Podcasts about LexisNexis

Citations : Legal Research References with Active Hyperlinkshttps://legal.thomsonreuters.comExplains primary and secondary legal sources and the role of AI in research.https://www.onelegal.comA guide for paralegals detailing research sources and validation methods.https://www.leg.state.fl.usFlorida's official statutes and constitution site for legislative and case law.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornbook_(law)Defines a hornbook as a concise, one-volume legal treatise.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard%27s_CitationsDescribes Shepard's Citations, a system for validating legal authorities.https://www.lawfina.comCovers legal research fundamentals including keyword logic and filters.https://libguides.law.berkeley.eduBerkeley Law's 1L research guide on research steps and case expansion.This conversation delves into the essential skills and methods for effective legal research, focusing on the distinction between primary and secondary sources, the importance of understanding legal authority, and the techniques for statutory interpretation. It emphasizes the need for law students to master these concepts to navigate the complexities of legal practice and prepare for exams like the bar.In the world of law, finding the right legal precedent can feel like searching for a needle in a haystack. But with the right tools and strategies, you can transform this daunting task into a manageable process. This blog post will guide you through the essentials of legal research, focusing on the hierarchy of authority and the use of secondary sources as your map to the treasure of primary law.Introduction: The Quest for Legal Clarity Imagine embarking on a quest through a labyrinth of legal information. Constitutions, statutes, regulations, and centuries of court decisions weave a complex web of rules. How do you find that one specific thread you need? With the right map and tools, you can navigate this labyrinth effectively.The Map: Secondary Sources Secondary sources are your travel guide in the legal world. They explain, analyze, and organize the law for you. Legal encyclopedias provide a broad overview, while treatises offer deep analysis from top experts. Restatements summarize common law, providing credible insights. Start broad with an encyclopedia, then dive into a treatise for expert analysis.The Treasure: Primary Sources Primary sources are the binding rules from courts or legislatures. They are the treasure you seek. Secondary sources point you to these primary laws, providing citations as exact coordinates on your treasure map. Use them to find the key primary sources, then pivot to reading, analyzing, and citing those sources directly.Mastering Authority: Mandatory vs. Persuasive Understanding the difference between mandatory and persuasive authority is crucial. Mandatory authority is law that a court must follow, like a decision from a higher court in its jurisdiction. Persuasive authority, on the other hand, is everything else. A court might find it convincing but is not required to follow it.The Tools: Modern Legal Research Today, legal research is primarily digital, relying on powerful databases like Westlaw and LexisNexis. These platforms offer vast libraries of primary and secondary sources, along with citator tools like Keysight and Shepard's for validation. Mastering Boolean searches and understanding statutory interpretation are key skills for effective research.Embrace the Detective Role As a legal researcher, your role is to find the controlling piece of primary authority hidden in plain sight. Use your secondary source map wisely, master the hierarchy, validate everything with citators, and dive deep into primary authority. Keep digging, keep questioning, and happy researching.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal research strategies and tools.legal research, primary sources, statutory interpretation, legal authority, law students, bar exam, legal analysis, legal tools

The AI era in law is no longer theoretical; it is operational, with leaders like LexisNexis defining themselves as AI-powered information providers and launching sophisticated agentic AI tools like Protégé. Large firms, exemplified by BakerHostetler's strategic three-year partnership with vLex for its Vincent AI platform, are actively adopting domain-specific solutions to drive intelligent, transformative outcomes for clients. Legal workflow companies, such as Litera, are also intensifying the competition, rolling out tools like the Lito AI agent to simplify tasks and boost productivity for thousands of lawyers, often at no extra cost. LexisNexis CEO: the AI law era is already here2025-10-27 | EUROPE SAYSBiglaw Firm Signs Deal, Proving Clio's Enterprise Play Already Has Legs2025-10-27 | Above The LawDebunking the Myth: Legal AI and the Limits of Comparison2025-10-27 | Elevate ServicesBakerHostetler Partners with vLex to Provide Comprehensive, Innovative AI Platform to Enhance Client Services2025-10-27 | Bluefield Daily TelegraphLitera gets into the agentic AI game with formal Lito launch2025-10-27 | Legal Technology InsiderLegal IT Latest: Tessaract raises £4.6m Series A, Integreon hunts for CEO, BakerHostetler partners with vLex + more2025-10-27 | Legal Technology InsiderAI in the Legal Profession Events2025-10-27 | Bracewell LLPLeveraging Legal Technology to Improve Efficiency in Modern Law Firms2025-10-27 | Lawyer MonthlyStaying Ahead: The Latest in Legal Tech Center – Q3 2025 Edition | Above The Law2025-10-27 | Above The LawBakerHostetler Partners with vLex to Provide Comprehensive, Innovative AI Platform to Enhance Client Services Arrow Right2025-10-27 | Baker HostetlerClio Legal Trends Report | ClioCon 20252025-10-27 | On the Road Podcast - Legal Talk NetworkWhy Artificial Intelligence Is Neither Artificial, Nor Intelligent2025-10-27 | Forbes.comLitera Rolls Out Lito Agent To Boost Productivity2025-10-27 | Artificial LawyerHow Abstract's CEO Pat Utz Is Shaping AGI with Real Experience2025-10-27 | InvestorsHangout.comA Lot of Legal Content Is Now AI Garbage — Here's How to Avoid It2025-10-27 | Articles, Tips and Tech for Law Firms and LawyersHow AI And Innovation Are Empowering CEOs To Build Smarter Businesses2025-10-27 | CEOTodayMagazine.comIlona Logvinova Leaves Cleary for HSF Kramer AI Role2025-10-27 | Artificial LawyerMicrosoft Sued: Australia Claims 2.7 Million Customers Misled By AI Price Hike2025-10-27 | International Business TimesRobin AI Lays Off Staff as Growth Disappoints2025-10-27 | Artificial LawyerLitera Brings Legal AI to Everyone — at No Extra Cost2025-10-27 | Legal Technology News - Legal IT Professionals | Everything legal technologyIlona Logvinova joins HSF as global chief AI officer2025-10-27 | Legal IT InsiderAI systems can easily lie and deceive us – a fact researchers are painfully aware of2025-10-27 | RealKMHow a Fintech AI Solved the Problem that Still Haunts Legal AI2025-10-27 | Legaltech on MediumAugmented Lawyering: The Human Side of AI Adoption at Saga2025-10-27 | Legal Technology News - Legal IT Professionals | Everything legal technologyAI in the Boardroom: privilege and recording decisions2025-10-27 | White & CaseThe quantum reckoning: law's next frontier2025-10-26 | International Comparative Legal GuidesLegal Considerations for First-Time Entrepreneurs: Essential Advice2025-10-26 | Grit DailyCybersecurity Awareness Month in Focus, Part II: Practical Data Rights Request Compliance Tips for Canadian Privacy Leaders2025-10-24 | Ogletree Deakins

LexisNexis is one of the most important companies in the entire legal system. For ages it's been where you went to look up case law and do legal research. There isn't a lawyer today who hasn't used it — it's fundamental infrastructure for the legal profession, just like email or a word processor. But in 2025, apparently nobody can resist the siren call of AI, and LexisNexis is no different. The first word Sean said to describe LexisNexis wasn't “law” or “data,” it was “AI.” And I had questions, because so far AI has created just as much chaos and slop in the courts as anywhere else. Links:  Errors found in judge's withdrawn decision stink of AI | The Verge Why do lawyers keep using ChatGPT? | The Verge Conservative judge says AI could strengthen originalist movement | Reuters LexisNexis CEO says it's ‘a matter of time' before attorney loses a license | Fortune Two companies ruled legal tech for decades. AI is blowing that open | BI Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox and Nick Statt. Our editor is Ursa Wright.  The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Reena Batra, vice president, data science, LexisNexis Risk Solutions, explains how falling rates, regional dynamics and direct digital channels are fueling a sharp rise in U.S. auto insurance shopping, with retention challenges pushing insurers to adopt more data-driven, customer-focused strategies.

Temporary work isn't a consolation prize—it's a lever. In this candid conversation, Staffing Boutique's Director of Recruitment, Dana Scurlock, reframes the temp path as a smart way to stay employed, sharpen skills, and earn while exploring fit. She traces her roots to a temp desk in 2006 and explains why the market's realities—shorter tenures, year-end crunches, and staffing bandwidth gaps—make interim roles unusually valuable for both candidates and nonprofits. “One of the great benefits of temporary work is it can fit within your schedule,” she notes, pointing to project-based needs that run two or three days a week and let candidates stack to a full 40 hours across multiple gigs.Dana urges job seekers to check the “temporary” box on job boards instead of waiting months for a direct hire. Put temp and consulting projects on your resume—silence creates gaps. The better story in interviews is momentum: “Instead of saying ‘I'm in between jobs,' you're a hot commodity who's actively working.” She stresses two traits that get temps invited back: self-sufficiency and crisp communication. Arrive with questions that unlock the day's tasks, request the specific information you need up front, and deliver without constant check-ins.Cultural humility matters, especially in mission-driven shops. Temps often see opportunities to improve databases, files, or event processes; offer those observations with tact and with clarity about scope. Ask whether leaders want suggestions now or prefer focus on the assigned project. It's role awareness, not silence.On tech, list the actual tools on your resume and be ready to describe what you did with them—Raiser's Edge queries, Excel data cleaning, Outlook mail merges, LexisNexis research, whatever applies. Keep learning through webinars, libraries, and sector trainings; AI for prospecting and fundraising is here, so stay current. For many assignments, managers need someone who can start immediately with minimal training—so signaling concrete tool fluency is a fast pass.Finally, Dana frames temp roles as on-the-job professional development. You'll earn, learn modern systems, and convert real usage into stronger interview stories. When events and year-end appeals stack up, that readiness is gold for organizations—and a career accelerator for you.Find us Live daily on YouTube!Find us Live daily on LinkedIn!Find us Live daily on X: @Nonprofit_ShowOur national co-hosts and amazing guests discuss management, money and missions of nonprofits! 12:30pm ET 11:30am CT 10:30am MT 9:30am PTSend us your ideas for Show Guests or Topics: HelpDesk@AmericanNonprofitAcademy.comVisit us on the web:The Nonprofit Show

Pierre Hoffman n'est pas un bâtonnier comme les autres. Cet avocat parisien de 48 ans, spécialiste de la propriété intellectuelle, s'est imposé comme l'un des artisans de la transformation numérique du monde du droit. Après un début de carrière classique dans de grands cabinets, il bifurque un temps vers le pénal aux côtés du célèbre Jean-Louis Pelletier, avant de revenir à ses premières amours : la défense de la création et de l'innovation.Élu bâtonnier de Paris en 2022, il découvre une profession fracturée entre les géants anglo-saxons bardés d'outils d'IA et la multitude d'indépendants souvent démunis face à la révolution numérique. Son objectif : réduire la fracture technologique entre les 34 000 avocats du barreau de Paris. En un an, il réussit à offrir à 14 000 avocats solos ou en duo un accès gratuit à une IA juridique pendant 15 mois, via un partenariat inédit avec Dalloz. Résultat : 7 000 avocats l'utilisent désormais au quotidien.Militant d'une IA souveraine et responsable, Pierre Hoffman a ensuite enchainé les accords avec LexisNexis, Jarvis Legal ou Doctrine pour garantir un “accès à l'IA pour tous”. Avec son franc-parler et sa curiosité technophile, il incarne une nouvelle génération de juristes convaincus que la modernité n'est pas l'ennemie du droit, mais sa prochaine frontière. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

In this special episode of The Corporate Counsel Show, produced in partnership with LexisNexis, we explore the opportunities in front of law departments to expand the breadth of what they can achieve, including by taking small, accessible steps to improve familiarity with new technologies. Host Jerome Doraisamy speaks with LexisNexis APAC head of legal Ali Dibbenhall about the work she does and what she enjoys about it, her observations about the success or otherwise that law departments are experiencing in onboarding and effectively utilising new technologies, the universality of being “resource constrained”, and where we're at with AI governance in-house. Dibbenhall also delves into having safe places to experiment, using platforms as a sounding board or devil's advocate, taking small steps to find efficiencies and streamline departmental operations, changing one's habits, and the benefits of AI in in-house legal practice. To learn more about Protégé now in Lexis+ AI® click here. If you like this episode, show your support by rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, X and LinkedIn. If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au

Send us a textKen Crutchfield works with Wolters Kluwer, where he focuses on legal research products that help professionals find and understand laws and regulations. He has spent more than four decades in and around the legal, tax, and accounting industries. Over the years, he has held senior roles at Bloomberg Tax Technology, Thomson Reuters, and LexisNexis. He began his career listening to lawyer support calls in the early days of legal research services and went on to bridge the gap between technical teams and the business side of legal and tax solutions. In this conversation, Ken shares how technology has transformed the legal profession, from early word processing machines to today's AI tools. He also talks about the challenges of access to justice, the importance of balancing legal risk with practical advice, and how lawyers can adapt to new ways of working. Tune in to hear how decades of experience in legal technology shape Ken's views on the future of law, and learn why he believes AI will bring new opportunities for lawyers to deliver better and more efficient service to their clients.Wolters Kluwerhttps://www.wolterskluwer.com Ken Crutchfield https://www.kencrutchfield.com/ Louis Goodman www.louisgoodman.comhttps://www.lovethylawyer.com/510.582.9090Music: Joel Katz, Seaside Recording, MauiTech: Bryan Matheson, Skyline Studios, OaklandAudiograms: Paul Robert louis@lovethylawyer.com

Daniel Lewis joins us this week to trace a path from Ravel Law to LexisNexis to LegalOn, with a throughline of data-driven thinking and practical outcomes for lawyers. Stanford roots shaped early work on judicial analytics, then a front-row view inside a global publisher broadened focus to content, guidance, and the daily reality of in-house teams. That experience pointed straight at contract review as a top pain for corporate counsel, which led to LegalOn's product mission and global push.Data access still shapes progress. Case law digitization advanced through projects like Harvard's archive, yet comprehensive coverage, secondary sources, and news remain guarded by incumbents. Daniel explains why large datasets give scale, why startups face steep hurdles, and why thoughtful product scope matters. The lesson, build where data, workflow, and user value intersect.LegalOn's hybrid approach blends large models with attorney-built playbooks, practice notes, and suggested clause language. Consistency matters more than clever one-offs, so reviews align to standards, not model whimsy. Daniel shares a memorable demo from a rival where a phantom “California Code section 17” alert appeared, a cautionary tale that underscores the need for guardrails, verification, and explainability.Conversation turns to multi-step agents and matter management. Picture an intake email from sales, missing key fields. An agent requests what is needed, opens a matter, applies a tailored playbook, highlights non-negotiables and fallbacks, then keeps stakeholders informed as work progresses. LegalOn also converts existing playbooks and prior redlines into AI-ready guidance, reducing setup chores while preserving organizational risk preferences.Finally, Daniel outlines new muscles for legal teams. Daily AI usage shifts time from line-by-line edits to judgment, negotiation strategy, and process leadership. Tech fluency, business orientation, and change leadership rise in importance, along with a steady diet of outside-legal analysis from voices like Ben Thompson and Benedict Evans. The message, free lawyers from sludge, raise the ceiling on strategic work, and build for long-term improvement across the legal function.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Transcript:

Kim Sutherland has 14 different email addresses. She doesn't suggest you do the same, but she does think a lot about fraud in her job as the Global Head of Fraud & Identity at LexisNexis Risk Solutions. As a follow-up to the last episode, Caleb and Kim discuss the various dimensions and the growing prevalence of reward point / loyalty fraud. SponsorsRoutable - http://ohmyfraud.promo/routable(00:00) - Introduction and CPE Opportunity (00:26) - Meet Kimberly Sutherland from LexisNexis (01:43) - Listener Reviews and Feedback (04:07) - Conversation with Kimberly Sutherland Begins (06:06) - Understanding Loyalty Points and Fraud (22:13) - Synthetic Identity Fraud (29:57) - Insider Threats in Loyalty Programs (32:26) - Imagining Fraud to Prevent It (34:39) - Detection and Prevention Strategies (36:20) - Understanding Digital Risk (42:45) - Fraud Databases and Shared Intelligence (45:24) - Responding to Fraud Incidents (53:57) - The Role of Government in Fraud Prevention (59:49) - Future of Fraud and Prevention Technologies (01:02:01) - Ongoing Challenges in Identity Verification (01:03:39) - Conclusion and Credits HOW TO EARN FREE CPEIn less than 10 minutes, you can earn NASBA-approved accounting CPE after listening to this episode. Download our mobile app, sign up, and look for the Oh My Fraud channel. Register for the course, complete a short quiz, and get your CPE certificate.https://www.earmark.app/Download the app:Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/earmark-cpe/id1562599728Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.earmarkcpe.appLearn More About LexisNexishttps://risk.lexisnexis.com/ CONNECT WITH KIMLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ksutherland365 CONNECT WITH CALEBLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/calebnewquist/Email us at ohmyfraud@earmarkcpe.com

Hilary Gerzhoy is a partner at HWG LLP, where she represents lawyers, law firms, legal tech companies, and in-house counsel navigating the full range of legal ethics matters. She serves as outside general counsel to law firms nationwide, advising on risk management, conflicts and disqualification, and firm formations and dissolutions. Hilary is the Chair of the D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee, a member of the ABA's Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, and was appointed by the judges of the D.C. Circuit to serve on the D.C. Circuit's Advisory Committee on Admissions and Grievances. She also teaches legal ethics as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Hilary has published more than forty articles on developments in legal ethics and her work has been featured in the Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg Law, The National Law Journal, Law.com, Law360, the Washington Lawyer, and LexisNexis. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT ETHICS TROUBLE FOR LAWYERS Most lawyers work hard to serve their clients well, and part of that commitment means staying alert to ethical challenges. Questions around conflicts, supervision, or new technology don't have to turn into problems – if you know how to spot and address them early. As a lawyer who advises firms across the country on professional responsibility, Hilary Gerzhoy helps attorneys do exactly that. She guides clients through bar complaints and malpractice claims, but more importantly, she shows them how to avoid those situations in the first place. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge Podcast, Elise Holtzman talks with Hilary about the most common ethics missteps, how disciplinary actions differ from malpractice suits, and the practical steps you can take to safeguard your reputation. 1:25 — Hilary's background and role in legal ethics 2:19 — The two types of risk lawyers face: disciplinary vs malpractice 2:46 — How bar complaints get filed and investigated 4:28 — Range of sanctions, from private admonishments to disbarment 5:50 — Key differences between malpractice suits and bar complaints 8:20 — Why “the cover-up is worse than the crime” 9:28 — Why malpractice suits often turn into bar complaints 12:40 — Common triggers for bar complaints (including money issues) 18:05 — When conflicts of interest create ethics problems 25:12 — How firms can reduce risk with better supervision and systems 30:44 — The role of technology, including AI, in malpractice and ethics risk 36:17 — Steps lawyers can take to mitigate mistakes in real time 44:44 — Why hiding errors can have career-ending consequences 45:20 — Building a firm culture where people can admit mistakes Mentioned In Good Lawyers, Bad Outcomes: How Lawyers Can Avoid Ethics Trouble HWG LLP Hilary Gerzhoy on LinkedIn Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE Today's episode is brought to you by the Ignite Women's Business Development Accelerator, a 9-month business development program created BY women lawyers for women lawyers. Ignite is a carefully designed business development program containing content, coaching, and a community of like-minded women who are committed to becoming rainmakers AND supporting the retention and advancement of other women in the profession. If you are interested in either participating in the program or sponsoring a woman in your firm to enroll, learn more about Ignite and sign up for our registration alerts by visiting www.thelawyersedge.com/ignite.

This week, we talk with Gabe Pereyra, President and co-founder at Harvey, about his path from DeepMind and Google Brain to launching Harvey with Winston Weinberg; how a roommate's real-world legal workflows met early GPT-4 access and OpenAI backing; why legal emerged as the right domain for large models; and how personal ties to the profession plus a desire to tackle big societal problems shaped a mission to apply advanced AI where language and law intersect.Gabe's core thesis lands hard, “the models are the product.” Rather than narrow tools for single tasks, Harvey opted for a broad assistant approach. Lawyers live in text and email, so dialog becomes the control surface, an “AI associate” supporting partners and teams. Early demos showed useful output across many tasks, which reinforced a generalist design, then productized connections into Outlook and Word, plus a no-code Workflow Builder.Go-to-market strategy flipped the usual script. Instead of starting small, Harvey partnered early with Allen & Overy and leaders like David Wakeling. Large firms supplied layered review, which reduced risk from model errors and increased learning velocity. From there the build list grew, security and data privacy, dedicated capacity, links to firm systems, case law, DMS, data rooms, and eDiscovery. A matter workspace sits at the center. Adoption rises with surface area, with daily activity approaching seventy percent where four or more product surfaces see regular use. ROI work now includes analysis of write-offs and specialized workflows co-built with firms and clients, for example Orrick, A&O, and PwC.Talent, training, and experience value come next. Firms worry about job paths, and Gabe does not duck that concern. Models handle complex work, which raises anxiety, yet also shortens learning curves. Harvey collaborates on curricula using past deals, plus partnerships with law schools. Return on experience shows up in recruiting, PwC reports stronger appeal among early-career talent, and quality-of-life gains matter. On litigation use cases, chronology builders require firm expertise and guardrails, with evaluation methods that mirror how senior associates review junior output. Frequent use builds a mental model for where errors tend to appear.Partnerships round out the strategy. Research content from LexisNexis and Wolters Kluwer, work product in iManage and NetDocuments, CLM workflows via Ironclad, with plans for data rooms, eDiscovery, and billing. Vision extends to a complete matter management service, emails, documents, prior work, evaluation, billing links, and strict ethical walls, all organized by client-matter. Global requirements drive multi-region storage and controls, including Australia's residency rules. The forward look centers on differentiation through customization, firms encode expertise into models, workflows, and agents, then deliver outcomes faster and at software margins. “The value sits in your people,” Gabe says, and firms that convert know-how into systems will lead the pack.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Transcript

Big thank you to Proton Pass for sponsoring this video. To sign up for Proton Pass, please use the following link https://proton.me/davidbombal to get a 40% discount At Black Hat, David Bombal sits down with OSINT pro Mishaal Khan to unpack anti-OSINT, practical steps to regain privacy without pricey services. Mishaal demos his free OperationPrivacy dashboard (400+ actions, 3 tiers: Conscious → Serious → Ghost) and shows how to: • Freeze credit & use free monitoring • Opt out of 100+ data brokers (Spokeo, Intelius, LexisNexis, more) • Blur your home on Google/Bing/Apple Maps + real-world deterrents • Claim critical accounts (IRS/DMV/USPS/UPS) and your domain • Nudge page-one results with harmless decoys • File copyright takedowns (Instagram/Google, etc.) US-centric but widely applicable. DIY, trackable, and truthful about the time it takes. // Mishaal Kahn's SOCIALS // LinkedIn: / mish-aal Website: https://www.mishaalkhan.com/ Tool created: https://www.operationprivacy.com/ // David's SOCIAL // Discord: / discord X: / davidbombal Instagram: / davidbombal LinkedIn: / davidbombal Facebook: / davidbombal.co TikTok: / davidbombal YouTube: / @davidbombal Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3f6k6gE... SoundCloud: / davidbombal Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... // MY STUFF // https://www.amazon.com/shop/davidbombal // SPONSORS // Interested in sponsoring my videos? Reach out to my team here: sponsors@davidbombal.com // MENU // 0:00 – Coming Up 01:31 – Sponsored by ProtonPass 03:00 – Introduction 05:44 – Operation Privacy Demo 07:49 – How to Freeze Your Credit 08:41 – Credit Monitoring Explained 09:19 – Managing Subscriptions 10:13 – Data Removal (Outbound Requests) 12:40 – Should You Use Automatic Removal? 14:03 – Protecting Your Privacy 15:41 – Why Privacy Takes Time 17:46 – Planting Your Privacy Flag 19:56 – Ghost Mode & SOE Manipulation 22:47 – Getting Content Removal Forms 23:40 – Taking a Holistic Approach to Privacy 25:08 – Final Thoughts / Outro Please note that links listed may be affiliate links and provide me with a small percentage/kickback should you use them to purchase any of the items listed or recommended. Thank you for supporting me and this channel! Disclaimer: This video is for educational purposes only.

Daniel Lewis has witnessed legal technology's evolution from multiple vantage points that few others can claim. As a Stanford law student in 2012, he and classmate Nik Reed co-founded the legal research startup Ravel Law with the audacious goal of taking on LexisNexis and Westlaw using machine learning and data analytics – at a time when such challengers were few and far between. Not only was Ravel Law pioneering in its own right, but it also spearheaded and funded the Caselaw Access Project, an ambitious partnership with Harvard Law School's Library Innovation Lab to digitize and provide free and open access to every official court decision ever published in the United States.  After Ravel's acquisition by LexisNexis in 2017, Lewis spent the next five years leading product teams within the legal research giant, including as vice president and general manager of its Practical Guidance and analytics products. This dual perspective – startup founder turned corporate executive – helped shape his understanding of what works and what doesn't when building technology for lawyers.  Today, as CEO and global chief executive of LegalOn Technologies, Lewis leads a 600-person company that is tackling contract review with a fundamentally different approach. Rather than relying solely on tech-enabled services or raw AI that can hallucinate legal advice, LegalOn combines large language models with attorney-developed playbooks to help in-house legal teams achieve up to 85% time savings on contract review. The company just raised $50 million, for a total raise of $200 million across multiple funding rounds – which Lewis says makes it the most well-funded AI company focused on in-house contract review  – and announced a strategic partnership with OpenAI to develop AI agents for legal workflows.  In this wide-ranging conversation, Lewis shares hard-won insights about the realities of legal tech entrepreneurship, from the "deranged" confidence required to challenge industry giants as a law student to the leadership lessons learned managing teams through multiple business transformations. He discusses why the current moment represents the most significant opportunity for legal tech innovation in decades, how AI agents will reshape routine legal work, and what he's learned about building technology that lawyers don't just try once but actually integrate into their daily practices.  Related episodes: From Ravel Cofounder to Knowable CEO, Nik Reed Has Learned that Building Quality AI for Legal Takes A Lot of Hard Work.  On LawNext: The Inside Story of the Caselaw Access Project, with Three of the People Who Made It Happen.   Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.   Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). Paxton, Rapidly conduct research, accelerate drafting, and analyze documents with Paxton. What do you need to get done today?    If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

George Hosfield, VP and GM of home insurance, and Tanner Sheehan, VP and GM of U.S. claims, LexisNexis Risk Solutions discuss how advanced technology, evolving consumer expectations, and smarter partnerships are reshaping home insurance strategies from underwriting to claims.

Keith "Pistol" Hawk was VP of Sales at LexisNexis where he led a salesforce of over 1,000 people. He co-authored "Get-Real Selling: Your Personal Coach for REAL Sales Excellence" and he's given many keynote speeches at corporate events about leadership.  In this episode we discuss: -How his upbringing helped him become self-reliant at an early age -The power of presence when raising children -The keys to a long, happy marriage  -Pitfalls of leadership -Having hard conversations at work, and more -- email questions to omaid@omaid.me

In this episode of the Women in Data podcast, Cecilia is joined by Jo Portlock, VP of People, Culture and Belonging at LexisNexis, for a powerful conversation about what fairness truly means in today's workplace — and why it's so much more than a buzzword. They explore how fairness is about visibility and access, not advantage, and why organisations must intentionally build cultures that support everyone, especially in times of uncertainty. Jo shares how mentorship and sponsorship are essential tools for progress, and why strong communities like Women in Data are more important now than ever. You'll also hear why data is a crucial force for accountability, how to use it to spot gaps and drive change, and what the future of work might look like in a world increasingly shaped by AI. Packed with personal insights, practical tips, and thoughtful reflections, this episode is a must-listen for anyone looking to navigate a shifting professional landscape with purpose, resilience, and a supportive network by their side.

I spoke with a long-time employee of LexisNexis, about where AI search is, and where it's going.   Episode Highlights 02:51 - Google or general AI tools vs. Lexis AI for legal research. 03:53 - Generative AI assistant “Protege” by LexisNexis. 05:08 - Lexis Plus AI's approach to addressing hallucinations. 09:08 - Evolution of legal tech over the years. 10:32 - Legal industry's AI adoption increases. 12:14 - Simon's personal journey at LexisNexis since 1999. 18:28 - Importance of user-focused AI tools at LexisNexis. 20:03 - AI-driven workflow strategies in legal research. 24:09 - Less known Lexis features: Search-tree explanation.   Episode Resources Connect with Jared Correia jared@redcavelegal.com  https://redcavelegal.com/  https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaredcorreia  https://twitter.com/RedCaveLegal  www.linkedin.com/in/jaredcorreia/  Connect with Simon Weierman https://www.linkedin.com/in/simonweierman/   

What happens when you combine the rigor of legal research with the power of data analytics? In this illuminating conversation with Carla Rydholm, General Manager and Head of Product at Lex Machina, we explore how legal analytics is transforming litigation strategy.Carla's unconventional journey from biology PhD to legal tech pioneer offers unique insights into how cross-disciplinary thinking drives innovation. She shares how Lex Machina evolved from a Stanford public interest project to an industry-leading analytics platform now part of LexisNexis, maintaining its original mission of bringing transparency to the law.The heart of our discussion centers on how Lex Machina converts the complexity of court records into structured, actionable data. Attorneys face countless decision points throughout litigation, from estimating case timelines to deciding whether to fight unfavorable rulings. Carla explains how comprehensive litigation data enables lawyers to ground these decisions in empirical evidence rather than just gut feeling or limited personal experience.We also tackle the evolving role of AI in legal practice. While many vendors make ambitious claims, Carla emphasizes the importance of responsible AI implementation that keeps attorneys firmly in control. Lex Machina's approach ensures their AI capabilities enhance rather than replace legal judgment, with technology serving as a trusted assistant rather than an autonomous agent.For legal tech entrepreneurs, Carla offers invaluable advice on product development: ensure your technical team gains direct exposure to users. By bridging the gap between engineers and attorneys, companies create solutions that truly address legal professionals' needs rather than just showcasing impressive technology.Ready to discover how data analytics could transform your approach to litigation strategy? Connect with Carla on LinkedIn or email her at carla.rydholm@lexisnexis.com to learn more about Lex Machina and the future of data-enabled legal practice.

In this week's episode of The Geek in Review, Greg Lambert flies solo while co-host Marlene Gebauer enjoys some well-deserved relaxation. Greg welcomes Trevor Quick, Strategic Business Development lead at Harvey.ai, to discuss one of the most talked-about companies in legal tech today. With a staggering $300 million Series E funding round and a $5 billion valuation, Harvey is rewriting the narrative of what legal AI can be, as well as who it is for. Trevor, a longtime listener turned guest, brings an insider's view of the company's evolution and its ambitions for reshaping the legal services ecosystem.Trevor provides behind-the-scenes insight into how Harvey has become such a magnet for both capital and attention. He attributes the rapid growth to the company's structure—where legal expertise and AI engineering are in constant collaboration. From founder Winston Weinberg's legal acumen to co-founder Gabe Pereyra's technical leadership, Harvey's DNA has always been rooted in practical use cases for lawyers. The company's commitment to building with, not just for, the legal community has led to the development of a GTM team composed of practicing attorneys who work directly with law firms and corporate legal departments to customize AI solutions that align with real workflows.One of the most talked-about moves is Harvey's deepening partnership with LexisNexis. Trevor explains how integrating Lexis's data directly into Harvey's platform removes the friction lawyers face when juggling multiple research tools. With access to Shepard's citations and native case law lookup, attorneys can now verify and trust the results Harvey generates—turning it from a generative assistant into a full-fledged research companion. This update not only boosts confidence but also meets the rigorous standards legal professionals demand, especially those skeptical of AI's early stumbles.The conversation also touches on Harvey's new functionalities like the Workflow Builder, Vault document review enhancements, and Deep Research Mode. Trevor likens these innovations to “agentic” workflows that let users build custom solutions with low or no code. Whether it's KM teams building tailored research processes, or attorneys streamlining diligence reviews, Harvey is giving legal professionals the ability to shape how AI works with them, not around them. Trevor emphasizes that Harvey's success comes from its honesty, adaptability, and the trust it has earned by meeting lawyers where they are—not forcing them to change how they work overnight.In closing, Greg asks Trevor to gaze into the crystal ball, and while Trevor jokingly admits that predicting the future in AI is a fool's errand, he offers a vision rooted in intuition, collaboration, and democratized access to justice. From expanding into tax, compliance, and marketing workflows, to becoming a central hub for legal and adjacent industries, Harvey is on a path to not only augment what lawyers do, but to enhance how they feel about the work itself. With world-class partnerships and a relentless pace of innovation, Trevor makes a compelling case that Harvey isn't just a tool—it might just be the toolbelt.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Transcript

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists.   This week's topics: 00:00 Two Stories from Puerto Rico: Adoption of Duty of Tech Competence and New Rule Allowing Non-Lawyers to Own Law Firms (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 04:42 Free Legal Research Site Descrybe.ai Launches A Paid Suite of Legal Research Tools, Including Its Own Citator (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 10:06 Florida Bar on the Ethics of Sharing Case Hypotheticals in Lawyer Listservs (Selected by Niki Black) 13:59 What The Latest Data Reveals About Legal Professionals' AI Perspectives (Selected by Niki Black) 18:27 Mid Law Challenges and Opportunities and An Interesting Seminar (Selected by Stephen Embry) 27:30 Lawyers Copied Parts of Brief, Decided to ‘Double Down on Imprudence' by Repeating Losing Arguments, Judge Alleges (Selected by Victor Li) 32:15 Harvey/Lexis etc. (Selected by Joe Patrice) 37:21 Law Firm Marketing: A Tragedy In Three Acts That Firms Can't Stop Performing (Selected by Joe Patrice) 44:35 GenAI Legal Tech Map: June 2025 (Selected by Stephanie Wilkins)

When legal research giant LexisNexis and legal AI giant Harvey announced a strategic alliance last month, legal tech commentator Richard Tromans called it “possibly the most important legal tech move in a decade.” On today's episode of LawNext, we go deep into the partnership and its implications with Sean Fitzpatrick, CEO of LexisNexis North America, UK & Ireland.  Through the partnership, LexisNexis will integrate its primary law content, Shepard's citations, and AI technology directly into Harvey's platform, and the two companies will jointly develop agentic AI workflows. The partnership comes on the heels of Harvey's remarkable Series E funding round, raising $300 million at a $5 billion valuation, in which RELX, LexisNexis's parent company, was a participating investor.  So what drove this alliance? In his interview with host Bob Ambrogi, Fitzpatrick reveals it wasn't a boardroom strategy session that sparked this partnership, but rather customer demand from large law firms seeking the combined power of LexisNexis's authoritative legal content and Harvey's AI capabilities. Fitzpatrick talks about what this means for the future of legal AI, how it addresses the persistent challenge of hallucinations in AI-generated legal content, and whether we're witnessing the emergence of a new model for legal tech partnerships. He also shares insights from recent ROI studies showing dramatic productivity gains for both law firms and corporate legal departments using AI tools.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). SpeakWrite: Save time with fast, human-powered legal transcription—so you can focus on your practice Paxton, Rapidly conduct research, accelerate drafting, and analyze documents with Paxton. What do you need to get done today?,    If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

In this inaugural “Legal Tuesday” edition of The Rainmaking Podcast, Scott Love introduces a new series focused specifically on legal professionals, offering expert insight for lawyers navigating complex transitions. Scott speaks with Hilary Gerzhoy, a seasoned ethics lawyer and thought leader on professional responsibility, who shares valuable guidance on avoiding ethical pitfalls during lateral partner moves. She outlines real-world examples of landmines, such as premature client contact, improper solicitation of team members, and breach of fiduciary duty—each of which can derail a move or trigger legal retaliation. The conversation covers essential considerations for departing lawyers, including how to handle sensitive communications, what firms can legally withhold, and how to protect client relationships ethically. The episode is especially timely for law firm partners considering a move, and serves as a cautionary guide to avoid becoming tomorrow's legal headline. This Tuesday edition of the podcast delivers focused legal guidance, while Thursday episodes will continue serving broader professional services audiences. Visit: https://therainmakingpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://youtu.be/LAtWIzixoeY ----------------------------------------

Homeowners risk is getting wilder, but the answers are already here. On June 18, 2025 (10 a.m. PT / 1 p.m. ET), join this free, fast‑paced virtual Demo Day to watch live walkthroughs from Premier sponsors HomeFactors (Porch Group Media), … Read More » The post Don’t Miss Today’s Demo Day! Homeowners Data + AI Demo Day appeared first on Insurance Journal TV.

The data broker had a massive data breach, leaking personal info on hundreds of thousands of people. Here's what you need to know. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Chris and Hector tackle a massive breach at Coinbase, insider threats in India, and a shady delay in reporting. They also explore how state actors are silently hijacking home routers, and why LexisNexis is the latest data broker to drop the ball. Join our new Patreon! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/c/hackerandthefed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Send HATF your questions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠questions@hackerandthefed.com

EP 245 In this week's update:  A trove of sensitive Russian nuclear facility documents was unintentionally published through a government procurement site, revealing critical infrastructure details, raising global security concerns and providing your child's science class with a new talking point.A new study shows that large language models struggle to manage even simple long-term business operations, often collapsing into erratic or irrational behavior.A new benchmark evaluates how aggressively AI models report unethical behavior, highlighting the growing complexity of aligning AI with human moral expectations.Brazil launches a groundbreaking program enabling citizens to securely store and sell their personal data, potentially reshaping global norms on digital ownership and privacy.Data broker LexisNexis disclosed a breach impacting over 364,000 individuals, spotlighting persistent vulnerabilities in third-party development environments.A wave of cyberattacks has disrupted operations at some high-profile (and not so high profile) fashion retailers, targeting the retail sector's ongoing style and cybersecurity challenges.Hackers claim to have scraped 1.2 billion Facebook profiles via an API exploit, and that's almost as much as Meta scraped off its own apps.An AI-driven tool that aggregates and analyzes YouTube comments to infer personal details sparks serious concerns over online anonymity and platform safeguards.The U.S. government has quietly added DNA from over 130,000 migrant children to a criminal database, prompting widespread ethical and privacy criticisms.What do you say?  Time to explode onto this scene.Find the full transcript for this podcast here.

Send us a textWe explore the recent LexisNexus data breach that exposed sensitive personal information of over 364,000 individuals through a third-party platform accessing their GitHub account. This incident highlights critical vulnerabilities in how data brokers handle our most sensitive information and raises questions about regulatory oversight.• Data exposed included names, date of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, and driver's license numbers• The breach occurred when someone accessed the company's GitHub account through a third-party platform• Attackers likely found hard-coded credentials that allowed them to move laterally through systems • Data brokers operate with minimal regulation despite handling massive amounts of sensitive information• Better governance policies and automated privacy operations could significantly reduce these risks• Both technical solutions and regulatory approaches are needed to protect consumer dataBreach Occurred: December 25, 2024.Discovery: April 1, 2025.Public Notification: May 27, 2025.Notice Letters Sent: May 24, 2025.Shameless plus: Check out tools like Transcend's autonomous privacy operations to help prevent similar incidents and continue to monitor your privacy activities. Support the show

A VPN provider has tried to size up the safety of AI Chatbots based on App Store Privacy Labels. Is that enough? We'll talk it over. Then - a data breach at LexisNexis as well as over 184 million login credentials just… sitting someplace - are great reasons to revisit some security basics. That's all ahead on this edition of The Checklist, brought to you by SecureMac. Check out our show notes: SecureMac.com/Checklist And get in touch with us: Checklist@Securemac.com

Microsoft wants to update all the things LexisNexis breach impacts 364,000 people Cyber insurance premium volume expected to double Huge thanks to our sponsor, ThreatLocker ThreatLocker® is a global leader in Zero Trust endpoint security, offering cybersecurity controls to protect businesses from zero-day attacks and ransomware. ThreatLocker operates with a default deny approach to reduce the attack surface and mitigate potential cyber vulnerabilities. To learn more and start your free trial, visit ThreatLocker.com/CISO.

If you like what you hear, please subscribe, leave us a review and tell a friend!

This episode focuses on the challenges and future of standard essential patent (SEP) licensing. Alex Orsi from HP highlighted the challenges of the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing model, which increases costs and delays innovation. He emphasized that HP, as a product innovator, should not be targeted as an implementer. Tim Pohlmann from LexisNexis discussed the role of patent pools, noting their potential benefits and the challenges of setting fair rates. The conversation also covered the impact of SEP litigation on innovation and the need for global policy changes to address these issues.

For the 300th episode of The Geek in Review, we celebrate in true “three geeks” fashion by bringing back two familiar voices: Kris Satkunas, Director of Strategic Consulting at LexisNexis, and legal pricing expert Toby Brown, CEO at DV8 Legal Strategies. Kris joins to walk through highlights from the newly released 2025 CounselLink Trends Report, and Toby brings his trademark insight… and a touch of skepticism to the discussion. Together, they explore what the latest data reveals about legal pricing, client behavior, firm strategy, and the evolving landscape of law firm-client relationships.The conversation opens with a focus on the headline trend: partner billing rates continue to rise steeply, particularly in high-value areas like M&A and regulatory work. Despite clients claiming to negotiate hard on pricing, the data on effective rates, what clients actually pay, suggests those increases are sticking. Kris points out that clients are becoming more sophisticated in managing blended rates and staffing strategies, using analytics and technology to influence outcomes, even if hourly billing still dominates.A recurring theme is the widening rate gap between large and mid-sized firms, now a staggering 61%. Kris attributes this to the concentration of high-rate work in large firms and their dominance in practices like M&A and regulatory. Toby adds that the presence of pricing professionals at larger firms contributes to more strategic rate setting—something mid-sized firms often lack. The team also discusses a new report metric analyzing new matter spend, which reveals that even fresh legal work is increasingly flowing to the largest firms, countering narratives that mid-sized firms are winning market share.When the conversation shifts to Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs), Kris cautiously celebrates a slight uptick in usage, while Toby remains doubtful about long-term momentum. They agree that lawyers' difficulty in scoping matters remains a key barrier. The role of project management professionals is highlighted as crucial for moving the industry forward on AFAs—but adoption is still slow, especially outside of established comfort zones like IP and employment law.Greg brings up another area ripe for disruption: ALSPs and their potential to absorb high-volume, low-risk work. While Kris hasn't yet seen a data-supported shift toward ALSPs, Toby sees tremendous opportunity—particularly when ALSPs combine process standardization and AI tools. The hosts also discuss specific use cases, like LegalMation for employment litigation, where existing tech could already reduce cost and inefficiency, if only firms were willing to change.The episode closes with a look ahead. Kris notes the eye-popping rate growth among associates—some nearing $2,000/hour—as a surprising trend, while urging caution in interpreting conflicting data from different sources. Her “crystal ball” prediction? Legal rates will likely continue to climb, especially in high-stakes practice areas, while AFAs may finally gain ground if firms invest in the infrastructure to scope and manage work properly. As always, the team ends with good humor, mutual respect, and a shared love for data—exactly the energy you'd expect for The Geek in Review's milestone 300th episode.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Transcript:

Shoot us a Text.Episode #1031: Today we're talking about Trump's possible easing of auto tariffs ahead of a Michigan trip, GM's courtroom defense over driver data privacy, and why e-commerce might be losing its edge as shoppers crave more fun and surprise.As he prepares to visit Michigan for the 100-day mark of his second term, President Trump is signaling potential changes that could ease the auto industry's tariff burdens.The administration is considering adjustments to tariffs on imported auto parts and may exempt automakers from certain steel and aluminum duties.The policy shift, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, appears aimed at supporting domestic manufacturers and suppliers.Proposed changes would address the “stacking” of tariffs—where multiple levies apply to the same imported vehicle—by potentially eliminating overlapping duties.The potential relief follows a joint letter from major automakers, including GM and Toyota, urging the administration to reconsider.“This deal is a major victory for the president's trade policy,” said Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, “by rewarding companies who manufacture domestically.”General Motors is facing a wave of lawsuits accusing the automaker of secretly collecting and selling drivers' behavioral data—claims GM is now trying to dismiss with a bold new legal argument.The lawsuits began in March 2024, alleging GM, OnStar, and data firms like LexisNexis shared driver behavior data without proper consent.GM discontinued its Smart Driver program in April 2024 and ended partnerships with LexisNexis and Verisk after public backlash.Now, GM argues the data collection didn't violate privacy because driving behavior on public roads isn't protected under privacy laws.“Driving data includes vehicle location, routes, braking events, and speed—all occurring on public thoroughfares,” GM said in its dismissal filing.“Roadways are public, and these behaviors are observed by all,” GM stated, citing precedent that public conduct doesn't carry a reasonable expectation of privacy.A new study from Criteo reveals that the digital checkout rush might be fading, with consumers craving the discovery and delight of in-store shopping.More than 75% of consumers say e-commerce is functional—but not fun—with 29% calling it a chore.Shoppers miss the thrill of the unexpected: 36% long for the “surprise finds” that often come in-store.A majority find online shopping overwhelming (78%) and lonely (79%), with only half describing it as enjoyable.While data privacy remains a concern, 43% of consumers are open to sharing data for a more tailored experience.Join Paul J Daly and Kyle Mountsier every morning for the Automotive State of the Union podcast as they connect the dots across car dealerships, retail trends, emerging tech like AI, and cultural shifts—bringing clarity, speed, and people-first insight to automotive leaders navigating a rapidly changing industry.Get the Daily Push Back email at https://www.asotu.com/ JOIN the conversation on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/asotu/

Two Major ALM Conferences back-to-back … they said it couldn't be done.  Legal Speak believed it … and went there to see it for themselves. For over 20 years, the General Counsel Conference Midwest has been the premier event in the industry.  Delivering key insights and practical solutions that today's general counsel need to manage and better leverage C-Suite relationships, successfully overcome a litigation crisis and do more with fewer resources just to name a few.  For the 2nd year, Legal Speak was there live to bring you interviews with interesting attendees as well as moderators and speakers from various panels from this year's event in Chicago.   In this episode, host Patrick Smith is joined by Julie Chapman, VP & Head of Legal for North America at LexisNexis   Host: Patrick Smith Guest: Julie Chapman Producer: Charles Garnar      

Just when you thought you couldn't get your fill of Legal Tech  ... we're back !! This year's LegalWeek conference, hosted by ALM Media and Law.com, was held in New York City from March 24th through March 27th.  More than 6,000 of the biggest names in the industry gathered at the New York Hilton Midtown for the four-day conference.  And yes ... Legal Speak was there conducting live interviews with the best and brightest. In this episode, hosts Patrick Smith and Cedra Mayfield sat down with Sean Fitzpatrick, the CEO of LexisNexis.   Hosts: Cedra Mayfield & Patrick Smith Guest: Sean Fitzpatrick Producer: Charles Garnar

Discover how legal research giants like LexisNexis and Westlaw are being disrupted by low cost AI tools like ChatGPT. Smart solo lawyers are ignoring overpriced AI tools favored by BigLaw in favor of cheaper, more innovative options. Listen to find out which AI-powered legal research options that deliver speed, savings, and simplicity without bloated price tags. Resources from this Episode Carolyn Elefant's LinkedIn Post  ChatGPT  Google NotebookLM  Midpage  Westlaw  LexisNexis CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters / Casetext AI assistant) Fastcase Vincent AI (Fastcase's AI research tool) Clearbrief Microsoft 365 Copilot Other Resources The 80/20 Principle (my techlaw newsletter) The 5 Pillars of a Tech-Powered Law Practice The Inner Circle (my online community for lawyers)   Follow and Review: I'd love for you to follow me if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. I'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Thanks to the sponsor: Smith.ai Smith.ai is an amazing virtual receptionist service that specializes in working with solo and small law firms. When you hire Smith.ai, you're hiring well-trained, friendly receptionists who can respond to callers in English or Spanish. And they have a special offer for podcast listeners where you can get an extra $100 discount with promo code ERNIE100. Sign up for a risk-free start with a 14-day money-back guarantee now (and learn more) at smith.ai.

Send us a textAfter much anticipation since we started this podcast, Stuart Colburn joins us for a special episode focused on Texas! Stuart, a shareholder at Downs & Stanford, P.C., has over 25 years of experience in workers' compensation. He shares his journey into our industry and expertly navigates the evolution of the Texas Workers' Compensation system since the 1980s. Throughout the conversation, he highlights the unique aspects that make Texas' approach distinctly different from those of other states.Stuart is board certified in Workers' Compensation Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and was the founder and first Chair of the State Bar of Texas Workers' Compensation Section. He co-authors the Texas Workers' Compensation Handbook published by LexisNexis and, as a certified lobbyist and frequent Division of Workers' Compensation conference representative, brings valuable policy perspective to the conversation.(Correction: Stuart mentions 2011 as the year Wikipedia and iTunes emerged; however, the correct year is 2001.)NOTE: Stuart shares a slide deck during this episode, which you can see in the video version on our YouTube channel. Resources mentioned in this episode:Texas Workers' Compensation Handbook 2025 EditionTexas Department of Insurance - Workers' Compensation Texas Subsequent Injury FundAmerican Medical Association (AMA) GuidesOfficial Disability Guidelines ODG by MCG National Comp ConferenceStuart Colburn bio¡Muchas Gracias! Thank you for listening. We would appreciate you sharing our podcast with your friends on social media. Find Yvonne and Rafael on Linked In or follow us on Twitter @deconstructcomp

Arbitrators and counsel can use artificial intelligence to improve service quality and lessen work burden, but they also must deal with the ethical and professional implications. In this episode, Rebeca Mosquera, a Reed Smith associate and president of ArbitralWomen, interviews Benjamin Malek, a partner at T.H.E. Chambers and former chair of the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center AI Task Force. They reveal insights and experiences on the current and future applications of AI in arbitration, the potential risks of bias and transparency, and the best practices and guidelines for the responsible integration of AI into dispute resolution. The duo discusses how AI is reshaping arbitration and what it means for arbitrators, counsel and parties. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello, and welcome to Tech Law Talks, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies Group. In each episode of this podcast, we will discuss cutting-edge issues on technology, data, and the law. We will provide practical observations on a wide variety of technology and data topics to give you quick and actionable tips to address the issues you are dealing with every day.  Rebeca: Welcome to Tech Law Talks and our series on AI. My name is Rebeca Mosquera. I am an attorney with Reed Smith in New York focusing on international arbitration. Today we focus on AI in arbitration. How artificial intelligence is reshaping dispute resolution and the legal profession. Joining me is Benjamin Malek, a partner at THE Chambers and chair of the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center AI Task Force. Ben has extensive experience in commercial and investor state arbitration and is at the forefront of AI governance in arbitration. He has worked at leading institutions and law firms, advising on the responsible integration of AI into dispute resolution. He's also founder and CEO of LexArb, an AI-driven case management software. Ben, welcome to Tech Law Talks.  Benjamin: Thank you, Rebeca, for having me.  Rebeca: Well, let's dive in into our questions today. So artificial intelligence is often misunderstood, or put it in other words, there is a lot of misconceptions surrounding AI. How would you define AI in arbitration? And why is it important to look beyond just generative AI?  Benjamin: Yes, thank you so much for having me. AI in arbitration has existed for many years now, But it hasn't been until the rise of generative AI that big question marks have started to arise. And that is mainly because generative AI creates or generates AI output, whereas up until now, it was a relatively mild output. I'll give you one example. Looking for an email in your inbox, that requires a certain amount of AI. Your spellcheck in Word has AI, and it has been used for many years without raising any eyebrows. It hasn't been until ChatGPT has really given an AI tool to the masses that question started arising. What can it do? Will attorneys still be held accountable? Will AI start drafting for them? What will happen? And it's that fear that started generating all this talk about AI. Now, to your question on looking beyond generative AI, I think that is a very important point. In my function as the chair of the SAMC AI Task Force, while we were drafting the guidelines on the use of AI, one of the proposals was to call it use of generative AI in arbitration. And I'm very happy that we stood firm and said no, because there's many forms of AI that will arise over the years. Now we're talking about predictive AI, but there are many AI forms such as predictive AI, NLP, automations, and more. And we use it not only in generating text per se, but we're using it in legal research, in case prediction to a certain extent. Whoever has used LexisNexis, they're using a new tool now where AI is leveraged to predict certain outcomes, document automation, procedural management, and more. So understanding AI as a whole is crucial for responsible adoption.  Rebeca: That's interesting. So you're saying, obviously, that AI and arbitration is more than just chat GPT, right? I think that the reason why people think that and relies on maybe, as we'll see in some of the questions I have for you, that people may rely on chat GPT because it sounds normal. It sounds like another person texting you, providing you with a lot of information. And sometimes we just, you know, people, I can understand or I can see why people might believe that that's the correct outcome. And you've given examples of how AI is already being used and that people might not realize it. So all of that is very interesting. Now, tell me, as chair of the SVAMC AI Task Force, you've led significant initiatives in AI governance, right? What motivated the creation of the SVAMC AI guidelines? And what are their key objectives? And before you dive into that, though, I want to take a moment to congratulate you and the rest of the task force on being nominated once again for the GAR Awards, which will be unveiled during Paris Arbitration Week in April of this year. That's an incredible achievement. And I really hope you'll take pride in the impact of your work and the well-deserved recognition it continues to receive. So good luck to you and the rest of the team.  Benjamin: Thank you, Rebeca. Thank you so much. It really means a lot, and it also reinforces the importance of our work, seeing that we're nominated not only once last year for the GAR Award, but second year in a row. I will be blunt, I haven't kept track of many nominations, but I think it may be one of the first years where one initiative gets nominated twice, one year after the other. So that in itself for us is worth priding ourselves with. And it may potentially even be more than an award itself. It really, it's a testament to the work we have provided. So what led to the creation of the SVAMC AI guidelines? It's a very straightforward and to a certain extent, a little boring answer as of now, because we've heard it so many times. But the crux was Mata versus Avianca. I'm not going to dive into the case. I think most of us have heard it. Who hasn't? There's many sources to find out about it. The idea being that in a court case, an attorney used Chad GPT, used the outcome without verifying it, and it caused a lot of backlash, not only from opposing party, but also being chastised by the judge. Now when I saw that case, and I saw the outcome, and I saw that there were several tangential cases throughout the U.S. And worldwide, I realized that it was only a question of time until something like this could potentially happen in arbitration. So I got on a call with my dear friend Gary Benton at the SVAMC, and I told him that I really think that this is the moment for the Silicon Valley Arbitration Mediation Center, an institution that is heavily invested in tech to shine. So I took it upon myself to say, give me 12 months and I'll come up with guidelines. So up until now at the SVAMC, there are a lot of think tank-like groups discussing many interesting subjects. But the SVAMC scope, especially AI related, was to have something that produces something tangible. So the guidelines to me were intuitive. It was, I will be honest, I don't think I was the only one. I might have just been the first mover, but there we were. We created the idea. It was vetted by the board. And we came up first with the task force, then with the guidelines. And there's a lot more to come. And I'll leave it there.  Rebeca: Well, that's very interesting. And I just wanted to mention or just kind of draw from, you mentioned the Mata case. And you explained a bit about what happened in that case. And I think that was, what, 2023? Is that right? 2022, 2023, right? And so, but just recently we had another one, right? In the federal courts of Wyoming. And I think about two days ago, the order came out from the judge and the attorneys involved were fined about $15,000 because of hallucinations on the case law that they cited to the court. So, you know I see that happening anyway. And this is a major law firm that we're talking about here in the U.S. So it's interesting how we still don't learn, I guess. That would be my take on that.  Benjamin: I mean, I will say this. Learning is a relative term because learning, you need to also fail. You need to make mistakes to learn. I guess the crux and the difference is that up until now, at any law firm or anyone working in law would never entrust a first-year associate, a summer associate, a paralegal to draft arguments or to draft certain parts of a pleading by themselves without supervision. However, now, given that AI sounds sophisticated, because it has unlimited access to words and dictionaries, people assume that it is right. And that is where the problem starts. So I am obviously, personally, I am no one to judge a case, no one to say what to do. And in my capacity of the chair of the SVAMC AI task force, we also take a backseat saying these are soft law guidelines. However, submitting documents with information that has not been verified has, in my opinion, very little to do with AI. It has something to do with ethical duty and candor. And that is something that, in my opinion, if a court wants to fine attorneys, they're more welcome to do so. But that is something that should definitely be referred to the Bar Association to take measures. But again, these are my two cents as a citizen.  Rebeca: No, very good. Very good. So, you know, drawing from that point as well, and because of the cautionary tales we hear about surrounding these cases and many others that we've heard, many see AI as a double-edged sword, right? On the one hand, offering efficiency gains while raising concerns about bias and procedural fairness. What do you see as the biggest risk and benefits of AI in arbitration?  Benjamin: So it's an interesting question. To a certain extent, we tried to address many of the risks in the AI guidelines. Whoever hasn't looked at the guidelines yet, I highly suggest you take a look at them they're available on svamc.org I'm sure that they're widely available on other databases Jus Mundi has it as well. I invite everyone to take a look at it. There are several challenges. We don't believe that those challenges would justify not using it. To name a few, we have bias. We have lack of transparency. We also have the issue of over-reliance, which is the one we were talking about just a minute ago, where it seems so sophisticated that we as human beings, having worked in the field, cannot conceive how such an eloquent answer is anything but true. So there's a black box problem and so many others, but quite frankly, there are so many benefits that come with it. AI is an unlimited knowledge tool that we can use. As of now, AI is what we know it is. It has hallucinations. It does have some bias. There is this black box problem. Where does it come from? Why? What's the source? But quite frankly, if we are able to triage the issues and to really look at what are the advantages and what is it we want to get out of it, and I'll give you a brief example. Let's say you're drafting an RFA. If you know the case, you know the parties, and you know every aspect of the case, AI can draft everything head to toe. You will always be able to tell what is from the case and what's not from the case. If we over-rely on AI and we allow it to draft without verifying all the facts, without making sure we know the transcript inside and out, without knowing the facts of the case, then we will always run into certain issues. Another issue we run into a lot with predictive AI is relying on data that exists. So compared to generative AI, predictive AI is taking data that already exists and predicting another outcome. So there's a lesser likelihood of hallucinations. The issue with that is, of course, bias. Just a brief example, you're the president of Arbitral Women, so you will definitely understand. It has only been in the last 30 years that women had more of a presence in arbitration, specifically sitting as an arbitrator. So if we rely on data that goes beyond those 30, 40, 50 years, there's going to be a lot of male decisions having been taken. Potentially even laws that applied back then that were not very gender neutral. So we need, we as people, need to triage and understand where is the good information, where is information that may have bias and counterbalance it. As of now, we will need to counterbalance it manually. However, as I always say, we've only seen a grain of salt of what AI can do. So as time progresses, the challenges, as you mentioned, will become lesser and lesser and lesser. And the knowledge that AI has will become wider and wider. As of now, especially in arbitration, we are really taking advantage of the fact that there is still scarcity of knowledge. But it is really just a question of time until AI picks up. So we need to get a better understanding of what is it we can do to leverage AI to make ourselves indispensable.  Rebeca: No, that's very interesting, Ben. And as you mentioned, yes, as president of ArbitralWomen, the word bias is something I pay close attention. You know, we're talking about bias. You mentioned bias. And we all have conscious or unconscious biases, right? And so you mentioned that about laws that were passed in the past where potentially there was not a lot of input from women or other members of our society. Do you think AI can be trained then to be truly neutral or will bias always be a challenge?  Benjamin: I wish I had the right answer. I think, I actually truly believe that bias is a very relative term. And in certain societies, bias has a very firm and black and white standing, whereas in other societies, it does not. Especially in international arbitration, where we not only deal with cross-border disputes, but different cultures, different laws, laws of the seats, laws of the contract. I think it's very hard to point out one set of bias that we will combat or that we will set as principle for everything. I think ultimately what ensures that there is always human oversight in the use of AI, especially in arbitration, are exactly these type of issues. So we can, of course, try to combat bias and gender bias and others. But I don't think it is as easy as we say, because even nowadays, in normal proceedings, we are still dealing with bias on a human level. So I think we cannot ask from machines to be less biased than we as humans are.  Rebeca: Let me pivot here a bit. And, you know, earlier, we mentioned the GAR Awards. And now I'd like to shift our focus to the recent GAR Life on Technology that took place here in New York last week on February 20th. And to give our audience, you know, some context. GAR stands for Global Arbitration Review, a widely read journal that not only ranks international arbitration practices at law firms worldwide, but also, among other things, organizes live conferences on cutting-edge topics in arbitration across the globe. So I know you were a speaker at GAR Live, and there was an important discussion about distinguishing generative AI, predictive AI, and other AI applications. How do these different AI technologies impact arbitration, and how do the SVAMC guidelines address them?  Benjamin: I was truly honored to speak at the GAR Live event in New York, and I think the fact that I was invited to speak on AI as a testament on how important AI is and how widely interested the community is in the use of AI, which is very different to 2023 when we were drafting the guidelines on the use of AI. I think it is important to understand that ultimately, everything in arbitration, specifically in arbitration, needs human oversight. But in using AI in arbitration, I think we need to differentiate on how the use of AI is different in arbitration versus other parts of the law, and specifically how it is different in arbitration compared to how we would use it on a day-to-day basis. In arbitration specifically, arbitrators are still responsible for a personal or arbitrators are given a personal mandate that is very different to how law works in general. Where you have a lot of judges that let their assistants draft parts of the decision, parts of the order. Arbitration is a little different, and that for a reason. Specifically in international arbitration, because there are certain sensitivities when it comes to local law, when it comes to an international standard and local standards. Arbitrators are held to a higher standard. Using AI as an arbitrator, for example, which could technically be put at the same level as using a tribunal secretary, has its limits. So I think that AI can be used in many aspects, from drafting for attorneys, for counsel, when it comes to helping prepare graphs, when it comes to preparing documents, accumulating documents, etc., etc. But it does have its limits when it comes to arbitrators using it. As we have tried to reiterate in the guidelines, arbitrators need to be very conscious of where their personal mandate starts and ends. In other words, our recommendation, again, we are soft law guidelines, our recommendation to arbitrators are to not use AI when it comes to any decision-making process. What does that mean? We don't know. And neither does the law. And every jurisdiction has their own definition of what that means. It is up for the arbitrator to define what a decision-making process is and to decide of whether the use of AI in that process is adequate.  Rebeca: Thank you so much, Ben. I want to now kind of pivot, since we've been talking a little bit more about the guidelines, I want to ask you a few questions about them. So they were created with a global perspective, right? And so what initiatives is the AI task force pursuing to ensure the guidelines remain relevant worldwide? You've been talking about different legal systems and local laws and how practitioners or certain regulations within certain jurisdictions might treat certain things differently. So what is the AI task force doing to remain relevant, to maybe create some sort of uniformity? So what can you tell me about that?  Benjamin: So we at the SVAMC task force, we continue to gather feedback, of course, And we're looking for global adaptation. We will continue to work closely with practitioners, with institutions, with lawmakers, with government, to ensure that when it comes to arbitration, AI is given a space, it's used adequately, and if possible, of course, and preferential to us, the SVAMC AI guidelines are used. That's why they were drafted, to be used. When we presented the guidelines to different committees and to different law sections and bar associations, it struck us that jurisdictions such as the U.S., and more specifically in New York, where both you and I are based, the community was not very open to receiving these guidelines as guidelines. And the suggestion was actually made to creating a white paper, And as much as it seemed to be a shutdown at an early stage, when we were thinking about it, and I was very blessed to have seven additional members in the Guidelines Drafting Committee, seven very bright individual members that I learned a lot from during this process. It was clear to us that jurisdictions such as New York have a very high ethical standard, and where guidelines such as our guidelines would potentially be seen as doubling ethical rules. So although we advocate for them not being ethical guidelines whatsoever, because we don't believe they are, we strongly suggest that local and international ethical standards are being upheld. So with that in mind, we realize that there is more to a global aspect that needs to be addressed rather than an aspect of law associations in the US or in the UK or now in Europe. Up-and-coming jurisdictions that up until now did not have a lot of exposure to artificial intelligence and maybe even technology as a whole are rising. And they may need more guidance than jurisdictions where technology may be an instinct away. So what the AI task force has created. And is continuing to recruit for, are regional committees for the AI Task Force, tracking AI usage in different legal systems and different jurisdictions. Our goal is to track AI-related legislation and its potential impact on arbitration. These regional committees will also provide jurisdiction-specific insights to refine the guidelines. And hopefully, or this is what we anticipate, these regional committees will help bridge the gap between AI's global development and local legal framework. There will be a dialogue. We will continue, obviously, to be present at conferences, to have open dialogue, and to recruit, of course, for these committees. But the next step is definitely to focus on these regional committees and to see how we, as the AI task force of the Silicon Valley Arbitration Mediation Center, can impact the use of AI in arbitration worldwide.  Rebeca: Well, that's very interesting. So you're utilizing committees in different jurisdictions to keep you appraised of what's happening in each jurisdiction. And then with that, continue, you know, somehow evolving the guidelines and gathering information to see how this field, you know, it's changing rapidly.  Benjamin: Absolutely. Initially, we were thinking of just having a small local committee to analyze different jurisdictions and what laws and what court cases, etc. But we soon came to realize that it's much more than tracking judicial decisions. We need people on the ground that are part of a jurisdiction, part of that local law, to tell us how AI impacts their day-to-day, how it may differ from yesterday to tomorrow, and what potential legislation will be enacted to either allow or disallow the use of certain AI.  Rebeca: That's very interesting. I think it's something that will keep the guidelines up to date and relevant for a long time. So kudos to you, the SVAMC and the task force. Now, I know that the guidelines are a very short paper, you know, and then in the back you have the commentary on them. So I want to, I'm not going to dissect all of the guidelines, but I want to come and talk about one of them in particular that I think created a lot of discussion around the guidelines itself. So for full disclosure, right, I was part of the reviewing committee of the AI guidelines. And I remember that one of the most debated aspects of the SVAMC AI guidelines is guideline three on disclosure, right? So should arbitrators and counsel disclose their AI use in proceedings? So I think that that has generated a lot of debates. And that's the reason why we have the resulting guideline number three, the way it is drafted. So can you give us a little bit more of insight what happened there?  Benjamin: Absolutely. I'd love to. Guideline three was very controversial from the get-go. We initially had two options. We had a two-pronged test that parties would either satisfy or not, and then disclosure was necessary. And then we had another option that the community could vote on where it was up to the parties to decide whether their AI-aided submission could impact the outcome of the case. And depending on that, they would disclose or not disclose whether AI was used. Quite frankly, that was a debate we had in 2023, and a lot changed from November 2023 until April, when we finally published the first version of the AI guidelines. A lot of courts have implemented an obligatory disclosure. I think people have also gotten more comfortable with using AI on a day-to-day. And we ultimately came to the conclusion to opt for a flexible disclosure approach, which can now be found in the guidelines. The reason for that was relatively simple, or relatively simple to us who debated that. Having a disclosure obligation of the use of AI will very easily become inefficient for two reasons. A blanket disclosure for the use of AI serves nobody. It really boils down to one question, which is, if the judge, or in our case in arbitration, if the arbitrator or tribunal knows that AI was used for a certain document, now what? How does that knowledge transform into action? And how does that knowledge lead to a different outcome? And in our analysis, it turned out that a blanket disclosure of AI usage, or in general, an over-disclosure of the use of AI in arbitration, may actually lead to adverse consequences for the parties who make the disclosure. Why? Because not knowing how AI can impact these submissions causes arbitrators not to know what to do with that disclosure. So ultimately, it's really up to the parties to decide, how was AI used? How can it impact the case? What is it I want to disclose? How do I disclose? It's also important for the arbitrators to understand, what do I do with the disclosure before saying, everything needs to be disclosed. During the GAR event in New York, the issue was raised whether documents which were prepared with the use of AI should be disclosed or whether there should be a blanket disclosure. And quite frankly, the debate went back and forth, but ultimately it comes down to cross-examination. It comes down to the expert or the party submitting the document, being able to back up where the information comes from rather than knowing that AI was used. And if you put that in aspect, we received a very interesting question of why we should continue using AI, knowing that approximately 30% of its output are hallucinations and it needs revamping. This was compared to a summer associate or a first-year associate, and the question was very simple. If I have a first-year associate or a summer associate whose output has a 30% error rate, why would I continue using that associate? And quite frankly, there is merit to the question, and it really has a very simple answer. And the answer is time and money. Using AI makes it much faster to receive using AI makes it faster to receive output than using a first year associate or summer associate and it's way cheaper. For that, it's worth having a 30% error margin. I don't know where they got the 30% from, but we just went along with it.  Rebeca: I was about to ask you where they get the 30%. And well, I think that for first-year associates or summer associates that are listening, I think that the main thing will be for them to then become very savvy in the use of AI so they can become relevant to the practice. I think everyone, you know, there's always that question about whether AI will replace all of us, the entire world, and we'll go into machine apocalypses. I don't see it that way. In my view, I see that if we, you know, if we train ourselves, if we're not afraid of using the tool, we'll very much be in a position to pivot and understand how to use it. And when you have, what is the saying, garbage in, garbage out. So if you have a bad input, you will have a bad output. You need to know the case. You need to know your documents to understand whether the machine is hallucinating or giving you, you know, an information that is not real. I like to play and ask certain questions to chat GPT, you know, here and there. And sometimes I, you know, I ask obviously things that I know the answer to. And then I'm like, chat GPT, this is not accurate. Can you check on this? And he's like, oh, thank you for correcting me. I mean, and it's just a way of, you got to try and understand it so you know where to make improvements. But that doesn't mean that the tool, because it's a tool, will come and replace, you know, your better judgment as a professional, as an attorney.  Benjamin: Absolutely. One of the things we say is it is a tool. It does nothing out of its own volition. So what you're saying is 100% right. This is what the SVAMC AI guidelines stand for. Practitioners need to accustom themselves on proper use of AI. AI can be used from paid versions to unpaid versions. We just need to understand what is an open source AI, what is a close circuit AI. Again, for whoever's listening, feel free to look up the guidelines. There's a lot of information there. There's tons of articles written at this point. And just be very mindful of if there is an open AI system, such as an unpaid chat GPT version. It does not mean you cannot use it. First, check with your firm to make sure you're allowed to use it. I don't want to get into any trouble.  Rebeca: Well, we don't want to put confidential information on an open AI platform.  Benjamin: Exactly. Once the firm or your colleagues allow you to use ChatGPT, even if it's an open version, just be very smart about what it is you're putting in. No confidential information, no potential conflict check, no potential cases. Just be smart about what it is you put in. Another aspect we were actually debating about is this hallucination. Just an example, let's say you say this is an ISDS case, so we're talking a little more public, and you ask Chad GPT, hey, show me all the cases against Costa Rica. And it hallucinates, too. It might actually be that somebody input information for a potential case against Costa Rica or a theoretical case against Costa Rica, Chad GPT being on the open end, takes that as one potential case. So just be very smart. Be diligent, but also don't be afraid of using it.  Rebeca: That's a great note to end on. AI is here to stay. And as legal professionals, it's up to us to ensure it serves the interests of justice, fairness, and efficiency. And for those interested in learning more about the SVAMC AI guidelines, you can find them online at svamc.org and search for guidelines. I tried it myself and you will go directly to the guidelines. And if you like to stay updated on developments in AI and arbitration, be sure to follow Tech Law Talks and join us for future episodes where we'll continue exploring the intersection of law and technology. Ben, thank you again for joining me today. It's been a great pleasure. And thank you to our listeners for tuning in.  Benjamin: Thank you so much, Rebeca, for having me and Tech Law Talks for the opportunity to be here.  Outro: Tech Law Talks is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies Practice, please email techlawtalks@reedsmith.com. You can find our podcasts on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts.  Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers.  All rights reserved. Transcript is auto-generated.

Justin Baker, AVP of life insurance, LexisNexis Risk Solutions, discusses how the industry is leveraging electronic health records and real-time health insights to enhance underwriting, improve risk assessment, and expand access to coverage.

Episode: 00259 Released on March 24, 2025 Description: In this episode of Analyst Talk with Jason Elder, Jason sits down with Shanna Spagnuolo, an accomplished crime analyst with 16 years of experience in law enforcement analysis and two decades in the field overall. Shanna shares her unconventional entry into the profession—starting with a love for German Shepherds—and takes us through her diverse career, from Shasta County to the California DOJ, to the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, and now in the private sector at LexisNexis. We dive into how she spearheaded innovative programs, supervised a team of nearly 30 analysts, and navigated the shift from public to private sector work. Shanna offers candid insights on leadership, hiring philosophies, project management, and the evolving role of analysts. She also discusses the power of partnerships between agencies and private sector experts, and the growing importance of remote work. Whether you're new to analysis or a seasoned pro, Shanna's story is a masterclass in resilience, innovation, and impact. [Note:  Description produced by ChatGPT.] CHALLENGE: There are Easter eggs in one of the tables of the Excel chapter that Jason wrote for the IACA textbook. First-person to email us at leapodcasts@gmail.com about what the Easter eggs are will receive a $75 gift card from us. Happy hunting! *** Episode 7 Analysis - IACA Conference Preview - Rethinking Thought https://youtu.be/YC_b8GWofDk  *** Name Drops: Becky Haislip (00:04:13), Liz Rodriguez/Annie Mitchell (00:12:33), Tony Veltri (00:16:46), Scott Jackman/Mark Loizo (00:35:24), Charlie Giberti (01:00:16) Public Service Announcements: Kassie Langdon (https://www.leapodcasts.com/e/atwje-kassie-langdon/) Shannon Kail (https://www.leapodcasts.com/e/atwje-shannon-kail-intercontinental-pizza-party/) Logan Konopasek (https://www.leapodcasts.com/e/atwje-logan-konopasek-%e2%80%93-from-probation-to-patterns/) Related Links: https://risk.lexisnexis.com/insights-resources/infographic/public-safety-special-investigations-unit-resume https://risk.lexisnexis.com/law-enforcement-and-public-safety/public-safety-investigative-services-and-consulting https://risk.lexisnexis.com/law-enforcement-and-public-safety/public-safety-investigative-services-and-consulting/meet-the-public-safety-special-investigations-unit Association(s) Mentioned:  Vendor(s) Mentioned:  Contact:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannaspagnuolo/, shanna.spagnuolo@lexisnexisrisk.com  Transcript: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/kyhrpid4wenjws4v/ShannaSpagnuolo_transcript.pdf  Podcast Writer:  Podcast Researcher:  Theme Song: Written and Recorded by The Rough & Tumble. Find more of their music at www.theroughandtumble.com. Logo: Designed by Kyle McMullen. Please visit www.moderntype.com for any printable business forms and planners.  Podcast Email: leapodcasts@gmail.com   Podcast Webpage: www.leapodcasts.com   Podcast Twitter: @leapodcasts 00:00:17 – Introducing Shanna 00:07:59 – MS-13 Gang Graffiti Project 00:11:22 – LA County Sheriff's Department 00:20:09 – Hiring, Discipline, & Training 00:32:23 – Break: Kassie Langdon, Shannon Kail, & Logan Konopasek 00:33:44 – Fork in the Road - Norman, OK 00:37:30 – Lexisnexis & Private Sector Analysts 01:02:14 – Advice 01:04:08 – Personal Interest:  German Shepherd Trainer 01:06:01 – Words to the World

This year's Legal Week conference hosted by ALM Media and Law.com kicks off in New York City on Monday, March 24. When more than 6,000 of the biggest names in the industry gather at the New York Hilton Midtown for the four-day conference,  Legal Speak will be there, too, conducting live interviews! Ahead of the conference, Legal Speak is giving its listeners a sneak peak at the panel entitled, "The State of AI in the Legal Industry."  In this week's Legal Speak episode, co-hosts Cedra Mayfield and Patrick Smith chat with panel Moderator Jeff Reihl, Chief Technology Officer at LexisNexis about the insights they intend to impart to conference attendees. The hour-long Legal Week panel discussion will take place Monday, March 24, beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST. To learn more about the panel discussion, click here. To learn more about the Legal Week conference, click here. Hosts: Cedra Mayfield and Patrick Smith Guest: Jeff Reihl Producer: Charles Garnar

A conversation with Sean Fitzpatrick, CEO of LexisNexis, North America, UK, and Ireland. Fitzpatrick discusses how LexisNexis is integrating AI into its products to enhance legal practice. The discussion covers the company's approach to innovation, the role of AI in improving attorney efficiency and client outcomes, and the future of legal technology. Key topics include LexisNexis's AI assistant "Protégé," the company's philosophy on AI, and the impact of AI on the legal profession. [0:09-1:43] Introduction to Sean Fitzpatrick and LexisNexis's focus on AI in legal tech. [2:05-4:37] Fitzpatrick's career journey at LexisNexis and the evolution of the company's technology. [7:48-8:20] LexisNexis's philosophy on AI: to make attorneys more efficient and drive better outcomes. [8:20-10:24] Overview of LexisNexis's AI tools, including Protégé and its features (drafting, Vault, etc.). [11:46-12:45] LexisNexis's partnership with OpenAI and its benefits. [15:14-16:01] The importance of data in AI and LexisNexis's approach to ensuring reliability and combating hallucinations. [16:30-17:37] Explanation of agentic AI and its significance for the legal field. [19:05-19:31] The role of document management systems (DMS) and LexisNexis's integration with them, including the acquisition of Henchman. [24:17-25:39] Discussion on the impact of AI on legal jobs and the belief that AI will augment, not replace, lawyers. [27:30-28:27] Fitzpatrick's prediction on the rapid advancement and adoption of generative AI in the legal industry.

In this first episode of Season Four, YS Chi speaks with Sean Fitzpatrick, CEO of LexisNexis North American, UK & Ireland.In June 2023, YS interviewed Mike Walsh, CEO of LexisNexis Legal & Professional, a few months after introducing generative AI at scale to the legal profession. Fast forward to 2025 and thousands of small and large legal firms are now actively using this new technology across multiple regions. YS asks Sean how customers are adapting to, and adopting this new technology. Can it be trusted? What impact will it have on law firms' business model and the billable hour? How is it affecting legal education and the next generation of lawyers. What is the vision? 

Robert and Da'Sha talk about her experience with Progressive Insurance after they claimed to have received an inaccurate report from LexisNexis. Calls to LexisNexis suggest they have the correct information on the driver report, so what went wrong and why are we paying higher auto insurance premiums? We need listener feedback because this can't be the first time Progressive or other auto insurers have screwed this up. Email your comments about the show to Robert@bmfce.com. BMFCE: Insurance producers and adjusters can earn insurance continuing education credit listening to Robert's live webinars. No test required for credit! BMFCE.com.

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists.   This week's topics: 00:00 Panelist Introductions 08:20 Federal Judge Rules Legal Research Startup ROSS Infringed Westlaw's Copyrights, Rejecting Fair Use Defense (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 25:15 Harvey raises $300M, and LexisNexis is involved (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 32:40 No. 42 law firm by head count could face sanctions over fake case citations generated by AI (Selected by Victor Li) 46:00 DOGE website presents cybersecurity nightmare... and it's coming for DOJ (Selected by Joe Patrice)

Shoot us a Text.We're wrapping up the week so we can hit NADA running. Today, we cover how GM has settled a case with the FTC about collection and selling of data collected through Onstar. Plus, EV registrations are rising amid concerns that President Trump will get rid of the IRA tax credit, and lessons learned from the 2025 National Retail Foundation Big Show.Show Notes with links:General Motors has reached a settlement with the FTC over allegations that it sold customer driving data without their consent. The FTC alleged that GM's OnStar service collected precise geolocation and driving behavior data, which was then sold to third parties, including consumer reporting agencies. GM failed to clearly disclose to consumers that it collected and sold this data.The FTC claims that GM's enrollment process for the OnStar Smart Driver feature was "confusing and misleading."GM has discontinued the Smart Driver program and ended its third-party telematics relationships with LexisNexis and Verisk.Under the settlement, GM is banned from disclosing this type of consumer data to consumer reporting agencies for five years.The company will also take steps to provide greater transparency and choice to consumers over the collection, use, and disclosure of their connected vehicle data."Respecting our customers' privacy and earning their trust is deeply important to us," GM said.Electric vehicle registrations saw a significant jump in November as consumers rushed to take advantage of automaker discounts and secure the $7,500 federal tax credit, which may be repealed under President-elect Donald Trump.EV registrations surged 21% year-over-year to 109,120 vehicles in November.Battery-electric vehicles captured 8.3% of the U.S. light-vehicle market, up from 7.4% a year earlier.Automakers, fearing a drop in EV demand if incentives are repealed, offered deep discounts and lease deals.Tesla led the market with 46,225 registrations, while GM brands saw the most growth, particularly Chevrolet.The National Retail Foundation 2025 Big Show in New York brought together tens of thousands of retail professionals to discuss the landscape of shopping, technology, and consumer behavior. Key themes included adaptability, embracing failure, and the growing role of AI-driven dynamic pricing in retail strategies.Best Buy CEO Corie Barry emphasized "adaptability over perfection," noting that retailers must balance both in-store and digital experiences to remain competitive.Amazon's Doug Herrington echoed Jeff Bezos's sentiments on learning to fail, saying, "If you get too good at avoiding failure, innovation becomes nearly impossible."Macy's CEO Tony Spring rejected the idea that department stores are dead, instead calling them a "curated marketplace" that can flex with shifting consumer demand.Target's Rick Gomez praised the resilient, resourceful, and intentional American conHosts: Paul J Daly and Kyle MountsierGet the Daily Push Back email at https://www.asotu.com/ JOIN the conversation on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/asotu/ Read our most recent email at: https://www.asotu.com/media/push-back-email

Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We are excited to welcome Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck back to Opening Arguments for a look back at how the Supreme Court responded to the infamously unruly--and increasingly more extreme--Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its last term. How did the 5th “win by losing,” and why is there still cause for future concern even after SCOTUS reversed all but three of the eleven cases it took up from them? What kind of messages are the high court justices trying to send back to the 5th, and why aren't they receiving them?  Also discussed: Neil Gorsuch's most recent not-quite-true statement, why the Supreme Court continues to tolerate the dumbest standing arguments on Earth, the 5th's use (and abuse) of administrative stays, and what may or may not be wrong with Matt's brain. Subscribe to Prof. Vladeck's free weekly One First newsletter “The Fifth Circuit Won by Losing,” Steve Vladeck, The Atlantic (July 9, 2024) “30 Hours of SB4 Whiplash,” Steve Vladeck, LexisNexis.com (March 20, 2024) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Read our book, The Score That Matters - https://amzn.to/4ggpYdW Full shownotes at www.LearningLeader.com The Learning Leader Show With Ryan Hawk We are celebrating episode #600 with Keith Hawk and AJ Hawk Tell a story about an awesome leader you worked with... Ron Ullery – I'm a firm believer that people either live up to or down to your expectations. And most people set their expectations for themselves too low. So it's on you as a leader to raise those expectations for them. Demand more because you know they can do more. Tyler Cowen – The high return activity of raising others' aspirations. Encouraged someone who was going for an MBA to get a Phd. At critical moments in time, you can raise the aspirations of other people significantly, especially when they are relatively young, simply by suggesting they do something better or more ambitious than what they might have in mind.  It costs you relatively little to do this, but the benefit to them, and to the broader world, may be enormous. What helps you give a great speech? How do you prepare? Ask, "What do I want my audience to do after seeing my speech?" Interview members of their team. Learn their terminology, challenges, what's going well, what's not, what are their goals, etc... Practice, practice, practice. Say it out loud. Rehearse so that once you're on stage, you can let it rip. What did the best teams you've been on do differently than the average teams?  The best players on the best teams always practiced the hardest. They set the tone for the work ethic of the team. They chose extra work. They set high standards and they demanded others raise their level of performance. The best teams hung out together outside of work. AJ was a Captain of the Green Bay Packers Super Bowl-winning team in 2010-2011... That team regularly hung out together outside of working hours, shared lots of meals, and knew each other extremely well. They trusted each other. Tell a story about how you've shown resilience… Failed and what did you do next? The Miami/Ben Roethlisberger story - The world doesn't care what you think you deserve. The primary goal is focused on adding value to others' lives. AJ shared a story from his sophomore year at Ohio State. His defensive coordinator, Coach Mark Dantonio sat with him 1 on 1 watching each play of the Michigan game. A day he'll never forget for how hard it was, how upset he was, and how determined he was to respond. AJ never lost to Michigan again in his career after that. Pistol shared a story about the time when the new CEO wanted to bring in his own head of sales (which was Pistol's job). Instead of complaining and leaving the company, he got creative and offered a new idea and a great way to leverage all the skills and knowledge he developed from being at the company for so long. It is amazingly rare for the head of sales to stay at a company after he's been replaced. But he thrived in the role and made the company better. Front line obsession – Pistol's story of the legendary Mert McGill going to the Supreme Court to demo LexisNexis and earning the most important sale in the company's history. I love stories about leaders proactively taking action and not being afraid to do the work. Update since Episode #500: Built the Learning Leader Team -- Officially working full-time with Sherri Coale, Brook Cupps, Geron Stokes, and Eli Leiker. We are working with leaders from a wide variety of companies throughout the U.S. The magic of the Pat McAfee Show -- They are unafraid. They say what others are thinking but are too afraid to say. They are authentic and fully themselves. They have great role clarity. Everyone knows and embraces their roles and excels at them. The End of the Podcast Draft – You're stranded on a deserted island. You have one iPad. On that iPad has 5 TV shows (and nothing else). Which shows do you choose? This is a competition with a clear winner and losers. The object is to win the draft.