AI-Assisted Legal World

Preparing Law Students For A New, AI-Assisted Legal World

/in /by

Preparing Law Students For A New, AI-Assisted Legal World

Insights

AI-Assisted Legal World

Law360

Preparing Law Students For A New, AI-Assisted Legal World

November 15th, 2023

By Daniel Garrie, Ryan Abbott and Karen Silverman

The legal profession is no stranger to change. From the invention of the printing press to the dawn of the internet, each technological revolution has reshaped how legal professionals work.

Today, another seismic shift is underway as artificial intelligence emerges as a powerful tool in the legal landscape.

A recent study from the University of Minnesota Law School highlighted this transformation, showcasing how AI — specifically, GPT-4, a large language model — aided low-performing law students in improving their exam scores on multiple-choice questions. However, with AI assistance, high-performing students saw a decline in their essay scores.[1]

The findings suggest a potential equalizing effect of AI within the legal profession, which hints at the broader implications of integrating AI in legal education.

This article will delve into the convergence of legal education and AI, exploring the methodologies to train future lawyers with AI and the myriad challenges that may ensue.

The Role of AI in Legal Education

Law schools across the globe are beginning to integrate AI into their curricula, aiming to prepare students for a future where AI plays a central role in legal practice. Here are some ways that AI can and is transforming legal education.

Personalized Learning

AI-powered adaptive learning platforms can give students a more tailored learning experience catering to their strengths and weaknesses. These platforms can suggest or generate personalized content and exercises by analyzing students’ past performance and learning preferences, improving educational outcomes.

Virtual Simulation and Scenario-Based Learning

AI can facilitate immersive and interactive learning experiences through virtual simulations and chatbots. These platforms can simulate real-world legal scenarios and provide instant feedback, allowing students to develop improved problem-solving and critical thinking skills in a controlled setting.

To read the full article, go to Law360

Don’t Rush to AI and ML Without a Governance Framework

Don’t Rush to AI and ML Without a Governance Framework

/in /by

Don’t Rush to AI and ML Without a Governance Framework

Insights

Don’t Rush to AI and ML Without a Governance Framework

Security Current

Don’t Rush to AI and ML Without a Governance Framework October 26, 2023


By David Cass

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning yields tremendous benefits. But as with any transformational technology that can affect human lives and societal structures, there are attendant governance challenges.

Effective governance of AI and ML requires a blueprint to ensure these technologies are used safely, ethically, and responsibly. Understanding the risks associated with these technologies, such as biases, potential misuse, and privacy concerns, is essential. A governance framework will help ensure our organizations have transparency and accountability in their implementation of AI and ML, and they promote the responsible use of these technologies to avoid misuse or unintended consequences.

Having a framework also helps to build trust among the general public and the organization’s stakeholders regarding the deployment of AI and ML. You need to have a standard against which you will be measured.

Key components you need for an effective AI/ML governance framework include:

* Clear objectives. There should be well-defined goals and principles to ensure that any AI or ML introduced is fair, reduces bias, and adheres to the ethical principles you define.

* Clearly defined roles and responsibilities. You want to make sure that you delineate the roles and responsibilities of those involved in developing, deploying, monitoring, and testing AI models.

* Data management. Guidelines on data collection have to be clearly spelled out. What data are being collected? How are data being stored? How are data being processed? How are they being used?

*Implementing transparency. How do you document the processes? How do you document the algorithms and the data sources that are used? This will help you explain the model and potentially explain decisions it may make if you’re called before a board of directors, congressional committee, or some other regulatory or governing body.  You need to be able to reconstruct what happened, not just from a regulatory point of view, but to ensure there’s nothing wrong with the model.

To read the full article, go to Security Current

 
Ethical Principles Must Undergird AI

Ethical Principles Must Undergird AI

/in /by

Ethical Principles Must Undergird AI

Insights

Ethical Principles Must Undergird AI

Security Current

Ethical Principles Must Undergird AI

November 1, 2023

 

By David Cass

Artificial intelligence needs to be deployed in a way that benefits humanity. That requires looking beyond the short-term model to long-term use and AI’s widescale impact on the broader society.

As the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning grows, so, too, will the deployment of automated decision-making systems that could greatly impact well-being, privacy, and livelihood. Organizations must, therefore, develop ethical principles to guide the design, development, and deployment of AI and ML systems to ensure that the power of these technologies is used responsibly.

This is a two-stage process. Stage one is developing the principles. Stage two defines the various core AI ethics principles that will guide the organization.

When developing the principles, the first step is to get multidisciplinary input from a mixed community of ethicists, technologists, legal experts, and sociologists. Representatives of affected communities — for example, health care or finance — also have to be involved to guarantee there’s a comprehensive understanding of the potential implications for its use.

The second step would be a broader public consultation if it’s an AI or ML model that impacts society at large. Public consultations, such as a town hall, can offer insights from ordinary citizens who might be affected while helping to foster trust in the use of AI and ML.

Regularly reviewing ethical principles is critical because AI is evolving so quickly, and they need to remain relevant.

It’s also important to put a feedback mechanism in place to ensure that the AI developers, users, and affected individuals can provide observations and critiques on the AI systems and their implications once they’re deployed. It’s important to know whether the system is working as expected.

To read the full article, go to Security Current

 
AI and ML

Cutting Costs, Not Corners: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning on Attorneys and Clients Alike

/in /by

Cutting Costs, Not Corners: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning on Attorneys and Clients Alike

Insights

AI and ML

Daily Journal

Cutting Costs, Not Corners: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning on Attorneys and Clients Alike

 

September 2023

By Daniel Garrie and Jennifer Deutsch

We stand on the brink of a transformative era. The legal sector, traditionally resistant to change, is now embracing a powerful ally – artificial intelligence (AI). With its impressive ability to automate tasks, assist in case analysis, and deliver substantial cost savings, AI is proving beneficial for attorneys, their clients, and parties without legal representation.  

The term ‘AI’ might conjure visions of sci-fi movies and complex techno-babble. However, in reality, its principle is straightforward—emulating human intelligence in machines programmed to learn and problem-solve. For the legal field, this means saving time and money, making services accessible to many more people. 

The Legal Profession’s Silent Partner 

To understand the potential of AI in legal practice, we need to decode its role in everyday legal work. Time is a valuable commodity for lawyers. Lawyers spend most of their time not in dramatic courtroom showdowns, but in meticulous document review – reading, interpreting, cross-referencing. 

Now imagine an AI-powered software tool capable of comprehending and analyzing these documents at an incredible pace. The prospect is tantalizing for lawyers, offering unparalleled speed and accuracy. These programs can sift through thousands of pages of legal text, identifying relevant information and drawing connections faster than any human. With AI handling these mundane tasks, attorneys can redirect their energy and time to other crucial aspects of their cases. 

A Strategic Advantage for Legal Firms 

For law firms, the benefits of AI go beyond mere time savings. Incorporating AI into daily operations is a strategic move, allowing firms to differentiate themselves from competitors.

To read the full article, go to Daily Journal

 
SEC Cybersecurity Regulations

Balancing Risk and Compliance: The Implications of SEC’s New Cybersecurity Regulations

/in /by

Balancing Risk and Compliance: The Implications of SEC’s New Cybersecurity Regulations

Insights

SEC Cybersecurity Regulations

CSO Online

Balancing Risk and Compliance: The Implications of SEC’s New Cybersecurity Regulations

August 22, 2023

 

By Daniel Garrie, Jennifer Deutsch and Bradford Newman

The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s aggressive new rules mark a profound regulatory shift in how businesses are now required to manage their cybersecurity risks.

Corporate cybersecurity is becoming a non-negotiable priority. How companies prepare for and defend themselves against cyber intrusions has profound implications for their operations, reputation, and bottom line. Companies have historically underestimated the magnitude of cybersecurity risks, and in the view of the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), they have consistently underreported material losses caused by cyber intrusions.

Things have changed. The SEC has just taken steps to ensure that public companies are not just aware of their cybersecurity risks but taking steps to manage them on behalf of their shareholders and promptly report what in practice will be the vast majority of incidents.

THE NEW SEC SECURITY REGULATIONS

The SEC’s new rules are aggressive and intended to enhance accountability and transparency, require covered companies to disclose material cybersecurity incidents within four business days and mandate periodic disclosure of a company’s cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance in annual reports. This represents a profound regulatory shift in how businesses are now required to manage their cybersecurity risks and is a testament to the growing recognition of cybersecurity as a core component of adequate corporate compliance.

The newly introduced Form 8-K Item 1.05 mandates companies disclose “material cybersecurity incidents” and “material aspects of the incident’s nature, scope, timing and impact on operations, revenues or stock price. New Regulation S-K Item 106 requires companies to provide detailed disclosures about their cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance. In particular, the SEC now requires companies to describe their processes for “assessing, identifying, and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats, as well as whether any risks from cybersecurity threats, including as a result of any previous cybersecurity incidents, have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant.”

To read the full article, go to CSO Online

 
Revisiting Proportionality Under Rule 26(b)(1)

Revisiting Proportionality Under Rule 26(b)(1)

/in /by

Revisiting Proportionality Under Rule 26(b)(1)

Insights

Revisiting Proportionality Under Rule 26(b)(1)

Daily Journal

Revisiting Proportionality Under Rule 26(b)(1)

November 1, 2021

 

By Daniel Garrie

The 2015 amendment to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is about continuity. That’s because the proportionality analysis under Rule 26(b)(1), since it became effective in 2015, has always been a reflection of legacy, not change. Accordingly, the “new” Rule 26(b)(1) mandates consideration of six proportionality factors and eliminates the “reasonably calculated” language that many civil litigators considered a tacit endorsement of overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive discovery.

To the casual observer viewing this amendment in substantive and temporal isolation, the change might appear pioneering. But five of the six proportionality factors had been in existence, albeit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), for decades. And while the “relative access” factor was technically new in 2015, it was added “to provide explicit focus on considerations already implicit in … Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).” “New” was the fact that these factors had been elevated to the primetime of Rule 26(b)(1), thereby resolving any doubts about their rightful role in shaping the scope of discovery on a case-by-case basis.

Today, with several years of refocused proportionality analyses under our collective belt, we present several principles and practices that have been, and remain, critical to your client’s chance of achieving proportionality in discovery, whether your client’s name appears above or below the “v.”

Each of these ideas enjoys long-standing support in the law, and their utility warrants our attention today more than ever before —particularly in light of challenges presented by discovery of electronically stored information (ESI). Though the concept of proportionality in civil discovery is decades-old, its application in every case will be unique. For this reason, each proportionality analysis under Rule 26(b)(1) will, by necessity, render everything old new again.

To read the full article, go to JAMS

Ephemeral Social Media in Litigation

Using Ephemeral Social Media In Litigation

/in /by

Using Ephemeral Social Media In Litigation

News

Ephemeral Social Media in Litigation

Daily Journal

The Disappearing Act: Using Ephemeral Social Media in Litigation

May 13,2021

 

By Daniel Garrie and Gail Andler

Disappearing and self-destructive messages were a considered a “thing of the future” not too long ago. With technological advancements and the development of new messaging platforms, however, this is now quite a common function. In fact, today ephemeral messaging, a form of communication that lasts a short period of time before disappearing, can be found on various social media platforms. Snapchat, for example, allows users to transmit pictures, videos and messages, for a chosen amount of time (e.g., three seconds), to other users. Once the recipient opens the “snap,” it will automatically self-destruct after the chosen amount of time passes. This technology was embraced by pre-teens and teenagers who could prevent snooping parents from reading their messages. In very short order, lawyers turned their attention to how ephemeral messages could be preserved and authenticated for purposes of litigation.

While ephemeral messaging applications and platforms such as Snapchat are used for communicating information that someone wishes to preserve to withstand potential questions about their authenticity, it raises challenges. So, when you or client receive a snapchat or other message from a disappearing messaging tool, how do you preserve that message?

Screenshots may seem like the obvious answer, but in reality, how reliable is a screenshot? A quick Google search for “fake a screenshot,” will reveal that tutorials and/ or actual screenshot generators abound which allow users to fake text message conversations. On the website “iphonefaketext.com,” for example, it is possible to enter various data values, such as contact name, carrier, message content, and even signal strength. Entering enough detail into this type of fake message generator can result in a very convincing faux screenshot of a conversation.

To read the full article, go to JAMS

 
Using Data Sets to Settle Cases

Using Data Sets to Settle Cases

/in /by

Using Data Sets to Settle Cases

Insights

Using Data Sets to Settle Cases

Daily Journal

Using Data Sets to Settle Cases

July 6, 2021

 

By Daniel Garrie and Gail Andler

Suppose you have a consumer class action involving thousands, or millions, of consumers who ingested a tainted supplement. How do you settle a case of that scope? Or a data breach incident that exposed the personal identifying information of thousands of consumers? How can you calculate unpaid wages for hundreds or thousands of employees without examining the payroll records of each individual employee? And if you are not able to settle these cases, how do you present proof at trial of these large data sets?

The discovery and use of large data sets for mediation and trial often take place through surveying, sampling and extrapolating. However, trial courts have been cautioned that statistical methods alone “cannot entirely substitute for common proof.” California Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings Before Trial Section 11.29. Extrapolating from existing data to produce new data is common in science and in law.

Extrapolation is the process by which information that is already known (the “sample”) is used to predict the outcome for a larger group. That is, a sample of data is used to make inferences about the larger, general group. For such inferences to be properly drawn from the known facts of the subset to the larger relevant population, it is essential that the sample be statistically valid. This means that the underlying methodology must be designed to yield a representative result. However, this does not necessarily mean that the sample itself has to be representative.

The California Supreme Court discussed the concepts of sampling, extrapolation, and the need for sound methodology in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn., 59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014). In Duran, the trial court was found to have improperly extrapolated the amount of overtime pay from a sample to the class as a whole, where the sample was devised without expert input which allowed the parties to “impeach the model or otherwise show its liability is reduced.” Although the Supreme Court recognized the appropriateness of the use of sampling and surveys for proof of liability of damages, it found problems with the methodology employed.

To read the full article, go to JAMS

 
SEC new cybersecurity rules and protection of trade secrets

SEC’s New Cybersecurity Rules and Protection of Trade Secrets

/in , /by

SEC’s New Cybersecurity Rules and Protection of Trade Secrets

Insights

SEC new cybersecurity rules and protection of trade secrets

Law360

Between Disclosure and Discretion: The SEC’s New Cybersecurity Rules and The Protection of Trade Secretes

August 25, 2023

 

By Daniel Garrie and Bradford Newman

The prevailing wisdom among chief information security officers and cybersecurity professionals has long been that effective cyber preparedness requires shielding threat actors’ visibility into the technical defenses and strategies employed to protect corporate computer systems from unauthorized third-party attacks.

In July, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted cybersecurity risk management rules that flip this proverbial script, threatening substantial fines, shareholder lawsuits and the full spectrum of other penalties for regulated companies that do not comply with the newly required broad public disclosures.

In fact, a stated intent of the SEC in promulgating the new rules is transparency that promotes a culture of accountability and vigilance.

The regulatory hope is that this proactive approach will not only lead to better visibility in the public markets but require companies to be more diligent in their cyber preparedness.

Mandates that include disclosure of material cybersecurity incidents — and public descriptions of the processes for assessing, identifying and managing risks from cybersecurity threats — now force companies to show the world, including the threat actors, the specific know-how, processes and methodologies that historically have been most effective in protecting companies from cyber intruders only when kept secret.

This is a paradigmatic shift in the world of cybersecurity.

While the SEC cybersecurity rules have garnered substantial media coverage, little to no attention has been given to how compliance necessarily affects the protection of trade secrets.

This article seeks to start the conversation by highlighting some of the key considerations concerning the intersection of SEC reporting compliance and trade secret protections.

The end goal is to assist the industry with processes that strengthen, rather than compromise, corporations’ abilities to safeguard valuable confidential information.

To read the full article, go to LAW360

 
Electronic Discovery and Professional Sports

Electronic Discovery and Professional Sports

/in , /by

Electronic Discovery and Professional Sports

Insights

Electronic Discovery and Professional Sports

Daily Journal

There is no “I” in team: electronic discovery and professional sports

July 8, 2022

 

By Daniel Garrie, Gail Andler and Allyson K. Duncan

Interdependence, the mutual reliance of individuals and entities on one another, is a crucial feature of professional sports. As the interconnectedness of a point guard, power forward, and center on a basketball team, the athlete, the agent, the team, and the league are interdependent entities, each with a distinct but related responsibility.

However, this interdependence creates several unique legal issues in the context of professional sports. One such problem is how these interdependent entities must police and preserve each other’s documents and information. This article aims to examine some of the intricacies of these interrelated responsibilities, particularly in the context of the athlete/ agent relationship.

This issue is not academic. On the contrary, the question of who is legally responsible for various documents has become increasingly pertinent in our contemporary information age as a result of (1) the sheer amount of information created and amassed; (2) the expansiveness of rules governing legal discovery and information production; and (3) the demonstrated willingness of courts to enforce information governance and punish, with monetary and other sanctions, the destruction or failure to preserve and produce information, even if such destruction is unintentional. These three factors have heightened the importance of quality governance and preservation of electronically stored information (ESI) in this digital age. See, for example, Waskul v. Washtenaw County. Community. Mental Health, 2021 WL 5049154 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2021), the U.S, in which the Court warned attorneys appearing in federal courts either to be competent and cooperative in discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) or to partner with someone with ESI expertise.

On a large scale, major professional sports leagues are vast and complex networks that must be cognizant of all the players, such as athletes, teams, owners, and sponsors, and situations that make them a reasonable provider of electronic documentation. Unlike a sports agent who preserves communications with and about a specific client, leagues face countless limitations and responsibilities related to information preservation and production from their member teams and players. As established by the lower courts in National Football League Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998), the League may be responsible for producing information between the League office and any of its affiliated forprofit entities.

To read the full article, go to JAMS