Video: The AI Edge: Elevate Your Legal Career to Superstar Status | Duration: 3376s | Summary: The AI Edge: Elevate Your Legal Career to Superstar Status

Transcript for "The AI Edge: Elevate Your Legal Career to Superstar Status": Hello, everyone. I'm just gonna give a few minutes. Actually, not I'm not gonna give a few minutes. I think I see most people in here now. So I'm really excited to welcome June Hunter. I'm Sophie. I'm from the InfoTrack team, and we're very excited to have you here for our fall CLE double feature series. They are running every 2 weeks until the end of October. A couple housekeeping items. I assume most of you were here in the first session with Steve Fredson, so you probably know all the CLE information, but you can find all of that in the docs tab on the right hand side of your screen. The most important one there is mark your CLE attendance so that we can report it for you, and then all of the other information is in there. And just a reminder, we are accredited for attorneys in California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas. There is out of state transfer information on the right hand side as well. That is my CLE spiel, and I'm excited to introduce June Hunter who is a technical enablement lead for legal software company, DISCO. She's worked in the legal field for 34 years and widely known for offering clear hands on training for legal professionals. Today, she will be presenting on the AI Edge, elevating your career to superstar status. And with that, I will hand it over to June. Hey, Sophie. Thanks so much. I'm gonna actually share my screen, so that well, share my slides, I should say, so that you all will see the things that are important, which are going to be the slides and what we're covering today. As Sophie indicated, I am definitely, you know, well versed in many things legal, except for advancing my slides in this program. Hold on a second. There we go. In addition to being a technical enablement lead here at DISCO, I have been in legal for a long time. I spent 31 years in a law firm. And now I work at DISCO, and I train clients, and my teammates on our legal technology. But I teach outside of my day job. I'm actually an adjunct professor both at UC San Diego and their extended studies, program, their ABA approved program. I teach legal technology and discovery principles. And then I also, recently started teaching at Skyline College up in the Bay Area. I teach legal technology, and their program as well. And then I am the technology trainer for Legal Professionals Inc, which is an organization here in California where I get to teach around 2 technology webinars a month. And I also, am a member of the Law Practice Management Technology Committee for the California Lawyers Association. So I get really excited about technology, and so it really is an honor to go through and, talk to you a little bit about just kind of how you can elevate your legal career, to that superstar status. We're gonna cover what that looks like today. We're gonna delve a little bit into how AI is transforming legal. We'll discuss some legal specific tools because I think that's a really important part of, diving into AI. And we'll look a little bit at, understanding the importance of legal technology and the evolving landscape of legal. I think those are important, topics for us today. If you all have questions, please feel free to chat away, put them in a q and a, or you can even wait till the end. We'll definitely, leave time at the end. So to date, 40 states have addressed technical competence in connection with ABA rule 1.1. There are codes of judicial conduct that are beginning to address the risks of technology. You know, one of the things I looked at in a prior conversation I had was the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct rule 2.5, and their comment won, they clearly state that competence is going to require knowledge and skill, including benefits and risks associated with technology that's relevant to the services of judicial officer. There are lots of ADA formal opinions out there as well. So if you are a superstar legal professional, what should that look like? And we did a little word mapping, which I always think is super fun. But I also reached out to Chat GPT. Just put in, you know, what an AI superstar lawyer looks like, and Chat GPT defined that as a legal professional who leverages advanced artificial intelligence technologies, to enhance their practice, achieve a superior outcome, and establish themselves really as a leader in the legal field. And those things could include, like, utilizing AI for tasks like legal research, doc analysis, predictive analytics, case strategy development, as well as client management. And that AI superstar, legal professional will effectively combine the legal expertise with AI tools that will provide innovative, efficient, and highly effective legal services. Some of those key characteristics could include, mastery of AI based legal research tools, doc review software, and predictive analytics. From an efficiency standpoint, that might be the ability to deliver faster and more accurate results through automation and AI enhanced processes. If you're looking to be that innovator, maybe you are using AI to develop novel legal strategies and solutions. If you wanna be that, thought leader, maybe you're contributing to the legal field through publications or presentations or even trainings on AI applications in law. When we look at client satisfaction, that might be improved client outcomes and experiences through the use of AI. So if you call yourself a superstar legal professional, you are someone that seamlessly blends traditional legal skills with cutting edge technology. So in essence, you're someone who's going to blend traditional legal skills with your cutting edge technology to stay at the forefront of the legal industry. Now I was just telling Sophie if I ever had to had to hire an attorney and I didn't already know one, but my first question would most likely be explain to me the technology you and your staff use. That would be the the deciding factor for me. Right? I want that AI legal superstar. I want someone who's tech proficient, who understands the direction technology's going, and can really, utilize that in your day to day, workflow. So this was an interesting stat. 3 and 4 lawyers at 73% plan to utilize generative AI in their legal work within the next year. This was a source from Wolters Kluwer, last year. I sometimes wonder about this, though. We often say in my industry that lawyers will be heavily affected by generative AI. We've seen other statistics like this, and it says that nearly 3 in 4 lawyers plan to utilize it. Many attorneys I've talked with and other legal professionals use it outside of work, and I think that's where their familiarity starts. 68% of lawyers in the study, said they felt prepared for its impact on the industry, whereas 43% saw it as an opportunity, and a quarter of attorneys said it's a threat. AI is definitely a threat. But how is that going to transform? Right? We we hear things like the evolution of, AI, how it's gonna transform legal, and I wanna actually take us back about a decade. Let's go back about a decade. You'll notice in today's presentation, I'm gonna quote a few of my favorite, legal enthusiasts out there. And, if we go back about a decade or so when we were at the precipice of cloud computing, Bob Ambrosi wrote an article in 2020 that talked about this. He went back about a decade. He discussed the legal industry's adoption of cloud computing. At that time, legal professionals were hesitant to onboard cloud tools. The ABA had tons of opinions about the ethics surrounding using the cloud, of course. But when he moved forward 10 years, what we saw then in 2020 was an industry wide transformation of using cloud services. This was pre COVID. So if everyone thinks that it was due to COVID, sure, that moved more firms, and I think it moved more smaller firms forward. But large practice groups had been using the cloud for a few years, you know, quite significantly, at the time that this article came out. And Bob believed, and so do I, that the integration of AI and legal tech is going to be headed in the same direction. Sure. There are gonna be lots of people that are hesitant or even resistant to this, and I've met quite a few, across the summer. And the ABA and state bars are already issuing and have issued opinions regarding the ethics, but it's not going to stop the advancement of the legal industry in using AI to get the job done and get it done faster and more efficiently. You know, we look at faster and more efficiently. Those things can go together, but I think you have to understand the tools you're using and how to effectively use them. Sure. A 100,000, legal jobs will be at risk of automation by 2040. That was a 2016 estimate. 44% of those legal tasks could be automated by generative AI. Again, something that comes from a 2023 estimate. But the other thing, the one thing we don't really look at is what will happen to the practice of law when those low level jobs are automated. It's gonna create more jobs on the other side of the coin. Right? So it's not gonna be an uneven leveling of the field. Right? I like to think of lots of things in an evolutionary, process. As we see, technology move forward, we see more and more jobs created in the tech industry, and there are lots of legal tech jobs out there to be had these days. My job is exactly one of those jobs. I worked in a law firm for 31 years and moved over to a legal tech position as have many, many of my friends. I think that as we look to implementing that technology, you all should be less afraid of what it will cut out and more embracing of what it will bring you. You will have time to do more of those high level jobs, those high level parts of the practice of law that you went to law school to do. There'll be less sifting through data and trying to find the important parts because those things will be automated. You'll have better communications with your clients by using some of those integrated tools that you can, and we'll talk about those later on in in the presentation today. So the other one of my other faves, if y'all haven't looked up judge, Scott Schlegel, he is a sitting judge. He has extensive experience in legal tech and the justice system. And he wrote an article a little bit ago that I read on LinkedIn, and I think I have that quoted later on in here. But he, in writing that article, said, hey. I use Gen AI for my article composition primarily due to my time constraints. He indicated that AI assistant service valuable tools, allowing you to scale both yourself and share knowledge more efficiently while maintaining focus on your core responsibilities. And for him, he said his core judicial responsibilities. And he said, here's something crucial to remember. Technology changes rapidly, and we must all remain open. Let me go back. We must all remain open as it advances. That lack of wanting to remain open and move forward is something, I think, that lots of legal practitioners picked up in law school. We still teach law in law school very much the same way we have always done it. And if anyone's worked in a firm long enough, you will hear this one common phrase that I've heard thousands and thousands of times over my career. But, June, we've always done it this way, but that doesn't make it the right way. It just means you're comfortable doing it. And I'm sure you all have heard this saying, to truly grow, you must be uncomfortable. To truly become a superstar AI legal professional, you will be uncomfortable quite a bit of the time. As you go through and you learn and you grow, right, you have to be uncomfortable. Probably have all heard that reference to how a pearl is created. Right? That little kernel or grain of sand, oyster becomes uncomfortable, pearl is created. Beautiful thing in the rough. Right? It is no different with our learning. Right? We are uncomfortable, but we gain a lot from that experience. So I'm gonna ask you all to prepare to be uncomfortable for quite a few years as AI continues to evolve and move forward. Now benefits. You can get strategic insights, 3 d fast facts. You can have a faster risk assessment and case ramp up. You can better leverage models. For me, I live a lot in the ediscovery world, so that means from a doc review and analysis, AI can rapidly review and analyze large volumes of documents, identifying relevant information and patterns more quickly than manual review. For those of y'all performing legal research, AI powered tools already conduct comprehensive legal research, finding that relevant case law and statutes and even regulations in a fraction of the time it would take a human. When I started in legal, we had walls of bookshelves around the, firm that I worked in. And I would come in with little sticky notes on my because sticky notes have existed forever. A little sticky notes or scraps of paper on my desk asking me to pull cases and copy them and and leave them for whichever attorney put the info on my desk. Now we don't need to do that. When I got my paralegal certificate, we still did it the old school way then as well. We layered in going to library all day and really rummaging through all the stacks to find what we needed, as well as then learning the proper way to conduct legal research online. And that's been taken a a an even a a big step forward with, AI. I remember days of having, you know, summer interns and paralegals shepardizing cases late at night so that we could make our filing deadline the next day. Right? Many of us who've been around for a long time, we remember those days. We don't need to do that these days. We can easily leverage the AI powered tools we have. Does that mean you don't have to prove the work? Mm-mm. Every step of the way, it is key for all legal professionals to understand the importance of proofing your work, whether it was your trusted associate that did the work for you or your amazing right hand called your paralegal and your legal secretary that did the work. We have to proof that work along the way. You all know as a legal practitioner, it's your job to oversee the work product that those you manage are producing to you. It's key to know you have to prove the work. Whenever we hear of, you know, wrongdoing with AI, it's not the AI that's the problem. It's the person not correctly using the AI to get to what they need. And if anyone ever says, get a bunch of legal research. I couldn't find a case. But, man, that chat g p t pulled that case right up. Might be hesitant to use that. Proofing is key. But with that said, using technology can actually reduce errors and standardize things. I'll give you a good, for instance, of reducing time and reducing errors. And this wasn't even leveraging AI. It was just leveraging technology. I met with a client, and walked them through best practices for their database in DISCO. And this was a younger attorney. And they had an intern that was reviewing documents, and it was a small dataset, like 2,000 docs. You can get through that pretty quickly. And they went in and said they'd laid eyes on every document, and the attorney was gonna lay eyes on every document as well. And they had identified all their documents. So he threw down that penalty flight going, why would I need to use search terms, June? Why would I do that? I'm just gonna open every document. Why do I even need a database? I could just open them up in Adobe, and I'm like, first of all, don't open them up in Adobe because you'd have to convert some of that data. 2nd, why would you when there are some amazing tools out there? Right? If you leverage an ediscovery platform, whether it's disco or rel or any of the other tools that are out there, you could go in and do an email sent from all of those quickly. Three clicks, and you'll get to where you need. But they were looking for specific phrases in these documents. So I said, alright. Give me those phrases. Just 2. Just 2. Put those phrases in my search bar, and in 3 seconds, I'm not kidding, 3 seconds, I pulled up 10 documents and hit on those key phrases. And I pointed out to the attorney. 3 seconds. He's like, yeah. But we've laid eyes on all. And I said, that's really great. You've laid eyes on all. So you believe you've identified those responsive documents? Yes, June. Of course, we have. Then why did you only tag 5 of those 10 documents as responsive? If you laid eyes on all of them, well, we tagged all of our responsive docs. My search brought back 10 documents with your key phrases, and you only tag 5. That means the human eye missed 5, 50% of your responsive documents. Had they used a simple search in a database, they would have prevented having to lay eyes on all 18,021,000 documents, and they would have had greater accuracy. Right? Because you would have gone in, you would have run your search, you would have looked for those documents, you would have then laid eyes on those responsive or potentially responsive documents, and boom, you're good. You can also take a look at some of the benefits as those enhanced client services. A 247 availability, where you have AI powered chatbots, virtual assistants that can provide clients with immediate responses to simple questions, improving accessibility and client satisfaction. If you're talking about innovation and competitive advantage, look at new service offerings. AI enables the development of new legal services, like automated contract generation and smart legal analytics. I was at Solid Atlanta, I don't know, in August, doing a similar talk to this, and I was blown away by what some corporate, clients are doing. At Cisco, they said that they had so much resource waste at their company because individuals would need something like a simple NDA. And they would email all these different individuals, and it would take forever to get a response back. And so then they would email someone else and then someone else. And no one really knew, like, where to go. It's a huge company. Right? So what they did is they built their own in house AI tool. And now if you go in and start typing, that bot is right in the background, and it'll say, it looks like you're looking for an NDA. And then you put in a little more information, and so then it'll prepopulate that language, and then it routes to the appropriate person in the legal department. Their, individual that was at this conference said it really, really freed up a lot of resources internally for them to do other work. And instead of needing to, you know, employ more and more people, to try and pick up that workload and try and figure out a better way to, route, those contracts and agreements that their AI powered chatbot was able to do that, to eliminate the the resource waste that they had to streamline the process and for them to get documents back to clients much quicker. So not only are their employees now happy, but so are their clients. Let me click. So as a legal practitioner, what should you know about Gen AI? We already know it can assist with document review in the context of litigation, technology assist to review. It can reduce, you know, document review cost by 50%, and this is where I think people get confused. Many times, salespeople will say to lawyers, we're gonna save you money. You all know you don't wanna save money. You wanna make money. You're in the business to make money. So I would say corporate, they're in the business to save money, and legal, they're in the business to make. That is earn. Right? You'd like to earn more and not have to work more or expend more resources costing you more. AI can definitely do that in so many ways. I know when I worked at a law firm, and had to review those prebills, I watched my boss mark off quite a bit of time for tasks that, really, clients were not going to pay for. That's how you get to not having to mark so much time off. Right? You get to better results faster. It frees you up to do more work for more clients, billing more than you would have because you've now been freed up, to do greater things than look through 1,000 or terabytes of data. However, there's a downside to that. If you're not sure of how that LLM is pulling back your information or getting you to those results, you could see malpractice. It's always best to learn how other lawyers and legal service providers are going to use AI to optimize their legal practice. You always have early adopters. There are those that race to the front every single time. I always think it's good to be right in the middle of the pack because you've seen the errors of those before you, and now you can see kind of that educational aspect that comes from it that our tools are going to be developed. I know I have friends who are early adopters of many things. I think that gets you to the bleeding edge of technology. I like to be somewhere in the middle in that cutting edge. So in knowing what the malpractice situation looks like a little bit, there was an article published in the Hill in January of this year. And one of the things I found was fascinating, and I share this with my students a lot, is that when chat gpt, and gpt 3.5 was asked direct verifiable questions about federal cases, that it hallucinated 60% of the time 69% of the time. Excuse me. Google's palm 2, 72% of the time. And Metas Lama 2 offered false information 88% of the time. The models performed worse when asked more complex legal questions, such as the core legal question or central holding of a case or when asked about case law from lower courts like district courts. Every time I talk to people, I hear how they're using chat gpt. It's not my go to. You should confirm that the AI you're using is tailored to the practice of law. This would include confirming that whatever the tool is, it accesses reliable and current source of information. Competency comes into play there. Right? Confirm that the AI used is reading primary law for legal research. It reads documents to answer specific questions or looks at data sources like internal contracts or briefs or ediscovery databases to find specific documentation or information. Confirm that it has a private dedicated connection to that large language model, and it's not public. It's not using your client's data to train that underlying AI model, and that's really key. We address this every day, at where I work, and we easily open up the door and let our clients know exactly how that generated AI is working and how it's getting to those answers. So I always encourage y'all to really do a deep dive. Confirm that the AI used has a zero retention policy on data shared by others. This means the data is processed only for that user's purpose, and it's not gonna be stored or shared. Confirm it's developed responsibly for ethical use, and it's been developed by those with a deep understanding of the legal field. You know, Judge Schlegel, one of my favorites. He says, given the complex landscape of AI, his advice to fellow judges and lawyers is simple. Start learning and experimenting with it in safe environments. Use the tools to draft a song, write a letter, plan a trip. But by engaging with AI in low stakes situations, you can gain valuable insights into its capabilities and limitations without risking client confidentialities or court records. And one of my other favorite people, Nikki Black of my case, she posted I read this article on, my way back from a client trip, yesterday. She posted an article on LinkedIn, and she talked about technology competence, professional judgment, supervision, all this relating to AI. And she said lawyers need to understand how AI tools work, their limitations, and the terms of use, especially regarding your client data. You have to implement policies and training to ensure AI is used ethically and appropriately by lawyers, but by your staff as well. There's a huge lack of education for legal practitioners across the board. It's a really big problem. Y'all are here for CLE, but firms have cut back on the amount of training they give employees, especially since COVID, and not increased that. It's not just important you know. It's important that those that are performing duties for you also know. Invest in their education. It's huge. Court orders and deep face. Compliance with court rules on AI use is essential, and AI generated evidence must be carefully scrutinized. And time saved using AI can't be built to your clients. AI costs have to be disclosed in line with ethical guidance on disbursements. Right? And because I love quoting others that I think are smarter than me, I'm gonna leave this slide with a post from Colin Levy. He's a legal tech guru on LinkedIn. He works for Malbec, and he says and he's recently published. He says, the time is now to partner with generative generative AI. It's time to experiment, to iterate, and to learn. Right? It's an iterative process. This is a lot about what your benefits are versus what you should know. In litigation, right, and and we see strategic insights, three d facts, faster risk assessment. This is a little bit of a duplication of a prior slide I had, but I thought this was worth noting. When we look at benefits, we always have to have the flip side of that, the other side of the slide, which is what do you need to know? A couple of good examples. I lean on litigation a lot because that's really a lot of what I do. Think about ways you can save time and money for your client, but increase your revenue at the same time. And one of the things that that I've said all along is corporate America is getting smarter. I know in my everyday dealings, I deal with a lot of corporate clients who now set the tone for their litigation spend because they know software like DISCO is out there. We have, generative AI in place. We can really take them through doc review for a much lower cost, and they have a lot more control over that bottom line spend, and we see more and more corporate clients implementing that type of protocol. They're gonna pay for the software, and then they're going to ask outside counsel to use it because they want to reduce that spend. A really good example of of some of the reasons of why is, I don't know, a few months back, someone put a a meeting on my calendar and said, hey, Jean. I want you to meet with this, law firm. They're onboarding a a new case, and it's got 600 gigs of data. And so we thought that utilizing our review services and our technology would be, you know, a a bonus for them. Can you just walk through it with them? We already gave them a quote for our services. And before we, you know, concluded, we asked them to give us a quote for if they manage this job in house, have their own attorneys and support staff do the stock review and to tell us how much it would cost. And they came up with a blended rate for their team and said that in reviewing that data, in a traditional law firm model, it would be about $1,000,000 to get through the process. But using our technology and a stable of our reviewers that are very familiar with the AI we use, we could do that same job for about a $170,000. If a corporate client knew that that was a really big difference, which avenue do you think they're gonna go? Can you go with the person leveraging the technology? Because that means if they end up in trial, they'll have a lot more money to spend for that process of getting through trial. It also means that they know that you're keeping their best interests at the forefront of your planning, in dealing with them. We also already know that human eyes miss things. I gave you a classic example of that earlier when we talked about that 2,000 documents. It doesn't mean that your software, tool isn't going to miss some items, but that's where you leverage your knowledge with the technology. Right? That's where you partner those both in. I worked with a client, I don't know, a year or so ago, who always trains the AI to look for privileged documents. She said that every time she has to run a production, she looks at the the the predictive coding. And one of the productions she had to run, there were 200 documents that human reviewers never flagged as privileged. This saved her from having to let her boss know they were gonna have to use their clawback agreement. So they were able to take 200 documents that would have normally gone out in a production, hold those back by leveraging AI. Now if you all are like, that's great, June, but I don't do litigation, how does this benefit me? Because you talked a lot about litigation. Well, think about even using tools like Microsoft Copilot. You'll are busy. You get calendar invites that overlap or back to back. Things like Copilot can quickly summarize your team meetings for you, pull out key points and factors for you. You can pull in multiple documents for it to summarize, or even compare. You can get through that work so much faster. And one of the, conferences I was out recently, the person speaking said he didn't have a lot of time to put his slides together, so he leveraged Copilot in, PowerPoint, to assist with that. So there's a lot of everyday simple task. It doesn't have to be something bougie fancy. It could be your simple task. Like, there were 3 meetings, I could make it to 2. The third one, I couldn't. You can go back into Teams and leverage Microsoft Copilot to summarize that for you. And I know if y'all have been watching streaming anywhere, they've been advertising a lot of things like that, for advertisements on streaming where they go in and summarize meetings. But it really is super handy to use. You all will do more work with less time and less resources, and even using legal specific research tools to get to your relevant cases. Using the right tool at the right time. But some drawback considerations. I came across an article as I was coming home last night called, oops, how clients might accidentally waive privilege when seeking AI's help, because I've been thinking about this a lot. Someone brought this up, and I never thought about client confidentiality in regards to the client waiving privilege. I always think about what my duty is to the client and what my duty, looks like, and how that gets breached. I don't have any voice activated technology in my office environment at home because they're always listening. I don't trust those things. Outside of my home office, it's okay. But when I'm doing client work, there's nothing in here that is technology enabled. It's not on. It's not listening. I can't say, hey, Alexa, play my favorite song. I just don't have that on. And I don't think a lot of people think about that. You know, I always like to on the side of caution when it comes to those things, but think about this. Not only do you have a a a requirement to understand how you're using the technology and what the best tool is, think about those clients you need to be advising. Right? Mitch Jackson says the AI conundrum. In a real world example, he says, a client receives a complimented a complicated legal document from their attorney. Maybe it's a PDF with lots of legalese, and they're really frustrated. It's after hours, and they're like, hey. I need to know what this means. So they upload that text into, ChatGPT and say, hey. What does this mean? Or perhaps during a phone call, that attorney provides some key advice. The client then dictates into an AI for a more understandable summary. Maybe they type in a snippet from a legal brief or an email, and they ask the AI to translate it into plain English. In those moments, the client could very well unknowingly waive the protections they thought were ironclad, and this is the reason why. 3rd party disclosure. Sharing confidential information with most AI platforms can be seen as disclosing it to a third party, which could waive attorney client privilege. Or what about loss of confidentiality control? That client might not realize how AI systems store and process the data. Even if that client has no intention of waiving privilege, the very act of sharing the information could be enough to compromise that confidentiality. And what about an unintentional waiver? The courts could very well interpret those actions as a voluntary waiver privilege even if the client didn't intend to give up their legal protections. What does all that mean? Once confidential information could be subpoenaed and used in court, and if that's not bad enough, if the work product doctrine is compromised, the opposing side might gain insights into legal strategy, and the client could face increased legal risk, including being forced to disclose further communications. Kentucky Bar Association actually came out with an opinion a little bit about this as well. It's worth looking up. Where's AI being utilized? I love a good infographic. Working at eDiscovery, you get new infographics all the time. This was put out at the end of 2023, so it is very new. We won't see a new one until probably the end of 2024. So this is the most recent one I could find. It was created by Ediscovery Today, one of my favorite, companies also to follow on LinkedIn. This infographic shows legal use cases for generative AI, and this is important. Not all AI, as I've said many times today, is created equal. Use a tool specific to your area. We're in legal. Use a legal specific tool. Some of the places is contract generation and analysis, pleadings and motions drafting, and even automation. We see predictive case analysis, legal chatbots, even translation and multi language support. Like, I know in our software at disco, you get in app translations on the fly that are more than 99% accurate for, like, no cost. It's great. Now you don't have to get everything translated. You could translate it on the fly. And then if you really do need to provide that, fully translated document to opposing, you can just get it translated and, at least, you don't have to translate everything initially and spend the cost for that. But client communication and management is another area. Intellectual property management, lit financing, of course, you all know, CLE, and then ediscovery and evidence review. I have seen lots of companies, moving more and more to automating their processes. And, again, you'll do that through AI, Extractive AI, generative AI, both of those come into play, a lot. Just understand the tool and tell them to lift the hood. Tell you how that is, you know, using your information, where it's being stored or not stored. And I always tell people, a lot of times, you get what you pay for. So if if something is offered for free, it's really not free. And in the US, we really get confused by this. Over in the EU, they're really good about saying you don't get to have any information about our people. In the US, we're like, look, for free, you could just gain people's information because we're willing to download an app because it's free. But you're giving up your personal information or some describable fact about yourself to get that free product, so go with a legal specific tool. And I really wanna challenge everyone in legal profession to stop looking at software as a spend. It is an investment, not a spend. And if you don't make the investment, at some point, those around you will, and clients will know that. It is exceedingly important to know how this benefits you to not look at software as a cost. It is a benefit. Right? And I had to explain this a lot to my, last firm that I worked at whenever something was about to break and we needed to replace it. I would remind them, let's say, when we still had an on prem server, if that went down with 30 billers, Even with support in place, it would take 4 to 8 hours to get that up and running. So if you have 30 billers at a blended rate of somewhere in the 100 of dollars an hour, that would far outweigh that loss, the actual expense of just replacing that product. Or one of the partners I worked with when we moved to a completely streaming online telephone service, we moved to, like, RingCentral or something, and he decided to not have a physical handset any longer. But he wanted an inexpensive headset that refused to connect to his laptop every single day. So 15 minutes of my morning every day was spent with this individual getting that headset to connect. This was a number of years ago, and the billing rate was about 5.75 an hour for this attorney. After 3 months of spending 15 minutes of my day every day with this person, I said, you bill 5.75 an hour every week. You lose an hour of time where I have to get this connected. The headset I proposed was $375. In the past 3 months, how many headsets have you purchased? So think about this as a way to, have a benefit, to improve the practice of law. Please do not see software and AI as an expense. It's an investment. It will definitely streamline your workflows. It will definitely get you to the results you need much faster. You can use tools like capture now or case text. There's Lex Machina. Chat GPT is out there, but it shouldn't be. Make sure you know how that's being leveraged. Ediscovery products are way too many to list. Way too many. There's, LawGeeks and Latch. There's Harvey, law dotco, and even UP. All of these are going to be AI tools in the legal space, and you all are already familiar with using Lexis and Westlaw, as well. And Judge Legal says that his advice is start learning and experimenting with AI in safe environments, and I said this a few slides ago. And I love the fact that he hits on use some tools in your safe space. Write a song. Draft a letter. Use it in low stakes situations where you can gain valuable insights into what it can and can't do. Attend trainings. Right? That's the other key way. There, you could throw a stone and hit many, many CLEs or trainings, your local bar association, your state bar association, the ADA. There are lots of resources both online and in your networking organizations. There are those industry leaders out there. And if you want to become one of those industry leaders, start playing with the AI now. Start asking questions. And for those of you that are always busy, if you don't want sales pitches from those software companies that are doing the sales pitch, Many, many software companies will have people like me who do, CLEs. Go there. Ask your questions there. Just don't give up your business card. Right? Don't scan the QR code, but ask some questions there. They're always happy to take you aside and answer the questions you have even if you're not buying. I was at an ABA event last week, and I just simply answered questions. There was no sales. And I'm not a salesperson. I'm an educator, but I wanted people to lead understanding how technology can work better for them. So get the training. Ask your staff to train. That's the other way. Provide your staff with resources to get that training and have them bring back the best parts. They'll be able to really condense down into more digestible, chunks for you all to learn about the technology without having to take your billable hour and learn about the time. I know paralegals, especially, we always like to stay at the forefront of technology. So we'll go. We'll ask the questions. We will attend events and bring back materials and summarize those things for the attorneys that we work for because we know something that law schools haven't recognized yet. Because I know in paralegal programs, legal technology is mandatory to get that paralegal certificate. Law schools haven't made that mandatory. So paralegals, we know. We know how important leveraging software is, and we know that because we're the ones who have to use it the most. At some point, I hope that that changes so that all legal professionals work together utilizing software, making, you know, room for it in our, everyday activities, at work, I think it will speed up the process of getting better product to your clients always. And this would not be a great AI presentation if we didn't talk about hallucinations. And it's interesting because we have an individual at disco who's exceedingly bright. Same's James Park, and he is, like, heads up our AI. And he wrote a great article, that I'll talk about a little bit. So I have the statistics here for that article from The Hill in January 2024, but there's some other noteworthy instances of hallucinations, like the Michael Cohen case and a few other cases. For that Michael Cohen case, he was Donald Trump's former lawyer. He said he mistakenly passed along fake AI produced legal case citations to his attorney that were used in a motion submitted to a federal judge. The cases cited, were part of written arguments by Cohen's attorney, Schwartz, which are made to try to bring an early end to Cohen's court supervision once he was out of prison. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to tax evasion and other charges. He admitted he'd not kept up with emerging trends once they produce these legal case citations. So he admitted he'd not kept up with those emerging trends and related list risks in legal tech. He didn't realize that Google Bard was a generative text service that, like chat gpt, could show citations and descriptions that looked real, but they weren't. Instead, he thought it was a supercharged search engine, and we repeatedly used it in other context to successfully find accurate information online. Not only should he approved it, but the attorney that was representing him should have proved that work and not just taken that on blindly. In a Missouri case, there was a man who used artificial intelligence, in that Cruz v Fallon, to generate almost 2 dozen fake citations in a legal brief. He was ordered to pay 10 k in sanctions for wasting the time of the courtroom. Then there's the Smith v Firewall case as well, where the lawyer filed 3 separate legal memorandums, decided, and relied on fictitious cases. He blamed the mistake on his own ignorance of AI. He's definitely not gonna be that legal, superstar, legal, professional. But when we talk about hallucinations, there are different types of hallucinations. Right? LLMs are designed to produce fluent, coherent text. When a tool perceives nonexistent patterns, it's gonna provide answers that can appear plausible, but might not be true. They could be complete nonsense. They can range from minor inconsistencies to completely fabricated information, and we call them AI hallucinations. The term was first applied to AI systems in the late 2000 and tens. Imagine that. They gained wider recognition during the AI boom that we're now seeing, and Meta warned that algorithms are prone to hallucinate, that is confidently state information that is not correct. But there are different types of them. There's sentence contradiction. This is when, that LLM generates a sentence that contradicts a a previous sentence. There's prompt, contradiction when the response could be technically accurate, but it doesn't correctly answer the prompt. So you can have factual contradiction. That's when the AI generates fictitious information and presents it as a fact, like AI hallucinated case law. There's irrelevant or random hallucinations. This is when random information with absolutely no pertinence to the output or input is generated, or it could even be where a relevant piece of information is twinned with an irrelevant one. What causes that? I think we all know. Those LLMs are machine learning models, and they process and generate text in human language. It'll convey powerful and useful impressions that something like a chat GPT is able to understand, and can give you a response in plain English or another language. The responses are often very useful. But note that what chat gpt is doing is not understanding the question, at least not in the way you'd expect a human listener or reader to do. Rather, Chat GPT is processing an incredible amount of data, the large and the large language model, to calculate probabilities and construct an answer that has the highest likelihood of being true. Conversely, LLMs make predictions by finding patterns in the data. So if the training data is incomplete or is biased because that's the other thing I did a whole deep dive on, the ethical crossroads, of AI earlier this year, and it really talks about biased AI. So the training data could be incomplete. It could be biased. The model may learn incorrect patterns and generate incorrect predictions hallucinations. Stated differently, a Gen AI hallucination isn't just wrong information. It is information that has some probability of being true but isn't in fact true. And because they're designed to produce fluent, coherent text, when that tool perceives nonexistent patterns, it creates outcomes that can range from minor inconsistencies to complete nonsense but yet be plausible. Proof your work. One attorney said to me recently that someone, he tasked them with doing some research, and they came back and said, I know you couldn't find the case law, but I found it in this obscure area. That's when the attorney said, if you found something I didn't find after doing a deep dive, I know it can't be it can't be real. And sure enough, it wasn't. It was a made up case. So if it sounds too good to be true and how many times have we heard this from the time we were children? If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't. LLMs are out there to answer your questions. Right? They sit square in the middle of the road. You ask it something, it is going to do everything within its power to get you an answer even if it's not its job. Look. If you called me and said, June, can you, come over because my Tesla is not working? And I know you worked on cars growing up. Can you fix it? No. I can't. But if you ask a a a a tool to do that, right, an LLM, even if it's not his job, it's gonna get you an answer. It's going to try its best to make you happy and do what you're asking it to do. For me, I would rather say that's not my area of expertise, but Bob down the street got a great hook up with a Tesla mechanic. You can get that person right on over to your house. That's not what that LLM is designed to do. It's not able to get Bob down the street to help you. It's going to give you an answer. I know we're coming to the end of the hour, and I always like to leave room for questions. One of the things I definitely wanna leave you with is if you're not familiar with my favorite AI technologist, standing at the forefront of legal technology and AI, I'd like to welcome you to Lady Jay. She is our mascot at DISCO. And if you do a quick search for Lady Jay and DISCO, you'll see our great advertisements. Even if you have no interest in anything ediscovery late related. The video content that our marketing person, Tom Furr, put together is phenomenal. It'll give you a 60 second laugh for sure, but I'm always happy to answer questions you all. My email address is simple, and I'm also on LinkedIn. Feel free to reach out there. Always like to answer questions, point you to, valuable and reputable, resources, to answer any questions if I don't have the answer. Big thank you to InfoTrac for putting on yet another amazing series of CLEs for you all to have. It's been phenomenal. So thank you all for bringing education to the legal community as a whole. Thank you, June. That was wonderful. I'm gonna leave a few minutes if anyone wants to ask some questions. We have the chat going while people are submitting some questions. Just some reviewing the CLE. It's all in the docs tab. I know some people had trouble downloading it from the first session, so you can find all of Steve's documents as well in there. And that should be good for CLE. I know that some of you are probably in the InfoTrack demo. So if you didn't get a chance to fill out the poll and you were interested in scheduling a personalized demo to go with that gift card that Alex talked about, you can just hit request a demo of InfoTrack up there. And I think we'll close it out soon. I don't see any questions. Nope. I checked the q and a on the chat. Like, I'm, you know, pretty adept at doing it. You you don't get oh, there's another new question in the June, great job as always. Thanks. Appreciate it. Be all it's always amazing to present. I encourage you all to get out there and just learn. It's okay. You may not be using it now. Don't feel like you're missing the boat. Right? Again, early adopters are the ones that are gonna find the mistakes and fine tune those. Middle of the pack. It's a good place to be. Right? You may not cross the finish line first, but you're definitely not gonna be last, and I think you're gonna be better for it. Right? I know, when I ran a half, I felt good. I was, like, in the middle of the pack, and I felt like I never lost my my footing, and I never was out of breath. And so I think with the technology and the way it moves forward, I think that's a good, kind of a good analogy and a good place to be. And just ask questions. There's nothing wrong with seeing out an expert or asking questions. Doesn't mean you don't know. It just means you want to know more. So lean into it. And there's a lot of cool things that are gonna be happening. I think that, in a couple of years, it'll be definitely a lot more mainstream. There'll be less like, oh my gosh. I don't know if the sky is falling. And there'll be less people getting really hyped up about it. It'll just be part of your everyday practice. So lean in. Now's a good time. Yeah. I agree. It already feels so normal to us, but it's still fairly new. So Well, it is because corporate America is also, like, a a number of corporate clients I spoke with at the Solid Atlanta event said that they do not allow their outside counsel to use AI. And if they do, they have to have a specific, discussion about it. So, there's still lots of reasons why you may or may not want you, but now is a good time to really figure out what's out there. And lots of software companies are offering demos or talks. I know that means you have to give your info out. Again, nothing's free. But sign up for more sessions like this with InfoTrack because you'll have a way of really bringing new topics, I think, to the top, each year, and your, LegalUp conference in the spring is another great way to come back. So we'll be 6 months out for the next, you know, LegalUp conference. And by then, we'll see it other people come in and and have other perspectives and some updates. Right? 6 months is a long time in technology. Like, how many iPhones come out in a 6 month period of time, seriously? That's very true. Yes. Thank you for the, shout out to LegalUp. We love LegalUp, and we love all of our speakers, and we work really hard. And there's a bunch of CLE there too. I can see if I can grab a link for that in case anyone wants it. But I think we will close out our session. Just one last reminder, mark your CLE attendance if you click the docs tab, then the doc that says mark your CLE attendance. That's important because you want that credit. Thanks so much June and we will see you all at our next one hopefully. Bye y'all.