2020. However, those efforts were stalled in court on the grounds that such a move infringed guarantees of free speech.

Now, with the Biden administration in place, there are renewed calls for TikTok to be banned or at least heavily regulated. In February 2023, the U.S. government gave state agencies 30 days to delete TikTok from federal devices and systems over data security concerns. While this ban only applies to government devices, some lawmakers are advocating for an outright ban on the app. Cybersecurity and privacy concerns around TikTok are not limited to the U.S. Several countries, including Norway, France, the UK, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Belgium, and Denmark, have already banned TikTok on government-owned devices or cautioned their employees against using the app.

TikTok denies these allegations, stating that it collects the same type of user data as other social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram. Besides, over 60% of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors. Shou Zi Chew, CEO of TikTok, testifying at a congressional hearing on 23 March 2023, claimed that the allegations are groundless, since the app protects personal data and prioritizes user safety. “Let me state this unequivocally: ByteDance is not an agent of China or any other country,” said Chew. Because of this, many believe national security concerns are just a cover up and in fact, Zuckerberg is behind the efforts to ban TikTok in the U.S. to eliminate Meta's biggest competitor from the market.

Concerns around the issue

Several legal issues are being discussed in connection with TikTok's future in the U.S. The most important is whether the government has the authority to ban a particular app or platform, since it may interfere with American citizens' right to free speech. Advocates of freedom of expression are predominantly citing the Packingham v. North Carolina case from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017, where the court deemed that even registered sex offenders shall have a right to access the internet and social media, as they are crucial platforms for exchanging ideas in the present-day. On the other hand, while the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression, it does not necessarily apply to private companies or their products. The government has broad powers to regulate interstate commerce, and it could argue that TikTok's Chinese ownership poses a national security risk that justifies a ban.

Some experts argue that a ban could simply lead to the emergence of new, potentially even more dangerous, apps or platforms. Others point out that the global nature of the internet means that a ban in one country is unlikely to prevent access to the app altogether. Despite these concerns, proponents of a ban argue that it is necessary to protect national security and prevent potential harm to users. 

Is there an alternative to an outright ban?

As an alternative to the drastic measure to ban TikTok completely, the government could seek to regulate the app in different ways. For example, it could require the app to be divested from its Chinese parent company and become an independent US-based entity subject to U.S. laws and regulations. Alternatively, it could require TikTok to implement certain privacy and security measures to protect user data and limit potential national security risks.

Therefore, the debate over TikTok's future in the U.S. is far from over. With concerns about national security, censorship, and privacy still looming, the government and private companies must carefully consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions. Whether through an outright ban or regulatory measures, it is crucial to strike a balance between protecting national security interests and respecting the rights of users to free speech and privacy. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected through technology, it is more important than ever to address these complex issues in a nuanced and thoughtful manner.

In the recent groundbreaking ruling that could have far-reaching implications for the world of fashion and digital art, luxury fashion house Hermès has emerged victorious in a landmark legal battle over non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The case marks the conclusion of the first-ever trial examining NFTs and the decision is expected to serve as a precedent for their use in the industry of fashion.

The dispute centered on Mason Rothschild's MetaBirkins, a collection of NFTs that featured digital renderings of Hermès' iconic Birkin bag. Rothschild claimed that the NFTs were a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. “I am not creating or selling fake Birkin bags. I’ve made artworks that depict imaginary, fur-covered Birkin bags,” stated Rothschild on social media. 

In response, Hermès argued that the use of their trademarked Birkin name and design constituted trademark infringement, since it confused the customers and could potentially harm the reputation of the brand. “MetaBirkins sold at the amount they did because of the Birkin name," said Oren Warshavsky, a lawyer representing Hermès. "People spent that money because of the name MetaBirkin, regardless of which NFT they were getting.”

After less than a month of proceedings, the jury seated in the court in Southern District of New York sided with Hermès', awarding the luxury brand $133,000 in damages, ruling that MetaBirkins didn't qualify as protected artwork, rather they were categorized as ordinary consumer goods. The verdict clarified that intellectual property rights extend to digital possessions and NFTs, highlighting the need for creators to respect these rights and seek permission before using a brand's name or image in their work.

What to expect next?

It is no news that the fashion industry has long been a target of counterfeiters, who produce cheap copies of luxury items and sell them at a fraction of the price. Therefore, the Hermès decision is of particular significance for the emerging market of NFTs, which have exploded in popularity in recent years as a means of selling unique digital assets, including art, music, and fashion. As the market continues to grow, brands are expected to take proactive steps to protect their intellectual property and safeguard their business interests in the digital realm.

The Hermès ruling further serves as an implicit warning to NFT creators that intellectual property law is enforceable on the blockchain and underscores the importance of trademarks in protecting a brand's reputation. Therefore, to avoid the risk of costly trademark infringement lawsuits and potentially devastating financial losses, NFT creators will have the Hermès case at hand as a stark reminder to observe intellectual property rights in the digital age.

As technology advances, the internet has transcended our screens and entered a whole new realm: the metaverse. This digital universe is a vibrant space where users, embodied by their avatars, can connect and collaborate in real-time, create digital content, conduct business, and, according to the latest precedent, even attend court hearings.

In a recent groundbreaking move, on February 15 2023, the Magdalena administrative court, based in the northern Colombian city of Santa Marta, held a court session entirely within the metaverse. The case involved a plaintiff who brought a lawsuit against the Colombian Ministry of Defense and the National Police. The court magistrate, María Victoria Quiñones, agreed to the plaintiff's request to hold the public hearing in the digital realm and the defendant also accepted this unprecedented arrangement.

During the hearing, Quiñones emphasized the advantages of the metaverse, noting that it enables "real interaction" and allows for the use of immersive technology to improve the efficiency of procedural cases, all while upholding procedural guarantees and principles of digital justice. Speaking through her virtual avatar, the judge explained that although she was physically alone in her courtroom, her colleagues were joining from their offices, the counsel lawyer was working from home, and the other lawyers had connected from their own premises. The physical distance, however, was not at all disturbing by virtue of the metaverse, which “felt more real” to the participants of the hearing than a Zoom meeting. This is an academic experiment to show that it’s possible, and when everyone consents to it, my court can continue to do things in the metaverse, Quinones told reporters, calling the proceedings in virtual reality “simply amazing.”

One of the most significant advantages of utilizing the metaverse for court proceedings is the ability to circumvent physical confrontations and create a welcoming atmosphere for individuals who may be particularly vulnerable, such as child witnesses. This innovative approach to the judicial process not only prioritizes the comfort and well-being of those involved, but also presents a sophisticated solution to traditional courtroom settings that may sometimes prove intimidating or uncomfortable.

Regardless, this approach has not been immune to criticism and scrutiny. Some deem metaverse to be incompatible for court hearings for its clunky and cartoonish avatars. Others consider the practice “unnecessary” and “complicated.” Responding to this reproval, Francisco Bernante, the president of Colombia's criminal bar association, emphasized that metaverse hearings would not become the standard procedure. Instead, he argued that the technology could make justice "more friendly, efficient, and empathetic to the technology and citizens of the future."

As we look ahead, it's clear that the implementation of metaverse technology in the judicial sector may still be several years away due to current limitations. However, we cannot deny the fact that the metaverse is a dynamic and inventive space that will undoubtedly continue to evolve in the years to come. It's worth considering the possibilities and potential implications that such a technological shift may bring about, even if it's not yet within immediate reach.

Increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led to a series of challenges. Among them is the recent Intellectual Property (IP) litigation directed at AI generator companies. This has emerged as a key issue that requires careful consideration of both legal professionals and AI specialists.

The controversy over AI-generated art and its linkage to IP rights has been brewing for some time already. The rise of GANs (Generative Adversarial Networks) has allowed AI systems to create digital art that resembles traditional art styles, leading some to question whether such systems are essentially copying the work of human artists. The current lawsuit against Stability AI Ltd., reflects these concerns and could have far-reaching implications for the broader AI industry.

Getty Images, a stock photography company, and a trio of artists have initiated separate lawsuits against AI art generators - Stability AI Ltd., Midjourney Inc., and DeviantArt Inc. – for copyright infringement. Getty has accused Stability AI of “brazen infringement of Getty Images’ intellectual property on a staggering scale.” It has claimed that more than 12 million images have been copied by Stability AI from its database “without permission ... or compensation ... as part of its efforts to build a competing business.” Interestingly, some of the outputs generated by Stability AI include distorted versions of the Getty watermark, leading to a potential trademark infringement claim.

In yet another lawsuit, artists - Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz - have claimed infringement of rights of “millions of artists.” “Until now, when a purchaser seeks a new image ‘in the style’ of a given artist, they must pay to commission or license an original image from that artist,” states their attorney, Matthew Butterick. “Now, those purchasers can use the artist’s works along with the artist’s name to generate new works in the artist’s style without compensating the artist at all.”

While the plaintiffs in these cases argue that the AI-generated content is not transformative and constitutes copyright infringement under the law, the defendants argue that the AI-generated content is not a direct copy of the original works and is therefore not in violation of copyright law. They also contend that the AI systems are designed to create novel content that is distinct from the original works.

Determining whether AI art tools infringe on copyright law can be a challenging task. The vast databases from which these AI tools learn may contain images that are protected under the fair use doctrine. As reported by The Verge, the evaluation of potential copyright law violations requires an assessment of both the "inputs" (the images extracted from these databases) and the "outputs" (the images produced by the AI art generators). This is a complex matter that requires a nuanced approach.

With AI-generated artwork becoming more widespread, these disputes are likely to continue arising, and their outcomes could have significant implications for the future of IP rights and AI-generated works. While Some argue that AI-generated art can democratize access to the arts and allow for new forms of artistic expression, others worry that it could devalue human creativity and take away control over the use of one's own work.

International Women’s Day marks a day of global celebration, as people across the world come together to honor the remarkable achievements of women in all their diverse forms and spheres. March 8th is an occasion to reflect on the immense progress that has been made towards gender equality, while also acknowledging that there is still much work to be done to achieve true parity. The legal profession is no exception, and the milestone of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act adopted by UK Parliament in 1919 paved the way for women to finally practice law. Today, we recognize the women who have defined the legal profession throughout history. We celebrate those who have fought tirelessly for justice, equality, and human rights, leaving an indelible mark on the legal profession and inspiring countless girls and women to follow in their footsteps.

Women lawyers from all over the world have contributed to the profession in diverse ways, pushing the boundaries and breaking through barriers. Here, we delve into the contributions of a few extraordinary women in the legal profession, shedding light on their inspiring stories and remarkable achievements.

Among the pantheon of women who have made enduring contributions to the field of law, the inimitable Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood out as a beacon of hope and progress. Also known as “Notorious RBG,” she was a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who dedicated her life to fighting for gender equality and women’s rights. Throughout her career, she worked tirelessly for women’s reproductive rights, equal pay, and equal treatment under the law. As the first tenured female law professor at Columbia and a co-founder of the first law journal on women’s rights, she was a trailblazer for women in the legal profession.

Continuing the legacy of women in the U.S. justice system, Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to serve in the Supreme Court of the United States. Prior to her appointment, women were significantly underrepresented in the legal profession. O’Connor was a champion for gender equality and worked to ensure that women had equal opportunities in the legal field. She became the first woman to have her name attached to a law school. 

No list of women who have shaped the legal profession would be complete without Constance Baker Motley, first African American woman to become a federal judge. She was a key figure in the civil rights movement and played a pivotal role in desegregating schools and public institutions. She worked alongside Thurgood Marshall on landmark cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education, and also argued cases that resulted in the desegregation of Southern schools, universities, and public spaces.

Another notable woman in the legal profession is Cornelia Sorabji, who was the first woman to study at Oxford University and first female to practice law in India in 1894. Despite facing significant challenges and obstacles as a woman in a male-dominated field, Sorabji was admitted to the bar in Bombay and Calcutta and went on to represent the rights of women and children in British India.

In South Africa, Fatima Meer was one of the country’s first female lawyers and a prominent member of the African National Congress (ANC). She worked alongside other activists like Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and Walter Sisulu to end apartheid and achieve democracy in South Africa. She advocated for the rights of women, children, and marginalized communities. Till this day, Meer’s legacy continues to inspire social justice advocates around the world.

These women are a few examples of those who have made significant contributions to the legal profession. From the first women to practice law in the United States, such as Arabella Mansfield and Belva Ann Lockwood, to trailblazers such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, women have played a vital role in promoting justice. Besides, it is not just the women who have practiced law that have made an impact. Women who have worked outside the legal profession, such as activists and politicians, have also advanced the cause of women's rights and gender equality. Women such as Shirley Chisholm, who became the first African American woman elected to Congress, and Gloria Steinem, a feminist icon and founder of Ms. Magazine, have used their platforms to promote social change and challenge gender norms.

At Lawformer, we understand the importance of recognizing the remarkable achievements of women lawyers. We believe that gender equality and women's empowerment are not only fundamental human rights but are also essential for achieving social justice and building a better future for all. As a female-owned start-up, we are proud to be a part of the movement for gender equality and are committed to promoting and supporting women in the legal profession around the world.

With the rapidly evolving technological landscape, it's becoming increasingly important for professionals in all industries to integrate digital tools into their daily lives. The legal profession is no exception. With the rise of e-discovery, contract management software, online research, and remote work, lawyers are expected to be proficient in technology in order to effectively deliver services to their clients. 

While there’s no official legal requirement for lawyers to be tech-savvy, it is certainly an expectation of today's legal market. As clients are expecting increasing efficiency of legal services, lawyers who are not familiar with basic technology tools such as word processing, email, and online research will find themselves at a disadvantage. This has become evident as courts and regulatory agencies are increasingly relying on electronic filing and other technology-based systems, which means that lawyers who do not keep up, may struggle to navigate these processes. As ignorance of the law is no excuse, in the same vein, it is now becoming clear that unfamiliarity with technology can no longer be a defense for lawyers who wish to maintain a successful and competitive law practice in the modern era.

In fact, many states in the U.S. have now incorporated technology competence into their ethical rules for lawyers. For example, in 2012, the American Bar Association amended the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to include a comment on technology competence. The comment 8 to Rule 1.1. states that "a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." The comment goes on to explain that technology competence involves "an understanding of the risks and benefits associated with the use of technology, including its impact on confidentiality, security, and the potential for unauthorized access to client information." This means that lawyers must not only be proficient in using technology but shall also be aware of the potential risks and take appropriate measures to protect client data. 

In addition to ethical considerations, there are practical reasons why lawyers should be tech-savvy. For instance, contract drafting and management represent essential components of legal practice that necessitate meticulous attention to detail and comprehensive understanding of contractual language and legal frameworks. In the era of customized contract resources available online, lawyers who lack the expertise to effectively leverage these tools may have difficulty drafting and negotiating contracts that accurately convey the parties' intentions or managing contractual relationships efficiently. Finally, being tech-savvy can help legal professionals be more efficient and effective in their work. Technology tools such as practice management software, document automation, and online collaboration platforms can assist lawyers with streamlining their workflows and improving communication with clients and colleagues. 

Therefore, to thrive as a legal professional in today's world, there is an inherent obligation to stay informed and abreast of the latest technological advancements. This entails investing time in familiarizing ourselves with tools such as practice management software, document automation, and online collaboration platforms. However, the responsibility of adapting to the ever-changing technological landscape should not fall solely on the shoulders of lawyers. It is incumbent upon educational institutions and state authorities to be proactive in facilitating the integration of technology in the legal sector. The state of Florida, for instance, has mandated that lawyers complete 33 hours of technology training, while Suffolk University Law School has instituted a Legal Innovation and Technology Certificate program that incorporates online courses on technology. These initiatives serve as prime examples of how legal practitioners can be incentivized to enhance their productivity through a comprehensive understanding of technology.

To learn more about developing the right skills for launching a successful legal career, sign up for our upcoming legal talk, taking place on March 7, 10:00 AM PST.

The New York State Bar Association's Committee on Attorney Advertising, Solicitation, and Professional Notices has recently issued an opinion on whether revenue-producing YouTube videos made by legal practitioners constitute advertising even if the videos carry educational value. The opinion provides guidance for lawyers to prevent disciplinary actions by the state bar, including but not limited to, suspension or revocation of the lawyer's license to practice law.

While legal professionals are allowed to advertise, the New York Rules of Professional Conduct requires them to comply with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Namely, their videos should not: mislead the public, contain false or unsubstantiated claims and be overly promotional. Lawyers shall also include a disclaimer in their videos indicating that they are advertising materials and that the results obtained in the video are not necessarily indicative of the results that will be achieved in a particular lawsuit. Further, according to the opinion, lawyers shall also be mindful of their ethical obligations when creating videos, including their duty of confidentiality to clients and their duty to avoid conflicts of interest. 

However, if the video is purely educational and does not contain any promotional content - then it is equated with writing articles or giving lectures and is not subjected to advertising disclaimer. “Topical newsletters, client alerts, or blogs intended to educate recipients about new developments in the law are generally not considered advertising,” stated the Committee. However, if “YouTube videos include information about the lawyer and their law practice for the primary purpose of obtaining new clients, then such videos would constitute advertising.”

This opinion is particularly relevant for lawyers in New York who are considering using YouTube as a marketing tool. It provides helpful guidance on how to comply with the advertising rules and ethical obligations when creating content. However, it also raises questions about the scope of the rules and the extent to which they apply to YouTube. As more lawyers turn to online platforms to promote their services, it will be interesting to see how state bar associations and regulatory bodies adapt their rules and guidelines to keep up with these changes.

Imagine you are a writer tasked with producing a story about a world that does not exist. You have the characters and the plot mapped out, but you are struggling to come up with the descriptive details that will make the story come alive. Technologies such as Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) can help you create vivid, realistic descriptions that transport your readers to the imaginary world of your story. Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence that can create new content, such as images, videos, and even texts, by learning from patterns in existing data. While search engines such as Google merely generate a list of sources, Generative AI curates, integrates, synthesizes, and produces a well-written, grammatically-correct, and cross-disciplinary work product in a matter of seconds. In light of the digital revolution Generative AI is predicted to bring about, human adaptation to these changes remains a key issue in various professions. And the legal industry is no exception.

The legal sector is known for its dependence on traditional methods. With the rise of Generative AI and other advanced innovations such as ChatGPT, the inherent conservatism of the industry is continuously challenged. “I think it is the beginning of a paradigm shift,” says David Wakeling - head of London-based law firm Allen & Overy's markets innovation group. “I think this technology is very suitable for the legal industry.”

Law has always been a data-driven profession, where lawyers, judges, legalOps and other legal professionals need to analyze and understand vast amounts of information to make informed decisions. The traditional methods of legal research and document drafting are time-consuming and costly. With the rise of generative AI and other advanced tools, the legal industry has the opportunity to automate these processes, thereby improving accuracy and increasing efficiency. Generative AI could be used to draft legal documents, review contracts, and conduct legal research. According to statistics gathered from leading consulting firms, AI-powered tools can automate up to 60% of the tasks performed by lawyers and paralegals. In the next decade, it can save the legal industry more than 8 billion USD and reduce document review time by 75-90%.

Such technological trends instill a legitimate fear in many individuals regarding their job displacement. Deloitte has projected that by 2036, approximately 100,000 legal positions will be automated. However, automation is not threatening every position in the field. According to Daniel Sereduick, a data protection lawyer based in Paris, AI will continue to be utilized for routine tasks that have until now been carried out by paralegals and entry-level lawyers. However, there will continue to be a need for higher-skilled legal professionals capable of interacting with clients, making strategic decisions and employing critical thinking.

While it cannot be questioned that AI tools have the potential to revolutionize the legal industry, they also raise a number of legal and ethical questions. For example, who is liable if a generative AI system creates a document that contains errors or inaccuracies? How can the legal industry ensure that these tools are used ethically and fairly, without infringing provisions on personal data protection? And how can the legal industry prevent these tools from perpetuating bias and discrimination? In Europe, these concerns are especially significant. The use of AI may violate the principles outlined in the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which imposes limitations on the collection and processing of individuals' data by companies. In this regard, Italy's Data Protection Agency recently intervened to prevent Replika, a generative AI chatbot, from using its users' personal data.

That being the case, the future of the legal industry will undoubtedly be shaped by the rise of Generative AI. Through strategic planning and meticulous oversight, the legal sector can harness the power of this technology to relieve lawyers of time-consuming and repetitive tasks, thereby enhancing efficiency, effectiveness and value of their work. However, the transformational potential of Generative AI does not come without challenges. It is incumbent upon legal professionals to navigate these challenges and ensure that the evolution of the industry serves the interests of all stakeholders.  

Over the past decade, the legal industry has undergone a significant transformation. During this time, we have seen the rise of online legal services, the adoption of e-discovery software, and the use of artificial intelligence for streamlining legal processes. As we look ahead, the pace of change shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, we are likely to see a new wave of legal tech trends that will transform the way lawyers and legal professionals work at an accelerated rate. From cloud-based technology to online dispute resolution, let's take a closer look at some of the key legal tech trends for this year.

Cloud-based Technology

One of the most important legal tech trends in 2023 is going to be the widespread adoption of Cloud-based technology. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of law firms and legal departments transition to the Cloud-based applications to facilitate remote work. By storing data in the Cloud, law firms can access legal information from anywhere, collaborate in real-time, and reduce their reliance on paper-based documents. According to Gartner, Inc., the global expenditure on public cloud services is expected to rise by 20.7% in 2023, reaching a total of $591.8 billion, which is an increase from $490.3 billion in 2022.

AI and Automation

Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation will continue to expand in the legal industry in 2023. AI-powered tools will enable lawyers to analyze large volumes of data more quickly, automate repetitive tasks, and make better use of their time. By utilizing AI tools, companies can reduce the time spent managing endless stacks of documents and streamline the process of contract analysis, legal research, and document review.

Blockchain 

In 2023, blockchain technology will become more widely used in the legal sector. Blockchain technology has the power to transform the legal industry by providing decentralized digital ledgers for verifying and recording transactions without involving a central authority. With smart contracts and a digital land registry, blockchain technology can be used to verify ownership and transfer of property, reducing errors, fraud, and making the transfer process more efficient.

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) 

Online dispute resolution (ODR) will continue to grow. ODR platforms offer an efficient and cost-effective way for parties to resolve disputes online, without the need for face-to-face meetings. This technology can help reduce the backlog of cases in court systems and provide access to justice for more people. One of the leading examples has been the ODR platform within the European Union, which is used by consumers and traders to resolve disputes related to online purchases. The platform facilitates communication between the parties and allows them to find a mutually acceptable solution to their disputes. 

Cybersecurity 

Cybersecurity remains a major challenge for law firms, with sensitive records being exposed and global financial losses exceeding $1 trillion per year. Confidentiality is crucial for legal professionals, who have a duty to protect clients' sensitive information. A top legal tech trend for 2023 is making cybersecurity easier for attorneys. This is made possible through increased investments in tech resources such as secure communication and document sharing tools. Therefore, with the increasing use of technology in the legal industry, cybersecurity will inevitably become a key focus in 2023. Law firms and legal departments will need to take proactive steps to protect their clients' data and ensure that their networks and systems are secure.

Technology will continue to revolutionize the legal sector by enhancing the accessibility, affordability, and efficiency of legal services. One benefit of this is that individuals will be able to access legal services more efficiently and at a lower cost. On the other hand, technology will revolutionize the workflow of attorneys and law firms, giving them tools to automate mundane tasks and focus on what matters most. However, being able to take advantage of this transformation, will require a combination of technical skills and flexible, growth-oriented culture. 

Lawformer remains at the forefront of the legal tech revolution. Using our platform, attorneys can create complex legal documents in a few simple steps. Allowing them to optimize their workflow and free up time for strategic planning. Our qualified attorneys have drafted and compiled all key legal resources so that you do not have to. Join us today and enjoy the benefits of the technology-enabled transformation.  

The legal industry was shaken to its core as technology made an unprecedented leap forward in 2023 with the introduction of an AI-powered “robot lawyer” as a legal representative in court. The initiative was cut short soon after the news made headlines, due to a threat by "State Bar prosecutors," who warned the creator of the chatbot that they could face prison time. Although the experiment was foreclosed before its implementation, many are left questioning what such initiatives could mean for the future of lawyers.

Introduced by a British startup DoNotPay, the “robot lawyer” was initially created to provide legal assistance to customers in dealing with late fees or fines, canceling subscriptions and more. In 2020 the company shifted its focus towards incorporating AI into their daily operations, with the objective to reduce the costs of legal assistance and representation in courts. “It’s all about language, and that’s what lawyers charge hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to do,” said Joshua Browder, the CEO of DoNotPay. 

The “robot lawyer” is programmed to be operated via a smartphone, capable of listening to court arguments and providing advice to the defendant through earplugs on what to say during the proceedings. For the court session scheduled on 22 February 2023, the company had even agreed that if the defendant lost the case, DoNotPay would cover the fine and compensate the customer. While the experimental case may have been shelved, Joshua Browder recently announced on Twitter that DoNotPay is simply postponing its return to the courtroom. With its innovative robot lawyer technology, DoNotPay's plans for the future continue to pique our interest eagerly anticipating its next move.

Although there are already a handful of AI applications assisting lawyers in their work, an AI-powered lawyer would be the first of its kind capable of representing a defendant in court. On the one hand, an AI-powered lawyer would be able to learn from previous cases and use that knowledge to provide more accurate and efficient legal advice for a lower price, however, critics argue that AI would fail to understand the nuances of human language, including slang, sarcasm, and other forms of communication that may not be obvious to a machine. Besides, the problem of ensuring that the AI-powered lawyer operates within the ethical and legal boundaries of the legal profession persists. For example, the system would need to maintain client confidentiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

Despite these concerns, the experiment has shown that technology has the potential to transform the legal industry, and it remains to be seen how AI-powered lawyers will fit into the larger picture. As Browder noted, there may be a need for traditional lawyers to argue complex cases in court, but many routine legal tasks may be better suited for automation. The future of legal representation is still up for debate, but one thing is clear: the role of technology in the legal profession will continue to grow and evolve in the years to come.

Picture a business landscape where confidential information is at risk of being leaked, leaving a company vulnerable to outside threats. Does not sound ideal if you run a business, does it? The unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, among others, may entail damaged business relationships and reputation, and even result in legal liability and loss of competitive advantage. This is where Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) step in, serving as the unsung hero in the protection of a company's confidential information.

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a legal contract between two parties in which one or both agree to keep certain information shared between them confidential. NDAs are commonly used in business to protect sensitive information such as trade secrets, business plans, and proprietary data from being disclosed to unauthorized third parties. By signing an NDA, both parties are legally bound to keep the information confidential, which can provide a significant competitive advantage. In fact, the corporate giant Apple has become known for being one of the most private companies in the world. The company keeps its technology and future products under tight wraps to prevent competitors from copying its innovations and trade secrets.  All of these by virtue of NDAs – also used as a marketing tool to generate excitement and anticipation for new product/feature releases.

While on the surface NDAs may appear like the perfect solution for any businesses, the reality is that their use and effectiveness are a matter of varying opinions. In particular, some believe that NDAs are often overused and can stifle creativity and collaboration, especially in cases where the term “confidentiality” is obscurely construed and broadly applied. In other words, if a company lists "any information obtained at work" as protected information, and the NDA is indefinite, a court will probably rule against this company in the event of a legal dispute. The critics also argue that asking employees to sign NDAs for special projects can lead to feelings of mistrust and dissatisfaction with the company.

A number of recent developments in the U.S. and Europe have prompted questions about NDAs, resulting in the proposal of new regulations that seek to limit their use in certain circumstances. For instance, in recent years, NDAs have come under scrutiny in the U.S. due to concerns about their use in settlement agreements in cases of sexual harassment and abuse. In this regard, President Biden signed the Speak Out Act, which makes an NDA unenforceable in contexts where claims relate to sexual assault or sexual harassment. The European Union has also been considering new regulations regarding the use of NDAs in employment contracts. The proposed regulations would limit the use of NDAs to protect confidential information that is truly sensitive and cannot be protected through other means. These regulations would also require companies to inform employees of their right to report potential legal violations, even if they have signed an NDA.

While such matters persist, it is important to consider all sides of the issue and make an informed decision on whether NDAs are right for your business. It is also important for employees to carefully read the NDA and ask questions, clarifications and corrections where needed.  Hence, if due consideration is given to their limitations and potential consequences, the latest developments in the field can help effectively navigate the complex world of NDAs.

So, it is safe to say that behind every successful business is a well-kept secret - one that's protected by NDAs. The importance of protecting confidential information in business cannot be overstated. By securing trade secrets and confidential data NDAs serve as a vital tool in maintaining a company's competitive advantage. While weighing the potential consequences of not having an NDA in place, let us ponder the crucial role these agreements have played in the success of countless businesses.

If you would like to learn how to draft a high-quality NDA for your business or clients, you can download our free, attorney-drafted NDA guide + template here.

While one can argue that getting rid of the harmful content is the cornerstone of the regulation, others might consider that banning targeted ads, which use sensitive information, is the main objective. The DSA imposes a duty-of-care obligation, including regular risk assessments and reporting, on “very large online platforms,” recognizing the potential risks they pose to fundamental rights. Platforms are also required to clearly label every ad with information about the buyer and other details, making advertising more transparent. Companies like Twitter, which rely heavily on advertising revenue, have stated they intend to continue using targeted ads, which is potentially against the DSA. Such statements have us eagerly anticipating what will happen over the next few months. 

Due to significant changes that the widespread application of this Regulation across the EU’s territory will bring, the DSA has already sparked a heated debate with far-reaching implications for the technology industry and the future of the digital single market. While some argue that the regulations will stifle innovation and harm the tech industry, others believe that they are necessary to address the challenges posed by the digital economy, including illegal content, counterfeit goods, and the protection of personal data.

Currently, as the Digital Services Act (DSA) has become effective, online platforms have until 17 February 2023 to report the number of active users on their website to the Commission. The Commission will use this information to decide if a platform should be considered a large online platform or search engine. If labeled as such, the platform will have four months to follow the rules set by the DSA, including doing an annual risk assessment and reporting it to the Commission. On 17 February 2024, all entities covered by the DSA must be fully compliant with its regulations, as EU Member States are set to have their Digital Services Coordinators in place by then.

Stay tuned for further updates on the development of the DSA to capture its impact on fostering a safer internet space across the whole EU. 

In a 2010 interview with the Washington Post, Mark Zuckerberg claimed that Facebook would give its users better control of their data by adding more simple privacy features and an easy way to turn off all third-party services. However, Facebook - Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 demonstrated that these promises had failed to come into existence. The investigation showed that Facebook had allowed the third party (Cambridge Analytica) to harvest the data of millions of users, without them being aware of it. More recently, Meta-owned Instagram was fined €405m for violating children's data privacy by facilitating the publication of the child user’s phone number and/or email address as well as by making some child data public.

Data protection legislation makes it clear that using someone's personal information without their knowledge and consent is illegal. Article 7 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) mandates that the consent must be clear, informed, specific, unambiguous and withdrawable. A particularly problematic situation arises if illegally transferred data is later used to profile a large number of users, target them with tailored political ads, and affect their voting decisions as a result. 

Why is our personal data so valuable?

In 2017, the Economist published a story titled "the world's most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data". Since then, a great deal of discussion has focused on the reasons for such demand for data and the need to regulate big tech. A study conducted by Cambridge’s Psychometrics Centre and Microsoft Research proved that statistical models are able to predict personal details using Facebook Likes alone. Using only a few information points, these models demonstrate high accuracy in determining personal and sensitive details, such as male sexuality 88%, political affiliations 85%, religious beliefs 82%.

Such profiling successfully serves one inherent purpose, to gradually modify users’ behaviors and sell them products, services and narratives that they never intended to buy. Hence, It is no surprise that social media companies view their customers as a source of income, having attributed different values to individual users: for Google you are worth $182, for Facebook $158 and for Amazon the value is as high as $733. 

So, how do we make sure that using these ‘seemingly’ free online services does not turn us into digital products? Particularly in an environment where one cannot even check the weather forecast without being chased by ads for raincoats, umbrellas, and sunscreen.

Explore more legal content every day by following Lawformer on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

Meta claims that the inquiry focused on old settings that they had updated over a year ago and they have since released multiple features to enhance the safety of children and keep their information private. In a statement to RTÉ a Meta spokesperson said: "Anyone under 18 automatically has their account set to private when they join Instagram, so only people they know can see what they post, and adults can’t message teens who don’t follow them. "While we’ve engaged fully with the DPC throughout their inquiry, we disagree with how this fine was calculated and intend to appeal it. We’re continuing to carefully review the rest of the decision."

Although Meta plans to appeal the decision, organizations working on child safety recognize the decision as a step toward safeguarding children's safety online. These organizations actively advocate for the adoption of the Online Safety Bill by the new prime minister of the UK, which is meant to give children strongest possible protection against online threats.

In 2018, the United States (‘US’) Department of Defense submitted a legislative proposal to the US Congress outlining the establishment and structure of the US Space Force (‘USSF’). Does the Establishment of Specialized Space Military Corps Ipso Facto Violate International Law?

Source: Opinio Juris

After capturing Kabul on August 15, 2021, Taliban authorities have imposed severe restrictions on women’s and girls’ rights, suppressed the media, and arbitrarily detained, tortured, and summarily executed critics and perceived opponents, among other abuses. What is the solution?

Source: Human Rights Watch

Facebook faced political scrutiny recently after it was revealed the company had handed over private messages between a young woman and her mother to Nebraska authorities investigating the death and disposal of a fetus. How can tech companies deal with Search warrants for abortion data?

Source: The Washington Post

Almost 1.5 million victims of crime in England and Wales have decided not to pursue their cases, feeding concern that public confidence in the criminal justice system has collapsed. The figures come after the police’s official inspectorate said that a failure to stop thieves and burglars threatens police’s “bond of trust” with the public.

Source: The Guardian

It seems almost certain that we are heading into an economic downturn. Less clear is what impact the slowdown will have on the legal job market. What Impact will the downturn have on legal hiring, and what can you do to prepare?

Source: Law.com

Is AI putting lawyers out of business? If the AI continues to eliminate starting positions of paralegals and research assistants, it is interesting to see how the beginners will manage to still obtain the practical training that is so vital for climbing the legal career staircase.

Source: Lawformer

Only three months after Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainian courts delivered the first convictions for war crimes committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine since February 2022. Prosecuting war crimes: are Ukrainian courts fit to do it?

Source: EJIL: Talk

The Dutch parliament approved legislation to establish work-from-home as a legal right, making the Netherlands one of the first countries to grant remote working flexibility by law.

Source: Bloomberg UK

Millions of people around the world illegally download and stream digital content. This, in legal terms, is called piracy, or violation of intellectual property rights. Despite the fact that piracy is illegal, many argue it is not immoral. Is downloading pirated content the same as stealing?

Source: Lawformer

Thank you for reading our weekly summary. Follow our social media to discover more legal content every day.

Digital TV Research suggests that the amount of revenue lost to piracy has increased from $6.7 billion (2010) to nearly $31.8 billion (2018), while the TV Piracy Forecast’s report estimates that the figure will reach US$52 billion by the end of 2022.

Millions of people around the world illegally download and stream digital content. This, in legal terms, is called piracy, or violation of intellectual property rights. Despite the fact that piracy is illegal, many argue it is not immoral. For example, fundamentalist libertarians believe that all ideas and artistic creations should be held in the public domain, freely accessible to all. They argue that intellectual property restricts free circulation of ideas and expressions that the society could benefit from.

Others think that illegal downloading is the equivalent of stealing, and not only it imposes significant legal costs to the creators, but also discourages them from continuing their work. A number of countries have aggressive policies in place to prevent online piracy. Australia, for example, often shows this message before movies:

“You wouldn’t steal a car, you wouldn’t steal a handbag, you wouldn’t steal a television, you wouldn’t steal a movie. Downloading pirated films is stealing.”

Those in the centre believe that there is still a difference between downloading illegal content and stealing someone’s coat. Due to the virtual nature of it piracy, a lot of people are not even aware that they are committing an illegal act by downloading a film they want to watch. After all, we are told so much about the free nature of the internet. The key difference between piracy and actual stealing is that when you download the content, you do not exclude the owner or anyone else from using it, while in case of stealing a tangible item, you claim it entirely for yourself and everyone else, including the rightful owner is excluded from enjoying it.

Some even suggest that illegal file sharing might in fact be beneficial for the owners. It is true that by downloading the film illegally, you avoid paying the fee to the owner, but the more accessible the product becomes by massive sharing, the more people will want to consume it, which increases its popularity.

In reality, radical approaches to the issue of privacy often lack common sense, and a balance must be struck between protecting intellectual property and imposing sanctions similar to those imposed on common thieves. Such sanctions, on the other hand, need to differentiate between different types of intellectual property, the implications of illegal sharing and the reasonable ways of regulating it. 

Leave a comment and tell us where you stand on issues related to online privacy.

Source: UN News

The Russian Federation recently adopted a law obliging banks and state agencies to hand over their clients’ biometrics, including facial images and voice samples to the government database. 

Source: OpinioJuris

The Supreme Court will not allow the Biden administration to implement an immigration policy that prioritizes deportation of people arriving in the US illegally who pose the greatest public safety risk. 

Source: Guardian Law

On Wednesday, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sought a court order to block Facebook parent Meta Platforms from purchasing virtual reality (VR) firm Within Unlimited. 

Source: Lawyer Monthly

A month has passed since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. What has happened since and what it means for abortion rights?

Source: Lawformer

The Law Commission of England and Wales provisionally suggests that the English law should explicitly recognize a category of legal objects alongside 'things in possession' and 'things in action'. This is to cope with digital assets such as cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens. 

Source: The Law Society Gazette

Is It Time to Get rid of the Billable Hour? The blog explores whether it is time to get rid of the billable hour in the legal profession, what issues they present and how to address them in a more efficient manner. 

Source: Lawyer Monthly

Twitter Inc. scored an early win against Elon Musk in its fight to make him complete his $44 billion buyout, as a Delaware judge agreed to fast-track the case with an October trial date.

Source: Bloomberg

Thank you for reading our weekly summary. Follow our social media to discover more legal content every day.

In the recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court deliberated that the constitution did not expressly or implicitly protect the right to access abortion. It said: “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”. Judge Samuel Alito wrote that “abortion couldn’t be constitutionally protected. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law.”

Human Rights Implications

A recent Supreme Court decision opens the door to individual states to heavily regulate or outright ban the abortion. As a result, thirteen states (Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming) have already banned abortions and it is predicted that a total of 26 states will follow.

It is important to understand access to abortion in conjunction with other important human rights, such as privacy, security, nondiscrimination and so on. Since the Supreme Court has restricted the right to abortion for millions of women, it is intriguing how the US will continue to meet international human rights standards that guarantee access to safe abortion procedures.