Category: News Feeds

By Sean
Fitzpatrick
| CEO,
LexisNexis
North
America,
UK,
Ireland

At
LexisNexis®,
we
work
with
our
customers
to
transform
legal
work
…
that
mission
is
at
the
heart
of
every
product
we
develop
and
solution
we
deliver.
Our
focus
on
technology
has
positioned
us
as
a
leader
in
the
legal
industry’s
innovative
use
of
AI
for
several
years.

Our
Legal
AI
innovation
journey
began
with
“extractive”
AI
tools
that
use
machine
learning
algorithms
to
find
relevant
results
within
data
to
surface
deep
insights.
For
example,
our
popular


Lexis+®
Answers
product
took
users
beyond
traditional
keyword
searching
to
identify
relationships
between
concepts
and
return
key
passages
extracted
from
the
LexisNexis
network
of
authoritative
legal
sources.

The
journey
continued
with
“generative”
AI
tools
that
create
new
content
from
data
based
on
user-entered
prompts
or
instructions,
allowing
our
customers
to
engage
in
human-like
conversations
and
tackle
complex
legal
tasks
with
ease.
We
recognized
the
immense
potential
of
Gen
AI
and
naturally
began
leveraging
this
new
technology
as
part
of
our
ongoing,
customer
informed
innovation
process,
which
led
to
the
debut
in
October
2023
of


Lexis+
AI®,
the
first
comprehensive
legal
research
platform
powered
by
Gen
AI
for
the
legal
profession.

Lexis+
AI
represented
a
new
standard
for
efficiency,
precision
and
speed
in
legal
technology
innovation.
We
backed
up
this
commitment
by
releasing
a
second-generation
version
of
the
Lexis+
AI
platform
in
April
2024,
with
expanded
use
cases
for
legal
professionals,
faster
delivery
of
AI-generated
answers,
and
improved
results
for
customers.

The
Next
Chapter
Begins

We
are
proud
to
once
again
be
on
the
leading
edge
of
legal
tech
innovation:
Agentic
AI,
which
guides
users
to
perform
tasks
aligned
with
their
workflow,
through
custom
AI
models
known
as
agents.
While
Gen
AI
focuses
on
creating
content,
agentic
AI
assists
in
professional
decision-making
and
work
task
organization
based
on
the
user’s
tailored
requirements.

Welcome
to


LexisNexis
Protégé™,
our
new
AI
assistant
that
leverages
the
power
of
agentic
AI
to
transform
legal
work
with
personalization
choices
controlled
by
the
user
or
their
organization
to
optimize
the
individual’s
AI
experience.

Protégé
understands
individual
preferences
and
then
draws
upon
our
comprehensive
repository
of
authoritative
legal
content
—
as
well
as
the
customer’s
own
proprietary
work
product
and
other
firm
knowledge.
It
uses
that
universe
of
content
as
grounding
data
to
provide
deeply
personalized
answers,
drafts,
summaries
and
more.

For
example,
Protégé
understands
the
user’s
practice
area,
the
jurisdictions
in
which
they
are
working,
and
their
unique
drafting
style
and
preferences.
This
context
informs
the
answers
that
it
creates
and
surfaces,
enabling
the
tool
to
help
guide
the
legal
professional
to
the
end
result
that
best
meets
their
specific
need.
Protégé
leads
the
legal
industry
into
a
new
era
in
which
the
Legal
AI
experience
is
tailor-made
for
each
individual
legal
professional.

Driving
Next-Level
Performance

How
does
Protégé
achieve
these
ambitious
goals?
Protégé
will
help
lawyers
achieve
next-level
legal
performance
for
their
clients
in
profound
ways,
such
as:

• Drafting
  transactional
  documents,
  as
  well
  as
  litigation
  motions,
  briefs,
  and
  complaints
  from
  a
  single
  prompt
• Generating
  drafts
  based
  on
  uploaded
  sample
  documents
• Suggesting
  legal
  workflow
  actions
  (e.g.,
  summarize,
  draft,
  research,
  proofread,
  
  Shepardize®,
  etc.)
  based
  on
  the
  types
  of
  documents
  uploaded
  (including
  large,
  complex
  documents)
• Drafting
  tailored
  deposition
  questions
  based
  on
  fact
  patterns,
  witness
  descriptions
  and
  other
  relevant
  information
  contained
  in
  the
  case
  documents
• Reviewing
  an
  uploaded
  motion
  or
  argument
  and
  finding
  similar
  motions
  and
  arguments
  in
  the
  LexisNexis
  system
  to
  further
  refine
  the
  argument,
  find
  stronger
  authority,
  and
  identify
  potential
  weaknesses

Moreover,
Protégé
has
the
capability
—
with
the
user’s
explicit
permission
and
authorization
—
to
extract
information
securely
from
the
organization’s
internal
Document
Management
System
(DMS).
This
data
helps
a
lawyer
leverage
their
internal
work
product
as
reference
data
for
AI-powered
drafting
tasks.

Protégé
is
embedded
now
on
the
Lexis+
AI
platform
and
in
the


Lexis®
Create+
tool
for
Legal
AI
drafting
in
Microsoft
Word,
and
will
eventually
be
rolled
out
across
the
entire
LexisNexis
ecosystem.

The
Innovation
Journey
Continues

As
we
look
to
the
future,
LexisNexis
remains
committed
to
staying
at
the
forefront
of
innovation,
continuously
adapting
and
evolving
to
meet
the
ever-changing
needs
of
our
customers.
The
next
chapter
in
the
AI
revolution
is
just
beginning,
and
we
are
excited
to
explore
new
frontiers
and
push
the
boundaries
of
what
is
possible
in
the
legal
tech
space.

We
are
confident
that
Lexis+
AI
with
Protégé
will
revolutionize
the
way
legal
professionals
work,
enabling
them
to
deliver
exceptional
service
to
their
clients
while
staying
ahead
of
the
curve
in
an
increasingly
competitive
and
complex
legal
landscape.

At
LexisNexis,
we’re
not
just
embracing
the
future
of
AI,
we’re
shaping
it.
To
learn
more
about
Protégé,
please
go
to


www.lexisnexis.com/protege.

In


Season
9,
Episode
4
of
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,”

I
had
the
pleasure
of
diving
into
the
world
of
AI,
ethics,
and
law
firm
risk
management
with
Jeff
Cunningham,
a
general
counsel
specializing
in
ethics
and
risk
management
for
law
firms.
This
lively
discussion
covered
everything
from
the
Apple
logo
on
his
blog
to
deep
fakes,
document
retention,
and
the
existential
threat
AI
poses
—
not
to
lawyers,
but
to
the
billable
hour.

The
Ethics
Of
Hoarding:
Letting
Go
Of
Legal
Documents

Jeff’s
contribution
to
our
discussion
started
with
a
topic
lawyers
seldom
enjoy:
document
retention.
His
advice?
Less
is
more.

“Lawyers
hoard
information,”
Jeff
noted,
comparing
this
tendency
to
the
way
many
of
us
amass
digital
photos
we’ll
never
review.
The
problem
with
hoarding
isn’t
just
storage
costs
—
it’s
the
potential
risk
of
retaining
data
you
no
longer
need.

Key
takeaway:


You
can’t
lose
what
you
don’t
have.

Develop
a
clear
retention
policy,
dispose
of
unnecessary
data,
and
focus
on
safeguarding
what’s
truly
essential.

The
AI
Spectrum:
Ban,
Embrace,
Or
Shrug?

Jeff
painted
a
picture
of
three
types
of
law
firms
when
it
comes
to
AI:

1. 
   The
   Banners.
   
   Firms
   that
   try
   to
   outright
   ban
   AI,
   despite
   its
   ubiquity
   in
   tools
   like
   Westlaw,
   Lexis,
   and
   Google.
2. 
   The
   Embracers.
   
   Tech-savvy
   firms
   actively
   exploring
   AI’s
   potential.
3. 
   The
   Indifferent
   Majority.
   
   Firms
   leaving
   AI
   adoption
   to
   individual
   discretion.

While
banning
AI
might
seem
like
a
way
to
avoid
risk,
Jeff
argued
it’s
both
impractical
and
shortsighted.
AI
is
already
pervasive,
and
banning
it
outright
doesn’t
prevent
its
use
—
it
just
drives
it
underground.

Instead,
Jeff
recommended
a
middle-ground
approach:
crafting
an
AI
policy
that
provides
clear
guidelines
while
empowering
lawyers
to
use
AI
responsibly.

What
Should
Be
In
An
AI
Policy?

When
it
comes
to
crafting
an
AI
policy,
Jeff
highlighted
a
few
key
components:

• 
  Define
  AI
  Clearly.
  
  Make
  sure
  everyone
  understands
  what
  the
  policy
  refers
  to.
  AI
  spans
  everything
  from
  eDiscovery
  to
  autocorrect.
• 
  Client
  Disclosure.
  
  Be
  transparent
  with
  clients
  about
  AI
  usage.
  Jeff
  humorously
  noted
  that
  his
  engagement
  agreement
  even
  discloses
  the
  use
  of
  email
  and
  cloud
  storage.
• 
  Confidentiality
  And
  Proprietary
  Information.
  
  Safeguard
  both
  client
  confidences
  and
  proprietary
  data,
  as
  both
  have
  monetary
  and
  ethical
  implications.

Jeff
also
encouraged
firms
to
view
AI
policies
as
a
foundation
for
education
and
exploration
rather
than
as
restrictive
mandates.

The
Ethical
Landscape:
AI
Competence
And
Communication

AI
presents
unique
ethical
challenges.
Jeff
emphasized
two
critical
areas
of
concern:

1. 
   Competence
   (Rule
   1.1).
   
   Lawyers
   must
   understand
   how
   to
   use
   AI
   tools
   appropriately.
   In
   the
   near
   future,
   failing
   to
   use
   AI
   might
   even
   be
   seen
   as
   a
   breach
   of
   competence.
2. 
   Communication
   (Rule
   1.4).
   
   As
   more
   firms
   use
   AI-powered
   chatbots
   for
   client
   intake,
   transparency
   becomes
   crucial.
   Prospective
   clients
   must
   know
   when
   they’re
   speaking
   with
   a
   machine
   and
   have
   the
   option
   to
   talk
   to
   a
   human
   when
   needed.

Jeff
likened
the
eventual
ubiquity
of
AI
in
legal
practice
to
email:
initially
resisted,
but
now
indispensable.

AI
And
The
Evolution
Of
The
Billable
Hour

One
of
Jeff’s
most
provocative
insights
was
his
prediction
that
AI
would
disrupt
—
not
jobs
—
but
the
billable
hour.

“It’s
going
to
make
us
so
efficient,”
Jeff
explained,
“that
we
won’t
be
able
to
justify
the
same
billable
hours.”

The
result?
A
shift
toward
value-based
billing
models,
where
lawyers
charge
based
on
the
outcomes
and
value
they
provide
rather
than
the
time
they
spend.

AI
In
The
Courts:
Moving
At
The
Speed
Of
Trust

The
discussion
also
touched
on
the
courts’
relationship
with
AI.
While
courts
have
embraced
some
technological
advances
(e.g.,
video
hearings
during
COVID-19),
Jeff
acknowledged
they
remain
slow
to
adopt
AI.
Concerns
about
deep
fakes
and
evidentiary
reliability
loom
large,
particularly
in
expedited
decisions
like
TROs.

Jeff
suggested
the
legal
system
would
likely
develop
authentication
processes
for
digital
evidence,
akin
to
notary
stamps
for
signatures.
However,
he
warned
of
growing
pains
as
courts
and
lawyers
adapt.

Final
Thoughts:
The
Least-Painful
Path
To
AI
Adoption

As
we
wrapped
up,
Jeff
offered
practical
advice
for
lawyers
at
any
stage
of
AI
adoption:

“Figure
out
one
area
where
you
can
incorporate
AI
with
minimal
investment
and
pain,”
he
urged.

Whether
it’s
research
tools
like
CoCounsel
or
back-office
applications
for
marketing
and
billing,
the
key
is
to
start
small,
experiment
safely,
and
focus
on
adding
value
for
clients.

Key
Takeaways

• 
  Document
  Retention.
  
  Develop
  clear
  policies
  to
  limit
  hoarding
  and
  mitigate
  risk.
• 
  AI
  Policies.
  
  Provide
  clear
  guidelines,
  encourage
  responsible
  use,
  and
  prioritize
  education.
• 
  Ethics.
  
  Competence
  now
  includes
  AI
  literacy,
  and
  transparency
  with
  clients
  is
  non-negotiable.
• 
  Billing
  Evolution.
  
  AI’s
  efficiency
  will
  drive
  a
  shift
  toward
  value-based
  billing.
• 
  Court
  Challenges.
  
  Authentication
  and
  reliability
  concerns
  will
  slow
  AI’s
  adoption
  in
  the
  judiciary.

The
Bottom
Line

AI
is
here
to
stay,
and
it’s
already
reshaping
the
legal
profession.
The
lawyers
and
firms
that
succeed
will
be
those
who
embrace
this
transformation
thoughtfully,
ethically,
and
with
an
eye
toward
adding
real
value
—
for
clients,
colleagues,
and
the
courts.

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

We
may
have
just
celebrated
Valentine’s
Day,
but
this
Biglaw
firm
is
sparing
no
love
for
its
Beijing
office.
That’s
right,
yet
another
Biglaw
firm
is
shutting
down
an
office
in
China.
This
is
the
third
large
law
firm
to
close
the
doors
of
a
Chinese
office
in
2025.

As
noted
by

Bloomberg
Law,
Cleary
Gottlieb
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$1,491,568,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
32
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
—
plans
to
shut
down
its
Beijing
office.
Cleary
now
becomes
the
17th
U.S.
firm
to
shutter
an
office
in
mainland
China
since
the
exodus
began
in
2024.
Here
are
some
additional
details:

“In
July
2025,
Cleary
Gottlieb
will
merge
our
Beijing
operations
with
Hong
Kong,
closing
the
Beijing
office
and
consolidating
our
Greater
China
presence
into
Hong
Kong,”
the
firm
said
in
a
statement.
“We
continue
our
commitment
to
serving
clients
in
the
region
and
believe
this
decision
will
allow
us
to
do
so
more
efficiently.”

Per
the

American
Lawyer,
the
closure
of
the
firm’s
Beijing
office
leaves
Cleary
with
two
Asia
offices
—
one
in
Hong
Kong,
and
one
in
Seoul.

Which
Biglaw
firm
will
be
the
next
say
zàijiàn
to
its
offices
in
China?
You
can email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
if
you
have
any
intel.
Thank
you.

Cleary
Gottlieb
Set
to
Leave
China
as
Big
Law
Exodus
Continues
[Bloomberg
Law]

Cleary
Becomes
Latest
US
Firm
to
Shutter
Mainland
China
Offices
[American
Lawyer]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

MUNICH
—
German
Chancellor

Olaf
Scholz
received
rapturous
applause
from
European
officials
in
a
fiery
speech
at
the
Munich
Security
Conference
that
took
issue
with
controversial
claims
from
US
Vice
President
JD
Vance
surrounding
alleged
democratic
infringements
across
Europe,
hate
speech
and
supposed
mistreatment
of
the
far-right,
Alternative
for
Germany
(AfD)
party.

“We
will
not
accept
that
people
who
look
at
Germany
from
the
outside
intervene
in
our
democracy,
in
our
elections
and
in
the
democratic
opinion
forming
process
in
the
interest
of
this
party,”
said
Scholz.
“That
is
just
not
done,
certainly
among
friends
and
allies.
We
resolutely
reject
this.”

He
went
on,
“as
a
strong
democracy,
we
are
absolutely
clear
that
the
extreme
right
should
be
out
of
political
control
and
out
of
political
decision
making
processes
and
that
there
will
be
no
cooperation
with
them….I
think
there
is
strong
consensus
between
all
relevant
parties
in
Germany”
on
the
matter.
“Where
our
democracy
goes
from
here
is
for
us
to
decide”
Scholz
added.

German
elections
are
set
to
take
place
next
week
after
the
collapse
of
Scholz’s
three
party
coalition,
with

polling
indicating
that
the
AfD,
whose
critics
have

compared
them
to
neo-Nazis,
is
on
course
to
return
the
second
largest
vote,
behind
the
Christian
Democratic
Union
(CDU).
Scholz’s
Social
Democratic
Party
of
Germany
is
sitting
in
third
place.

Scholz’s
comments
came
the
day
after
Vance
appeared
at
Munich
and

gave
a
speech
blasting
European
politicians
for
what
he
called
suppressing
far-right
parties
in
their
countries
—
in
essence,
using
the
security
forum,
which
is
traditionally
a
home
for
cross-Atlantic
coalition
building
on
defense
issues,
to
attack
America’s
allies.

Vance’s
remarks
suggesting
Europe’s
main
threat
sits
“from
within”
 seemed
to
shock
attendees
here.
US
President
Donald
Trump,
who
did
not
make
the
trip
to
Munich,
endorsed
the
Vance
message
saying,
it
was
a
“very
good
speech,
actually
very
brilliant.”

Following
the
speech,
European
officials,
who
have
been
cautious
in
their
comments
about
the
newly-inaugurated
Trump
administration,
seemed
ready
to
drop
the
veil
of
politeness,
with
Scholz
—
seeking
to
bolster
his
party’s
diminishing
chances
at
home
—
providing
the
most
open
pushback.

Asked
on
stage
after
his
address
if
there
was
anything
in
Vance’s
speech
worth
reflecting
on,
Scholz
sarcastically
replied,
“You
mean
all
this
very
relevant
discussions
about
Ukraine
and
security
in
Europe?” Those
gathered
hummed
with
laughter,
amid
a
sense
that
Vance’s
blindside
attack
on
European
democracy
has
thrown
transatlantic
relations
into
a
tailspin.

Vance’s
words
have
demonstrated
that
the
US
looks
to
be
more
of
“a
divisive
force,
perhaps
not
[a]
uniting
force
in
Europe,”
Alina
Polyakova,
president
and
CEO
of
the
Center
for
European
Policy
Analysis,
told
Breaking
Defense
on
the
sidelines
of
the
conference.

Polyakova
said
another
delegate
at
the
conference
had
spoken
of
how
a
“two-front”
war
has
effectively
emerged
for
Europe,
comprising
of
the
conventional
conflict
with
Russia
and
a
fight
with
the
US
over
“values
and
principles.”

Ukraine
Major
Focus
At
Munich

In
the
lead
up
to
the
conference, Trump
administration
officials
have moved
away
from
Ukraine’s
long
held
conditions
for
securing
peace
with
Russia:
the
return
of
illegally
seized
territory
by
Russia
and
future
US
security
guarantees.

In
addition,
comments
from
Trump
have
raised
fears
that
he
plans
to
negotiate
directly
with
Russian
President
Vladimir
Putin
about
Ukraine,
sidelining
Kyiv
and
its
European
allies
entirely.
European
leaders
here
have
been
pushing
the
message
that
Ukraine
must
be
involved
in
such
talks,
including
Swedish
defense
minister
Pål
Jonson,
who

told
Breaking
Defense
on
Friday
that
“There
can
be
no
talking
about
Ukraine
without
Ukraine.”

“We
don’t
know
what
the
US
position
is”
on
Ukraine,
said
Polyakova.
“The
last
few
days,
we’ve
heard
a
lot
of
different
ideas
and
a
lot
of
different
positions
from
various
parts
of
the
administration
here
in
Munich.

“There
is
no
policy,
there
is
no
strategy.
There’s
a
threat
and
it’s
unclear
to
me
how
real
that
is.”

Ukraine
giving
up
half
of
its
mineral
reserves
in
exchange
for billions
of
dollars
of
US
military
aid
has
also
been
floated
by
the
Trump
administration.
Treasury
Secretary
Scott
Bessent

reportedly
this
week
presented
Ukrainian
leader
Volodymyr
Zelenskyy
with
a
draft
contract
that
would
sign
half
of
Ukraine’s
mineral
wealth
to
the
US,
something
the
Ukrainian
leader
reportedly
did
not
agree
to.

“There’s
a
deal
to
be
had
there,”
said
Polyakova.
“The
Ukrainians
could
basically
say,
‘look,
60
percent
of
these
deposits
are
in
Russian
occupied
territory,
you
give
us
the
weapons
to
take
back
the
land,
you
can
have
it.
And
that
is
the
kind
of
transactional
mentality
that
I
think
is
appealing
to
Trump.”

Despite
Scholz
being
quick
to
dismiss
Vance’s
failure
to
make
Ukraine
more
of
a
priority,
he
made
it
clear
that
at
a
fundamental
level,
he
is
on
board
with
US
thinking.

“We
stand
at
the
side
of
Ukraine,
which
has
come
under
attack,
and
I’m
therefore
pleased
that
the
American
administration
has
reaffirmed
our
common
objective
of
preserving
the
sovereign
independence
of
Ukraine,”
he
said.
“This
sovereign
independence
has
also
been
reflected
in
the
negotiations.”

He
added
that
it
is
“right
Ukraine
is
involved
as
we
begin
to
talk
directly
with
Russia.”

Scholz
also
revealed
that
he
has
spoken
to
Putin
“several
times”
and
put
to
him
what
a
“just
peace”
looks
like.

“I
trust
that
we
all
agree
that
Russia’s
war
against
Ukraine
must
end
as
quickly
as
possible,”
he
remarked.

*
Eric
Adams
case
finally
dropped
and
it
seems
like
the
move
came
after
a
soon-to-retire
DOJ
official
signed
off
in
order
to
give
colleagues
—
likely
planning
to
resign
in
protest
over
this
—
time
to
look
for
new
jobs.
Find
yourself
a
coworker
like
that.
[NY
Times]

*
Time
for
some
Unitary
Executive
theory
as
Trump
takes
fight
to
fire
independent
agency
heads
to
the
Supreme
Court.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Judgment
day
for
J&J
baby
powder
settlement.
[Reuters]

*
Every
firm
is
poachable
now.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Trump
administration
exerts
pressure
on
Romanian
officials
to
lift
restrictions
on
accused
sex
traffickers
because
they’re
Trump
fans.
[Sky
News]

*
Ilya
Somin
pens
takedown
of
the
New
York
Times’
“hey
we
don’t
actually
have
legal
support
for
this,
but
what
if
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
really
didn’t
include
birthright
citizenship”
article.
[Volokh
Conspiracy]

*
NLRB
lawyer
begins
dismantling
labor
protections.
[Law360]