Podcast appearances and mentions of shannon ryan

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.

Catherine Castaldo, Christian Leuthner and Asélle Ibraimova dive into the implications of the new Network and Information Security (NIS2) Directive, exploring its impact on cybersecurity compliance across the EU. They break down key changes, including expanded sector coverage, stricter reporting obligations and tougher penalties for noncompliance. Exploring how businesses can prepare for the evolving regulatory landscape, they share insights on risk management, incident response and best practices. ----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.  Catherine: Hi, and welcome to Tech Law Talks. My name is Catherine Castaldo, and I am a partner in the New York office in the Emerging Technologies Group, focusing on cybersecurity and privacy. And we have some big news with directives coming out of the EU for that very thing. So I'll turn it to Christian, who can introduce himself.  Christian: Thanks, Catherine. So my name is Christian Leuthner. I'm a partner at the Reed Smith Frankfurt office, also in the Emerging Technologies Group, focusing on IT and data. And we have a third attorney on this podcast, our colleague, Asélle.  Asélle: Thank you, Christian. Very pleased to join this podcast. I am counsel based in Reed Smith's London office, and I also am part of emerging technologies group and work on data protection, cybersecurity, and technology issues.  Catherine: Great. As we previewed a moment ago, on October 17th, 2024, there was a deadline for the transposition of a new directive, commonly referred to as NIS2. And for those of our listeners who might be less familiar, would you tell us what NIS2 stands for and who is subject to it?  Christian: Yeah, sure. So NIS2 stands for the Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems. And it is the second iteration of the EU's legal framework for enhancing the cybersecurity of critical infrastructures and digital services, it will replace what replaces the previous directive, which obviously is called NIS1, which was adopted in 2016, but had some limitations and gaps. So NIS2 applies to a wider range of entities that provide essential or important services to the society and the economy, such as energy, transport, health, banking, digital infrastructure, cloud computing, online marketplaces, and many, many more. It also covers public administrations and operators of electoral systems. Basically, anyone who relies on network and information systems to deliver their services and whose disruptions or compromise could have significant impacts on the public interest, security or rights of EU citizens and businesses will be in scope of NIS2. As you already said, Catherine, NIS2 had to be transposed into national member state law. So it's a directive, not a regulation, contrary to DORA, which we discussed the last time in our podcast. It had to be implemented into national law by October 17th, 2024. But most of the member states did not. So the EU Commission has now started investigations regarding the violations of the treaty of the functioning of the European Union against, I think, 23 member states as they have not yet implemented NIS2 into national law.  Catherine: That's really comprehensive. Do you have any idea what the timeline is for the implementation?  Christian: It depends on the state. So there are some states that have already comprehensive drafts. And those just need to go through the legislative process. In Germany, for example, we had a draft, but we have elections in a few weeks. And the current government just stated that they will not implement the law before that. And so after the election, the implementation law will be probably discussed again, redrafted. And so it'll take some time. It might be in the third quarter of this year.  Catherine: Very interesting. We have a similar process. Sometimes it happens in the States where things get delayed. Well, what are some of the key components?  Asélle: So, NIS2 focuses on cybersecurity measures, and we need to differentiate it from the usual cybersecurity measures that any organization thinks about in the usual way where they protect their data, their systems against cyber attacks or incidents. So the purpose of this legislation is to make sure there is no disruption to the economy or to others. And in that sense, the similar kind of notions apply. Organizations need to focus on ensuring availability, authenticity, integrity, confidentiality of data and protect their data and systems against all hazards. These notions are familiar to us also from the GDPR kind of framework. So there are 10 cybersecurity risk management measures that NIS2 talks about, and this is policies on risk analysis and information system security, incident handling, business continuity and crisis management, supply chain security. Security in systems acquisition, development, and maintenance, policies to assess the effectiveness of measures, basic cyber hygiene practices, and training, cryptography and encryption, human resources security training, use of multi-factor authentication. So these are familiar notions also. And it seems the general requirements are something that organizations will be familiar with. However, the European Commission in its NIS Investments Report of November 2023 has done research, a survey, and actually found that organizations that are subject to NIS2 didn't really even take these basic measures. Only 22% of those surveyed had third-party risk management in place, and only 48% of organizations had top management involved in approving cybersecurity risk policies and any type of training. And this reduces the general commitment of organizations to cybersecurity. So there are clearly gaps, and NAS2 is trying to focus on improving that. There are other couple of things that I wanted to mention that are different from NIS1 and are important. So as Christian said, essential entities are different, have different regime, compliance regime applied to them compared with important entities. Essential entities need to systematically document their compliance and be prepared for regular monitoring by regulators, including regular inspections by competent authorities, whereas important entities only are obliged to kind of be in touch and communicate with competent authorities in case of security incidents. And there is an important clarification in terms of the supply chain, these are the questions we receive from our clients. And the question is, does the supply chain mean anyone that provides services or products? And from our reading of the legislation, supply chain only relates to ICT products and ICT services. Of course, there is a proportionality principle employed in this legislation, as with usually most of the European legislation, and there is a size threshold. The legislation only applies to those organizations who exceed the medium threshold. And two more topics, and I'm sorry that I'm kind of taking over the conversation here, but I thought the self-identification point was important because in the view of the European Commission, the original NIS1 didn't cover the organizations it intended to cover and so in the European Commission's view, the requirements are so clear in terms of which entities it applies to, that organizations should be able to assess it and register, identify themselves with the relevant authorities by April this year. And the last point, digital infrastructure organizations, their nature is specifically kind of taken into consideration, their cross-border nature. And if they provide services in several member states, there is a mechanism for them to register with the competent authority where their main establishment is based, similar to the notion under the GDPR.  Catherine: It sounds like, though, there's enough information in the directive itself without waiting for the member state implementation that companies who are subject to this rule could be well on their way to being compliant by just following those principles.  Christian: That's correct. So even if the implementation international law is currently not happening. All of the member states, companies can already work to comply with NIS2. So once the law is implemented, they don't have to start from zero. NIS2 sets out the requirements that important and essential entities under NIS2 have to comply with. For example have a proper information security management system have supply chain management train their employees and so they can already work to implement NIS2 and the the directive itself also has an access that sets out the sectors and potential entities that might be in scope of NIS2 And the member states cannot really vary from those annexes. So if you are already in scope of NIS2 under the information that is in the directive itself, you can be sure that you would probably also have to comply with your national rules. There might be some gray areas where it's not fully clear if someone is in scope of NIS2 and those entities might want to wait for the national implementation. And it also can happen that the national implementation goes beyond the directive and covers sectors or entities that might not be in scope under the directive itself. And then of course they will have to work to implement the requirements then. I think a good starting point anyways is the existing security program that companies already hopefully have in place so if they for example have an ISO 27001 framework implemented it might be good to start but with a mapping exercise what NIS2 might require in addition to the ISO 27001. And then look if this should be implemented now or companies can wait for the national implementation. But it's recommended not to wait for the national implementation and don't do anything until then.  Asélle: I agree with that, Christian. And I would like to point out that, in fact, digital infrastructure entities have very detailed requirements for compliance because there was an implementing regulation that basically specifies the cybersecurity requirements under NIS2. And just to clarify, perhaps digital infrastructure entities that I'm referring to are DNS service providers, TLD name, registries, cloud service providers, data centers. Content delivery network providers, managed service providers, managed security service providers, online marketplaces, online search engines, social networking services, and trust service providers. So the implementing regulation is in fact binding and directly applicable in all member states. And the regulation is quite detailed and has specific requirements in relation to each cybersecurity measure. Importantly, it has detailed thresholds on when incidents should be reported, and we need to take into consideration that not any incident is reportable, only those incidents that are capable of causing significant disruption to the service or significant impact on the provision of the services. So please take that into consideration. And NISA also published implementing guidance, and it's 150 pages, just explaining what the implementing regulation means. And it's still a draft. The consultation ended on the 9th of January 2025, so there'll be further guidance on that.  Catherine: Well, we can look forward to that. But I guess the next question would be, what are some of the risks for noncompliance?  Christian: Noncompliance with NIS2 can have serious consequences for the entity's concern, both legal and non-legal. On the legal side, NIS2 empowers the national authorities to impose sanctions and penalties, breaches. They can range from warnings and orders to fines and injunctions. Depending on the severity and duration of the infringement. The sanctions can be up to 2% of the annual turnover or 10 million euros, whatever is higher for the essential entities, and up to 1.4% of the annual turnover or 7 million euros, whichever is higher for important entities. NIS2 also allows the national authorities to take corrective or preventive measures. They can suspend or restrict the provision of the services and take the or order the entities to take remedial actions or improve the security posture. So even if they have implemented security measures and the authorities understand or determine that they are not sufficient in light of the risk applicable to the entity, they can require them to implement other measures to increase the security. On the non-legal side, it's very similar to what we discussed in our DORA podcast. There can be civil liability if there is an incident, if a damage occurs. And of course, the reputational damage and loss of trust and confidence can be really, really severe for the entities if they have an incident. And it's huge because they did not comply with the NIS2 requirements.  Asélle: I wanted to add that, unfortunately, with this piece of legislation, member states can add to the list of entities to which this legislation will apply. They can apply higher cybersecurity requirements, and because of the new criteria and new entities being added, it now applies to twice as many sectors as before. So quite a few organizations will need to review their policies, take cybersecurity measures. And it's helpful, as Christian mentioned, that, you know, NIS already mapped the cybersecurity measures against existing standards. It's on its website. I think it's super helpful. And it's likely that, the cybersecurity measures and the general risk assessment will be done by cybersecurity teams and risk compliance teams within organizations. However, legal will also need to be involved. And often policies, once drafted, they're reviewed by in-house legal teams. So it's essential that they all work together. It's also important to mention that there will be an impact on the due diligence and contracts with ICT product providers and ICT service providers. So the due diligence processes will need to be reviewed and enhanced and contracts drafted to ensure they will allow the organization, the recipients of the services to be compliant with NIS2. And maybe last point, just to cover off the UK, what's happening in the UK for those who also have operations there. It is clear now that the government will implement a version of NIS2. It's going to follow the European Union in its steps. And we recently were informed of a government page on the new cybersecurity and resilience bill. It's clear that it's going to be covering five sectors, transport, energy, drinking, water, health, and digital infrastructure. And digital services, very similar to NIS2, such as online marketplaces, online search engines, and cloud computing services. We are expecting the bill to be introduced to Parliament this year.  Catherine: Wow, fantastic news. So it should be a busy cybersecurity season. If any of our listeners think that they need help and think that they may be subject to these rules, I'm sure my colleagues, Asélle and Christian, would be happy to help with the legal governance side of this cybersecurity compliance effort. So thank you very much for sharing all this information, and we'll talk soon.  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.

One of Greater Houston's fastest growing community is dealing with lead in their water, but so far, they've received little help from local and state authorities. Host Raheel Ramzanali is joined by Shannon Ryan, reporter at ABC-13 Houston, to talk about that story in Montgomery County. Plus, why 8,000 students are calling out leaders at the University of Houston, how President Trump's latest policies are impacting us in H-Town, and why more Houstonians are buying backyard chickens! Stories we talked about on today's show:  Concerns about brown in Willis water grows after private test shows high level of lead Union Pacific investigation uncovers dioxin at Fifth Ward community center Sexual assault, robberies on University of Houston campus prompt increased security measures 30,000 tons of food stuck in Houston port after Trump halts foreign aid More Houston residents consider raising backyard chickens as bird flu causes spike in egg prices Learn more about the sponsors of this February 11th episode here: Visit Amarillo Downtown Houston+ Inprint Camp Champions Looking for more Houston news? Then sign up for our morning newsletter Hey Houston  Follow us on Instagram  @CityCastHouston Don't have social media? Then leave us a voicemail or text us at +1 713-489-6972 with your thoughts! Have feedback or a show idea? Let us know!  Interested in advertising with City Cast? Let's Talk! Photo Credit: SimplyCreativePhotography / Getty Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Catherine Castaldo, Christian Leuthner and Asélle Ibraimova  break down DORA, the Digital Operational Resilience Act, which is new legislation that aims to enhance the cybersecurity and resilience of the financial sector in the European Union. DORA sets out common standards and requirements for these entities so they can identify, prevent, mitigate and respond to cyber threats and incidents as well as ensure business continuity and operational resilience. The team discusses the implications of DORA and offers insights on applicability, obligations and potential liability for noncompliance. This episode was recorded on 17 January 2025. ----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.  Catherine: Hi, everyone. I'm Catherine Castaldo, a partner in the New York office of Reed Smith, and I'm in the EmTech Group. And I'm here today with my colleagues, Christian and Asélle, who I'll introduce themselves. And we're going to talk to you about DORA. Go ahead, Christian. Christian: Hi, I'm Christian Leuthner. I'm a Reed Smith partner in the Frankfurt office, focusing on IT and data protection law.  Asélle: And I'm Asélle Ibraimova. I am a council based in London. And I'm also part of the EmTech group, focusing on tech, data, and cybersecurity.  Catherine: Great. Thanks, Asélle and Christian. Today, when we're recording this, January 17th, 2025, is the effective date of this new regulation, commonly referred to as DORA. For those less familiar, would you tell us what DORA stands for and who is subject to it? Christian: Yeah, sure. So DORA stands for the Digital Operational Resilience Act, which is a new regulation that aims to enhance the cybersecurity and resilience of the financial sector in the European Union. It applies to a wide range of financial entities, such as banks, insurance companies, investment firms, payment service providers, crypto asset service providers, and even to critical third-party providers that offer services to the financial sector. DORA sets out common standards and requirements for these entities to identify, prevent, mitigate, and respond to cyber threats and incidents as well, as to ensure business continuity and operational resilience.  Catherine: Oh, that's comprehensive. Is there any entity who needs to be more concerned about it than others, or is it equally applicable to all of the ones you listed?  Asélle: I can jump in here. So DORA is a piece of legislation that wants to respect proportionality and allow organizations to deal with DORA requirements that will be proportionate to their size, to the nature of the cybersecurity risks. So, for example, micro-enterprises or certain financial entities that have only a small number of members will have a simplified ICT risk management framework under DORA. I also wanted to mention that DORA applies to financial entities that are outside of the EU, but provide services in the EU so they will be caught. And maybe just to also add in terms of the risks. It's not only the size of the financial entities that matter in terms of how they comply with the requirements of DORA, but also the cybersecurity risk. So let's say an ICT third-party service provider, the risk of that entity will depend on the nature of that service, on the complexity, on whether that service supports critical or important function of the financial entity, generally dependence on ICT service provider and ultimately on its potential to disrupt the services of that financial entity.  Catherine: So some of our friends might just be learning about this by listening to the podcast. So what does ICT stand for, Asélle?  Asélle: It is informational communication technology. So in other words, it's anything that a financial entity receives as a service or a product digitally. It also covers ICT services provided by a financial entity. So, for example, if a financial entity offers a platform for fund or investment management or a piece of software or its custodian services are provided digitally, those services will also be considered an ICT service. And those financial entities will need to cover their customer-facing contracts as well and make sure DORA requirements are covered in the contracts.  Catherine: Thank you for that. What are some of the risks for noncompliance? Christian: The risks for noncompliance with DORA are significant and could entail both financial and reputational consequences. First of all, DORA empowers the authorities to impose administrative sanctions and corrective measures on entities that breach its provisions. Which could range from warnings and reprimands to fines and penalties to withdrawals of authorization and licenses, which could have significant impact on the business of all the entities. The level of sanctions and measures will depend on the nature, gravity and duration of the breach, as well as on the entity's cooperation and remediation efforts. So better be positive to help the authority in case they identify the breach. Second, non-compliance with DORA could also expose entities to legal actions and claims from the customers, investors, or other parties that might suffer losses or damages as a result of cyber incident or disruption of service. And third, non-compliance with DORA could also damage the entity's reputation and trustworthiness in the market and affect its competitive advantage and customer loyalty. Therefore, entities should take DORA seriously and ensure that they comply with its requirements and expectations.  Catherine: If I haven't been able to start considering DORA, and I think it might be applicable to me, where should I start?  Asélle: It's actually a very interesting question. So from our experience. We see large financial entities such as banks, etc. Look at this comprehensively. Comprehensively, obviously, all financial entities had quite a long time to prepare, but large organizations seem to look at it more comprehensively and have done the proper assessment of whether or not their services are caught. But we are still getting quite a few questions in terms of whether or not DORA applies to a certain financial entity type. So I think there are quite a few organizations out there who are still trying to determine that. But once that's clear although DORA itself is quite a long kind of piece of legislation, in actual fact, it is further clarified in various regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards, and they clarify all of the cybersecurity requirements that actually appear quite generic in DORA itself. So those RTS and ITS are quite lengthy documents and are all together around 1,000 pages. So that's where kind of the devil is in the detail there and organizations will find it may appear quite overwhelming. So I would start by assessing whether DORA applies, which services, which entities, which geographies. Once that's determined, it's important to identify whether financial entities' own services may be deemed ICT services, as I just explained earlier. The next step in my mind would be to check whether the services that are caught also support critical or important functions, and also when kind of making registries of third party ICT service providers, also making sure, kind of identifying those separately. And the reason is quite a few of the requirements, additional requirements applied to critical and important functions. For example, the incident reporting obligations and requirements in terms of contractual agreements. And then I would look at updating contracts, first of all, with important ICT service providers, then also checking if customer-facing contracts need to be updated if the financial entity is providing ICT services itself. And also not forgetting the intra-group ICT agreements where, for example, a parent company is providing data storage or word processing services to its affiliates in Europe. So they should be covered as well.  Catherine: If we were a smaller company or a company that interacts in the financial services sector, can we think of an example that might be helpful for people listening on how I could start? Maybe what's the example of a smaller or middle-sized company that would be subject to this? And then who would they be interacting with on the ICT side?  Asélle: Maybe an example of that could be an investment fund or a pensions provider. I think most of this compliance effort when it comes to DORA will be driven by in-house cybersecurity teams. So they will be updating their risk management and risk frameworks. But any updates to policies, whenever they have to be looked at, I think will need to be reviewed by legal and incident reporting policies, contract management policies, I don't think they depend on size. If there are ICT service providers supporting critical or important functions, additional requirements will apply regardless of whether you're a small or a large organization. It's just the measures will depend on what level of risk, say, certain ICT service provider presents. So if this internal cybersecurity team has kind of put, you know, all the risk, all the IST assets in buckets and all the third-party IST services in various buckets based on criticality, then that would make the job of legal and generally compliance much easier. However, what we're seeing right now is that all of that work is happening all at the same time in parallel as people are rushing to get compliance. So that will mean that there may be gaps and inconsistencies and I'm sure they can be patched later.  Catherine: Thank you for that. So just another follow-up question, maybe Christian can respond, would my data center contract be subject to DORA regulations if I was a financial services entity? Christian: It's worth to look into that and see if it's an ICT provider that you use to provide your services. So I'm pretty sure you need to look into that and see if you can implement at least the contractual requirements that arise from DORA.  Asélle: I would just add to support Christian's response and say that the definition of ICT services is quite broad and covers digital and data services provided through ICT systems. So, I mean, as you can see, it's just so generic and I'm pretty sure it would cover data centers, but I guess not directly because say a financial entity was receiving a service of a cloud service provider, then data centers are probably a second or third kind of level subcontractor. And unfortunately, or fortunately, DORA has very detailed requirements in terms of subcontracting and the obligations don't stop at a certain level. Therefore, data centers are likely to be caught somehow and will be receiving DORA addenda to their contracts.  Catherine: Thank you for that clarification. I was, like probably many people have tried to digest this regulation, a little confused on how broad the coverage for information and communication technology went. But that's very helpful then, I'm sure. Any final thoughts?  Asélle: We are helping a few organizations and learning a lot as we work with them. And the legislation is pretty complex and requires in-house teams to work together as well. And Christian and I would be very happy to assist and navigate this complex framework. Christian: And if you haven't started yet, of course, it's a huge regulation. There's so many requirements to tackle, but there's one day you have to start. So then start today, look into it, and implement the requirements that arise from DORA.  Catherine: Well, thank you so much, Christian and Asélle, and everybody, as we said before, we're talking about DORA today, because today, January 17th, is the day that it becomes effective. So if, like Christian said, you haven't started, today's a good day to start. And I'm sure you can reach out to one of my colleagues to get some assistance. Thanks for joining. Christian: Thanks for having us, Catherine.  Asélle: It was a pleasure. Thank you.  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.

In its first leading judgment (decision of November 18, 2024, docket no.: VI ZR 10/24), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dealt with claims for non-material damages pursuant to Art. 82 GDPR following a scraping incident. According to the BGH, a proven loss of control or well-founded fear of misuse of the scraped data by third parties is sufficient to establish non-material damage. The BGH therefore bases its interpretation of the concept of damages on the case law of the CJEU, but does not provide a clear definition and leaves many questions unanswered. Our German data litigation lawyers, Andy Splittgerber, Hannah von Wickede and Johannes Berchtold, discuss this judgment and offer insights for organizations and platforms on what to expect in the future. ----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.  Andy: Hello, everyone, and welcome to today's episode of our Reed Smith Tech Law Talks podcast. In today's episode, we'll discuss the recent decision of the German Federal Court of Justice, the FCJ, of November 18, 2024, on compensation payments following a data breach or data scraping. My name is Andy Splittgerber. I'm partner at Reed Smith's Munich office in the Emerging Technologies Department. And I'm here today with Hannah von Wickede from our Frankfurt office. Hannah is also a specialist in data protection and data litigation. And Johannes Berchtold, also from Reed Smith in the Munich office, also from the emerging technologies team and tech litigator. Thanks for taking the time and diving a bit into this breathtaking case law. Just to catch everyone up and bring everyone on the same speed, it was a case decided by the German highest civil court, in an action brought by a user of a social platform who wanted damages after his personal data was scraped by a hacker from that social media network. And that was done through using the telephone number or trying out any kind of numbers through a technical fault probably, and this find a friend function. And through this way, the hackers could download a couple of million data sets from users of that platform, which then could be found in the dark web. And the user then started an action before the civil court claiming for damages. And this case was then referred to the highest court in Germany because of the legal difficulties. Hannah, do you want to briefly summarize the main legal findings and outcomes of this decision?  Hannah: Yes, Andy. So, the FCJ made three important statements, basically. First of all, the FCJ provided its own definition of what a non-material damage under Article 82 GDPR is. They are saying that mere loss of control can constitute a non-material damage under Article 82 GDPR. And if such a loss of the plaintiffs is not verifiable, that also justified fear of personal data being misused can constitute a non-material damage under GDPR. So both is pretty much in line with what the ECJ already has said about non-material damages in the past. And besides that, the FCJ makes also a statement regarding the amount of compensation for non-material damages following from scraping incident. And this is quite interesting because according to the FCJ, the amount of the claim for damages in such cases is around 100 euros. That is not much money. However, FCJ also says both loss of control and reasonable apprehension, also including the negative consequences, must first be proven by the plaintiff.  Andy: So we have an immaterial damage that's important for everyone to know. And the legal basis for the damage claim is Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation. So it's not German law, it's European law. And as you'd mentioned, Hannah, there was some ECJ case law in the past on similar cases. Johannes, can you give us a brief summary on what these rulings were about? And on your view, does the FCJ bring new aspects to these cases? Or is it very much in line with the European Court of Justice that already?  Johannes: Yes, the FCJ has quoted ECJ quite broadly here. So there was a little clarification in this regard. So far, it's been unclear whether the loss of control itself constitutes the damage or whether the loss of control is a mere negative consequence that may constitute non-material damage. So now the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the mere loss of control constitutes the direct damage. So there's no need for any particular fear or anxiety to be present for a claim to exist.  Andy: Okay, so it's not. So we read a bit in the press after the decision. Yes, it's very new and interesting judgment, but it's not revolutionary. It stays very close to what the European Court of Justice said already. The loss of control, I still struggle with. I mean, even if it's an immaterial damage, it's a bit difficult to grasp. And I would have hoped FCJ provides some more clarity or guidance on what they mean, because this is the central aspect, the loss of control. Johannes, you have some more details? What does the court say or how can we interpret that?  Johannes: Yeah, Andy, I totally agree. So in the future, discussion will most likely tend to focus on what actually constitutes a loss of control. So the FCJ does not provide any guidance here. However, it can already be said the plaintiff must have had the control over his data to actually lose it. So whether this is the case is particularly questionable if the actual scrape data was public, like in a lot of cases where we have in Germany right here, and or if the data was already included in other leaks, or the plaintiff published the data on another platform, maybe on his website or another social network where the data was freely accessible. So in the end, it will probably depend on the individual case if there was actually a loss of control or not. And we'll just have to wait on more judgments in Germany or in Europe to define loss of control in more detail.  Andy: Yeah, I think that's also a very important aspect of this case that was decided here, that the major cornerstones of the claim were established, they were proven. So it was undisputed that the claimant was a user of the network. It was undisputed that the scraping took place. It was undisputed that the user's data was affected part of the scraping. And then also the user's data was found in the dark web. So we have, in this case, when I say undistributed, it means that the parties did not dispute about it and the court could base their legal reasoning on these facts. In a lot of cases that we see in practice, these cornerstones are not established. They're very often disputed. Often you perhaps you don't even know that the claimant is user of that network. There's always dispute or often dispute around whether or not a scraping or a data breach took place or not. It's also not always the case that data is found in the dark web. I think this, even if the finding in the dark web, for example, is not like a written criteria of the loss of control. I think it definitely is an aspect for the courts to say, yes, there was loss of control because we see that the data was uncontrolled in the dark web. So, and that's a point, I don't know if any of you have views on this, also from the technical side. I mean, how easy and how often do we see that, you know, there is like a tag that it says, okay, the data in the dark web is from this social platform? Often, users are affected by multiple data breaches or scrapings, and then it's not possible to make this causal link between one specific scraping or data breach and then data being found somewhere in the web. Do you think, Hannah or Johannes, that this could be an important aspect in the future when courts determine the loss of control, that they also look into, you know, was there actually, you know, a loss of control?  Hannah: I would say yes, because it was already mentioned that the plaintiffs must first prove that there is a causal damage. And a lot of the plaintiffs are using various databases that list such alleged breaches, data breaches, and the plaintiffs always claim that this would indicate such a causal link. And of course, this is now a decisive point the courts have to handle, as it is a requirement. Before you get to the damage and before you can decide if there was a damage, if there was a loss of control, you have to prove if the plaintiff even was affected. And yeah, that's a challenge and not easy in practice because there's also a lot of case law already about these databases or on those databases that there might not be sufficient proof for the plaintiffs being affected by alleged data breaches or leaks.  Andy: All right. So let's see what's happening also in other countries. I mean, the Article 82, as I said in the beginning, is a European piece of law. So other countries in Europe will have to deal with the same topics. We cannot come up with our German requirements or interpretation of immaterial damages that are rather narrow, I would say. So Hannah, any other indications you see from the European angle that we need to have in mind?  Hannah: Yes, you're right. And yet first it is important that this concept of immaterial damage is EU law, is in accordance with EU law, as this is GDPR. And as Johannes said, the ECJ has always interpreted this damage very broadly. And does also not consider a threshold to be necessary. And I agree with you that it is difficult to set such low requirements for the concept of damage and at the same time not demand materiality or a threshold. And in my opinion, the Federal Court of Justice should perhaps have made a submission here to the ECJ after all because it is not clear what loss of control is. And then without a material threshold, this contributes a lot to legal insecurity for a lot of companies.  Andy: Yeah. Thank you very much, Hannah. So yes, the first takeaway for us definitely is loss of control. That's a major aspect of the decision. Other aspects, other interesting sentences or thoughts we see in the FCJ decision. And one aspect I see or I saw is right at the beginning where the FCJ merges together two events. The scraping and then a noncompliance with data access requests. And that was based in that case on contract, but similar on Article 15, GDPR. So those three events are kind of like merged together as one event, which in my view doesn't make so much sense because they're separated from the event, from the dates, from the actions or non-actions, and also then from the damages from a non-compliance with an Article 15. I think it's much more difficult to argue with a damage loss of control than with a scraping or a data breach. That that's not a major aspect of the decision but I think it was an interesting finding. Any other aspects, Hannah or Johannes, that you saw in the decision worth mentioning here for our audience?  Johannes: Yeah so I think discussion in Germany was really broadly so i think just just maybe two points have been neglected in the discussion so far. First, towards the ending of the reasoning, the court stated that data controllers are not obliged to provide information about unknown recipients. For example, like in scraping cases, controllers often do not know who the scrapers are. So there's no obligation for them to provide any names of scrapers they don't know. That clarification is really helpful in possible litigation. And on the other hand, it's somewhat lost in the discussion that the damages of the 100 euros only come into consideration if the phone number, the user ID, the first name, the last name, the gender, and the workplace are actually affected. So accordingly, if less data, maybe just an email address or a name, or less sensitive data was scraped, the claim for damages can or must even be significantly lower.  Andy: All right. Thanks, Johannes. That's very interesting. So, not only the law of control aspect, but also other aspects in this decision that's worth mentioning and reading if you have the time. Now looking a bit into the future, what's happening next, Johannes? What are your thoughts? I mean, you're involved in some similar litigation as well, as so is Hannah, what do you expect, What's happening to those litigation cases in the future? Any changes? Will we still have law firms suing after social platforms or suing for consumers after social platforms? Or do we expect any changes in that?  Johannes: Yeah, Andy, it's really interesting. In this mass GDPR litigation, you always have to consider the business side, not always just the legal side. So I think the ruling will likely put an end to the mass GDPR litigation as we know it in the past. Because so far, the plaintiffs have mostly appeared just with a legal expenses insurer. So the damages were up to like 5,000 euros and other claims have been asserted. So the value in dispute could be pushed to the edge. So it was like maybe around 20,000 euros in the end. But now it's clear that the potential damages in such scraping structures are more likely to be in the double-digit numbers, like, for example, 100 euros or even less. So as a result, the legal expenses insurers will no longer fund their claims for 5,000 euros. But at the same time, the vast majority of legal expenses insurers have agreed to a deductible of more than 100 euros. So the potential outcome and the risk of litigation are therefore disproportionate. And as a result, the plaintiffs will probably refrain from filing such lawsuits in the future.  Andy: All right. So good news for all insurers in the audience or better watch out for requests for coverage of litigation and see if not the values in this cube are much too high. So we will probably see less of insurance coverage cases, but still, definitely, we expect the same amount or perhaps even more litigation because the number as such, even if it's only 100 euros, seems certainly attractive for users as a so-called low-hanging fruit. And Hannah, before we close our podcast today, again, looking into the future, what is your recommendation or your takeaways to platforms, internet sites, basically everyone, any organization handling data can be affected by data scraping or a data breach. So what is your recommendation or first thoughts? How can those organizations get ready or ideally even avoid such litigation?  Hannah: So at first, Andy, it is very important to clarify that the FCJ judgment is ruled on a specific case in which non-public data was made available to the public as a result of a proven breach of data protection. And that is not the case in general. So you should avoid simply apply this decision to every other case like a template because if other requirements following from the GDPR are missing, the claims will still be unsuccessful. And second, of course, platforms companies have to consider what they publish about their security vulnerabilities and take the best possible precautions to ensure that data is not published on the dark web. And if necessary, companies can transfer the risk of publication to the user simply by adjusting their general terms and conditions.  Andy: Thanks, Hannah. These are interesting aspects and I see a little bit of conflict between the breach notification obligations under Article 33, 34, and then the direction this caseload goes. That will also be very interesting to see. Thank you very much, Hannah and Johannes, for your contribution. That was a really interesting, great discussion. And thank you very much to our audience for listening in. This was today's episode of our EU Reed Smith Tech Law Talks podcast. We thank you very much for listening. Please leave feedback and comments in the comments fields or send us an email. We hope to welcome you soon to our next episode. Have a nice day. Thank you very much. Bye bye.  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 podcast 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.

This year, we commemorated National Disabilities Employment Awareness Month by exploring how employers can work toward providing access to good jobs for persons with disabilities in the legal profession; the tangible benefits of employing persons with disabilities; the feasibility of providing accommodations; and the use of assistive technology. Our speakers provided their thoughts on best practices, shared personal journeys and insights, and reflected on how far employers have come and where we need to focus to increase future employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in the legal profession and beyond. Our guests included Kevin Hara: Counsel, Reed Smith; Ronza Othman: President, National Association of Blind Government Employees – a division of the National Federation of the Blind; Nicholas Carden: Associate General Counsel, Coinbase, and former Board Member of Disability:IN; and Laurie Allen: Microsoft, Senior Accessibility Technology Evangelist. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith Podcast, Inclusivity Included, Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions, and challenges, past and present, all with a goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, Inclusivity Included.  Kevin: Hello, everybody. Welcome back to an episode of Inclusivity Included. Thank you, everyone, for joining. My name is Kevin Hara. I'm counsel at Reed Smith in the Life Sciences and Health Industries Group, and I'm proud to commemorate National Disabilities Employment Awareness Month, which is in October of every year. And this year's theme is access to good jobs for all. We have a number of distinguished panelists today joining us, including Ronza Othman, who is president of the National Association of Blind Government Employees, a division of the National Federation of the Blind. Nick Carden, associate general counsel from Coinbase, a former board member of Disability:IN. And Laurie Allen from Microsoft, a senior accessibility technology evangelist. So thank you, Ronza, Nick, and Laurie for joining us. We're thrilled to have you here as part of our podcast. And without further ado, I would like to ask Ronza to talk a little bit about your journey, how you have arrived where you are, and some of the important steps you took that led you to where you are today.  Ronza: Great. Thank you so much. I'm really delighted to be here. I am a blind attorney and my training was initially as a high school STEM teacher. And that's what I did to get myself through law school. And ultimately I've had a number of different legal jobs, but in state and local government and private sector, ultimately ended up in the federal government where now I manage civil rights programs for a large federal agency. And so my journey has been one of exploration and learning, not only because, you know, being a lawyer, an attorney is always difficult for any person, but also when you add the complications of inaccessible technology and perceptions about people with disabilities and what they can and cannot do, and the obstacles that those negative attitudes create, there's definitely been some really interesting experiences along the way, but I think that I'm optimistic in terms of where we are now. So my paid job, of course, is with the government. And as a volunteer, I serve as the president of the National Association of Blind Government Employees, where we have a number of blind and low vision employees of state, local, federal, and pseudo-government agencies that are members that are experiencing life as public servants, supporting this country at the local and state and national level. It is an honor to represent them and us in a variety of different circumstances, and I've gotten to do a lot of really cool things as a result.  Kevin: That's great. Thank you so much, Ronza. And Nick, if you'd like to share a little bit about your path that led you to where you are today.  Nicholas: Thanks, Kevin. And thanks to Reed Smith for having us. This is a great opportunity to speak about an important issue that impacts all of us on this call. I, like Ronza, I am a lawyer with a disability. I started my career right out of law school in-house, which is somewhat unusual, but it sort of led me to where I am today in the sense that early in my career, I was a true corporate generalist, and through various personnel changes and responsibility changes, I was at a consumer products manufacturing company and had the opportunity to pick up some, advertising and marketing and entertainment legal work. And I really enjoyed that type of work. It's a lot of fun. It's fast paced and it's highly creative and interesting work. So I've stayed in that sort of practice area as an in-house lawyer through my career to today where at Coinbase, I lead a global marketing legal team.  Kevin: Great. Thank you, Nick. And Laurie, we'd love to hear a little bit about the path you took to where you are today.  Laurie: Thanks, Kevin. And thank you again for inviting us to join you to talk about this great topic. So I am not an attorney. I work at Microsoft, as you mentioned. And I've been in tech for about 30 years. I've only been at Microsoft for a little over two. But my journey actually into accessibility started about nine and a half years ago when I had a spinal cord injury. and became quadriplegic. The only thing that didn't dramatically change about my life in that moment was my ability to do my job. And that's because of accessible technology that was available to me. And frankly, my job was quite literally a lifeline for me. So I'm so grateful that people came before me to create this technology. And about three years ago, I had this epiphany. How did this technology get created? And who built it? And why am I not part of the solution. So that's when I started pivoting my career into accessibility. So I feel quite fortunate to be in a role where I can combine my background in technology with my lived experience as a person with disability to help empower others like me, find meaningful employment, and succeed and thrive.  Kevin: Thank you so much. All of you have had such unique experiences and out to the successful careers that you are now engaged in today, but it hasn't always been easy for persons with disabilities in the legal profession and other professions to succeed. So I'd like to stay with you, Laurie, and to ask you, what do you believe are some of the barriers or challenges for persons with disabilities to find access to good jobs?  Laurie: And I think Ronza had mentioned it earlier, it's access to technology. It's discoverability, I find, that can be a barrier. People just don't know what technologies are available to support them in their work environments. And beyond that, it's finding companies who've built inclusive work environments for employees with disabilities, so that when they go through the interview process, they feel included, they feel supported, and as they're onboarded and as they can continue through their career. And then understanding that there are platforms that are available, like Mentra, for example, is a Microsoft partner. It's an amazing neurodiversity hiring platform. But I think just knowing what's available is sometimes quite difficult. And, you know, when people incur a disability like I did, they're starting from scratch, and they don't know what to ask for because it's a new environment for them.  Kevin: Thank you. That's a really good point. Having the access to the proper tools is key for anybody with a disability to succeed in any career path. Ronza, how about your perspective? How would you characterize some of the challenges people are facing and ways to overcome them?  Ronza: I think that the biggest challenge that the people with disabilities are really facing in terms of employment and just moving about society and contributing meaningfully in employment settings, but also in every setting, is the negative attitudes that people at large have about disability. Negative stereotypes. The unemployment rate for people with disabilities in the United States is over 50%. The unemployment rate for people who are blind and low vision in the United States is half again that almost at 75%. It's currently at 73%. That's mind boggling. These are people who want to work for the most part, but can't because nobody will hire them or because they don't have the proper training to be able to perform the jobs where there is a need. But all that really comes down to society's low expectations for people with disabilities and the barriers, artificial, usually, that society creates and puts in our way. One of the things that I really like to do as a hiring manager is I love meeting with and interviewing people with disabilities because they're so creative in their problem-solving. Their solutioning is out of the box thinking. And just to get to work in the morning, to get to the job, they have to have solved a whole bunch of problems in an environment, in a situation, in a society, not necessarily built for them. Whether it's the broken elevator, or whether it's the bus that didn't roll up to the bus stop where it was supposed to, or whether it's the technology that didn't work because somebody pushed a security update, so it broke its ability to communicate with assistive technology, or whether it's somebody, a well-meaning, you know, abled person who decided that they know where this person is trying to go and they're going to force them to go there as opposed to where the person is actually trying to go. All of those things, people with disabilities problem solve before they, you know, really start their day or as they're starting their day. And so I think we don't give enough credit to the workforce of folks with disabilities in terms of what they can do, what they have done, frankly, and then society just has negative expectations. The biggest aspect of disability isn't the disability itself. It's people without disabilities or people who don't understand disabilities who get in our way.  Nicholas: I'd love to add to that because I agree with a lot of that. And I think thinking about access to jobs, the question that comes to mind to me is, do employers want to hire persons with disabilities. And I think there's no clear answer to that. And obviously, companies themselves are just made up of other human beings. And so there's, to Ronza's point, the stigma attached to hiring persons with disabilities is ever present. But I'll share specifically in the legal industry, I think this industry does a particularly poor job of being intentional about hiring a truly diverse workforce. And this is, I'm calling out the legal industry as somebody who's in it, but I don't think it's unique to the legal industry in the sense that I still don't think when law firms are hiring for diverse candidates that they make a particular effort to recruit persons with disabilities. I think it can be as simple as asking for a voluntary disclosure on an application. And I still don't think as an industry we're doing those types of things. So there seem to be opportunities if the answer to the question of do you want to hire persons with disabilities is yes.  Ronza: I'll just add to that, if I may. When you look at the United States census data on people with disabilities, somewhere between 20% and 25% of the population of this country has a disability. When you look at the census in the legal profession, when you look at the numbers in the legal profession, and the American Bar Association has done extensive research trying to sort this out, figure it out, as some other entities, it's less than 1%. Less than 1% of attorneys in the United States are willing to disclose that they have a disability. And those who are, it's usually an obvious or very visible disability, as opposed to some of these hidden disabilities that there's still so much stigma in the legal profession around. In the regular generic work industry generally, not specifically the legal profession, but everywhere, there's this misconception that it's going to be really expensive to hire somebody with a disability because you have to accommodate them or you have to adjust schedules or policies and so forth and so on. The Job Accommodation Network, which is a free resource to employers and employees about what's available in terms of reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities, did a study and they determined that the average cost of a reasonable accommodation is less than $100. So talking about negative attitudes and negative perceptions, one of them for employers, It's that it's going to cost me a lot of money or somehow the work I'm going to receive from this person is going to be less in terms of quality or quantity than other non-disabled employees and so forth and so on. And all of that is just not accurate. It's not supported by research and it's certainly not supported by those of us in the community with lived experience in the workforce.  Kevin: That's an excellent point, Ronza, and Nick as well. You both have captured the problem that we're facing in providing good jobs to persons with disabilities. I think dispelling the myths and misconceptions is one of the important steps. And I also think technology can play an important role. We alluded to this a little bit more, but Laurie, if you would like to speak a little bit more about how technology can really help people with disabilities succeed.  Laurie: Thanks, Kevin. So the way we approach it at Microsoft is we build with the community, not for the community. We mentioned it in the last question. We bring people with lived experience into our company. We want that diverse lived experience in our product making. I have a spinal cord injury. I know what it's like to have a mobility disability. I don't know what it's like to be blind and rely on a screen reader. And I can't assume what someone who uses a screen reader needs. So we take an approach of building in early. We build in accessibility into the design phase of our product development life cycle. We bring testers in who have different types of disabilities to test our products before we release them. And what we find, and Ron's mentioned it earlier, is that we get really creative solutions because, as she mentioned, we have to be creative to get out the door every morning. And when we do this, we find that everyone benefits. When we call it Built for One, Extend to Many. When we build with the disability community, everyone benefits. And I'll give you an example. For example, live captions were built for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, but 50% of Americans watch videos with live captions on, and if you narrow that down to Gen Z, it goes up to about 80%. So when we build for people with disabilities, everyone benefits.  Kevin: I think that's a really astute observation. It's not just about helping one particular segment, but including people with disabilities when you're building the technology is really important. And, you know, I couldn't thank you more for that approach, Laurie, because, you know, I also have a mobility disability, a spinal cord injury. So I understand from my perspective. But as you said, I wouldn't be able to talk about or understand what the needs of a person with a visual or other disability might be. So that's really good. And Ronza or Nick, would you like to weigh in on technology, how it has helped you, or how do you think it can help others?  Ronza: So technology really is, it leveled the playing field for many populations within the disability community. And so, for example, for the blind community, so much of the information that we receive is visual. So much as paper had historically been paper-based but you know street signs billboards all of the things that happen visually and on the computer though now we can have access to that same information or I can go to an ATM machine and I can plug in my headphones and I can pull out my money I can go to a voting booth in most states and I can privately and independently but vote my ballot. You know there's still places where of course there's work to do but in general the proliferation of technology solutions over the last 20 or 30 years has really made a huge impact on our ability to access information engage in the world and especially with our jobs, so whether it's a screen reader or whether it's a software that's used that is speech to text for those with manual dexterity challenges or whether it's a foot pedal instead of a mouse or whatever the case may be. There's just been such advances in technology that have made it more possible for an individual with a disability to work in so many different fields. Think about all the technology that exists now. Surgeons are doing surgery with robots some of the time. Technology is super cool. It's super advanced and it's only going to get more and more advanced. And so hopefully that means that participation of the disability community at work and in other places is also going to increase. Now, the drawback is, the more innovated the technology, the more risk of potential opportunities to make it inaccessible. And so we have to be really careful when we embrace technology because that's really important, but that it also is accessible. It is compatible with that assistive technology that I mentioned, but also that we're not so focused on creativity and innovation that we're cutting people out that we've recently gave access to these platforms and applications. And we're seeing that. We are seeing technology become less inclusive in lots of different spaces. And then, you know, so build it accessibly, you know, talking to our friends at Microsoft and everywhere else who are thinking about this every day. But also, whether we're building technology or whether we're building buildings or physical spaces or virtual spaces, you know, thinking about what does it mean for us to be inclusive? Who are we building for? And not related to technology, but when we started putting in curb cuts when the ADA was passed, that was primarily done for people who were using wheelchairs and other kinds of mobility devices. And now the population that is the most vocal, the biggest fans, are parents and caregivers of small children that are pushing strollers. And so, you know, again, that sort of universal effort, the Ray-Ban Metaglasses is another example. It wasn't built for people with disabilities, but people with disabilities are using it because it had inclusive universal design built into it. We're using it to read menus and help with navigation indoor and outdoor and wayfinding and all sorts of amazing things happening with technology and beyond. So the key is it's fabulous, but we also have to make sure that it stays fabulous by being inclusive and accessible.  Laurie: You make such a good point there, Ronza, and I think with this wave of generative AI and everyone racing to get products to market, it's more important than ever to be rigorous and disciplined in continuing to build accessibility in from the beginning and test it thoroughly all the way through before it's released.  Ronza: 100%.  Kevin: Ronza and Laurie, those are excellent points that you made. And I really think technology will go a long way to helping people with disabilities of all types become part of the workforce, become part of the legal profession. And I think we have all lived through recently the pandemic that, you know, was affected everyone, not just persons with disabilities. But I think one of the things that came out of that was the importance of remote work and how that can really change the landscape. And Nick, I believe Coinbase is, you said, almost all remote. So can you comment on how that has impacted you and how you think that affects people with disabilities in terms of having access to jobs?  Nicholas: Yeah, Coinbase is a remote first company. So everyone in the company has the option to be remote first. We do have some office locations in some major cities if some people feel like they want to go into an office, but there's no requirement to do that. And in my view, I don't know that remote work benefits just persons with disabilities. I think we can all agree that it benefits a lot more groups than just persons with disabilities. To me, the bottom line of the benefit of remote work is it levels the playing field for everyone. So if we're all remote, we don't. There's no small group or other group or specific individual or groups of individuals that have to worry about what's happening in an office. Are some people getting ahead by having lunches or just getting that face time that they otherwise aren't able to do to be into the office? Whether that's because they live somewhere else where the office isn't, or they're a person with a disability and it's not easy to get into the office, or for any other reason of why it doesn't make sense. I think specifically for parents with children who are working. Remote work is a great benefit. So I love what remote work does for everyone. And it's been a real benefit. I think Coinbase deserves a lot of credit. For being one of the first companies in I think it was may of 2020 to decide that is how we're going to operate our company we think we can do it effectively and so far now you know four plus years later they're doing really well and um i don't have any knowledge that that Coinbase is changing their practices but it works very well for Coinbase and I'm sort of discouraged to see some of these companies deciding to go to a hybrid or fully return to office status. But obviously, that's their decision. And the people that are making that are thinking that it's in their best interest. I just don't know how much input they're getting from a voice of someone with a person with a disability.  Laurie: One other point is it expands the talent pool that employers can recruit from. They're not limited to just their area or just the people who can come into the office, but it really broadens that talent pool and once again, enables them to bring a more diverse workforce into their organization.  Ronza: So I'll say that, you know, in the government workforce, we have seen this switch, right? So prior to the pandemic, there were some people that were working remotely, but not very many because the perception was, no, no, no, we can't do this work remote in a remote way. We need to serve the people, the public, etc. And then the pandemic happened and bam, we have to work remotely in order to serve the people. And then everything was moving along. And I think that was really the renaissance for the disability community and government. And then government started shifting back to more in-person presence and more and more in-person presence. And the thought was, well, if you need to work from home, you can request a reasonable accommodation. And while that's true, it can be very isolating. If we're not building work, community. In a way that's hybrid or in a way that is inclusive of those that are working from home for whatever reason, then we are excluding those people. And so giving them the ability to work from home as a reasonable accommodation, if that's the solution, it can't be the only solution because what it does is it creates a different expectation and standard and isolation. And all these people with a disability are over here and everyone else is over here. And so I think employers need to really be thinking mindfully about what a hybrid work environment looks like and how to ensure inclusion for those who, for whatever reason, are working from home all or much of the time. And we can do it. We have done it. We've been very creative in the last five years. But I think we're just not thinking about it. We're letting the economic and other considerations and, you know, the ease. My favorite phrase that people give me was, well, we need people in the building because of line of sight supervision. And I always say, well, I'm a manager and I'm blind. So line of sight supervision doesn't do anything for me. Are you saying I'm not as good of a manager as you? And then, you know, they don't mean it that way, but that's how it comes off. And that's really how they're thinking. They're thinking they have to be in my space for me to effectively manage them, which we have proven doesn't have to be the case. In fact, we can be very effective as if not more productive with people in their own comfortable environment.  Kevin: Ronza, you expressed that better than I could ever have done. I think that's a really important aspect of remote work. It could not put anyone at a disadvantage or be isolating. With the last couple minutes we have left, I'd just like to hear from everyone about where we have come from and what you'd like to see in the future, some progress we've made, and where you think we still need to improve. So Nick, if you'd like to talk a little bit about that.  Nicholas: Yeah, I'll say I can recall an instance about 12, 13 years ago, maybe, where I was interested in a summer internship with a law firm. And I noticed they had a diversity recruitment event, something like that. And they were looking for women and ethnically diverse or persons of color to attend. And I recall thinking to myself, well, I am a white male, but if they're looking for diverse candidates, I would assume that they would be interested in a person with a disability. So I emailed the firm's event organizer and I sort of posed the question of, can I attend? And of course the answer was yes, but it really goes to show where we were 12 to 14 years ago. And we may still be there in terms of what diversity is and or how law firms specifically view diversity. It may just be that they focus on these two categories. And that is a fine thing. It's just not an inclusive thing. I sort of commend the efforts. And I think we've gone farther than that over the past 12 to 14 years. But if we want to create an inclusive industry, doing so in an exclusive manner is not going to get us there. And I would encourage firms in their recruitment efforts to think about all of the minority groups or underrepresented groups in this industry and make intentional efforts to be inclusive for all of them.  Kevin: Thank you, Nick. Ronza, would you like to add?  Ronza: Sure, I 100% agree. I think that it's not just in the legal profession, it's in a lot of professions that the focus on diversity has been on race and gender and, you know, the SOGI areas. And there hasn't been as much advancement with disability, but this is certainly an opportunity. The American Bar Association currently has a campaign called the Be Counted Campaign for lawyers specifically and those in the legal profession who do have disabilities who can, you know, confidentially essentially be counted as a member of the disability community so that we can get a better number of who in fact is in this profession because we know it's not half a percent. You know, we know it's more than that. And we need to eliminate the stigma in this and every profession for those that are comfortable, psychologically safe, identifying as people with disabilities, even if it's anonymized, to be able to do so. I am optimistic in terms of where we're headed. I think the effort that we've put forward as a disability community and nothing about us without us has really tremendously borne some fruit. And I think though there's work to do, I think we've come a long way. I think that the ADA regulations on Title II that were the Department of Justice released are going to be a game changer. I think that when the Title III regulations are released, whenever that is, it's going to be another huge game changer. I think that Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act is very, very much in need of a refresh and some updates. And when that happens, and I know there's some effort in Congress already, that's going to help. And I think some of the fundamental civil rights laws and protections in states and in the federal sector are going to continue this progress. But those are just the underpinning. It's the attitudes of people. It's listening to a podcast like this and learning about people you didn't think about before or aspects you didn't think about before, and then becoming a good ally to those communities. If you are in the community and feel comfortable speaking up with your lived experience, that's going to be a game changer too. 25% of this country. That's who we are. And so everybody knows somebody. Everybody has a family member who is a person with a disability who've experienced some of these challenges. Listen to their stories. Ask about their stories. Educate yourself and become a good ally so that the next generation has an easier time. That's what I'm excited about because I see it happening much more often. And I think it will continue to happen in this generation and the ones to come.  Kevin: Thank you so much. Laurie, how about you? what do you see in the future?  Laurie: Well, I think these are all such great points. And I'm going to go back to Nick's example. You know, I think historically DE&I has included, you know, a lot of minority groups except the disability community. And more and more, as I'm speaking with, you know, our enterprise customers, they're starting to add accessibility into that equation and really target disability hiring and bringing disabled talent into their pipelines. A lot of organizations are creating neurodiversity centers of excellence and neurodiversity hiring programs to specifically target that part of the population. So like Ronza said, I'm encouraged and I'm seeing this become a much higher priority for our enterprise customers. And again, to echo what she just said, I think the more we talk about it, the more we have podcasts and people listen to podcasts, the more comfortable and confident we get. I think we don't talk about accessibility because we're uncomfortable talking about disability, because people are afraid they're going to say the wrong thing. And at some point, we are all going to say the wrong thing, and that's okay. It's a learning opportunity for all of us. So again, thank you for the opportunity for us to come together today and talk about this really, really important topic.  Kevin: Well, I just want to say very heartfelt thanks to all of you, Laurie, Ronza, and Nick for all of your insights today, for your time, and for the lessons you've shared with us. I think people will really get a lot out of this. And for our listeners, thank you for joining us for Inclusivity Included, and please stay tuned for future episodes. Thanks, everyone.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. 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.

In this episode, we highlight the achievements of the Leadership Institute for Women of Color Attorneys (LIWOCA). Reed Smith partner Kendra Perkins Norwood is joined by LIWOCA's founder, Marian Cover Dockery, J.D., and vice president, Philippa Ellis, J.D., to discuss their efforts to support women of color in overcoming barriers within the legal profession. Marian shares insights into the challenges faced by women of color attorneys and the transformative impact LIWOCA has had over its 20-year history. From offering scholarships and hosting national conferences to fostering mentorship and professional growth, LIWOCA remains a beacon of empowerment and continues to drive change in the legal community. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith podcast, Inclusivity Included: Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions, and challenges, past and present, all with a goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included.  Kendra: Hello, I am Kendra Perkins Norwood, a government contracts partner at Reed Smith LLP based in Washington, D.C., and I am elated to welcome you to this very special episode of the Inclusivity Included podcast. So this is a special series of Inclusivity Included, and it's dedicated to an organization that is very near and dear to my heart called the Leadership Institute for Women of Color Attorneys, otherwise known as LIWOCA. So Reed Smith was very gracious in agreeing to host and sponsor this LIWOCA series of Inclusivity Included. And as a Reed Smith partner and a member of the LIWOCA Board of Trustees, I could not be more proud to be a part of bringing this podcast to life. So thank you very much to Reed Smith for their generous support. Now, many of you may be wondering exactly what is LIWOCA. So it is an organization whose mission is to help women of color attorneys in law firms and corporate legal departments, develop skills to become leaders in the legal profession. LIWOCA is also dedicated to assisting law firms and corporations with retaining and promoting women of color attorneys. And last but not least, the organization is dedicated to fueling the pipeline of women of color attorneys through law school scholarships. Today, for our inaugural episode, we are so fortunate to have as our guests LIWOCA's founder, Marian Cover Dockery, as well as a longtime LIWOCA member, Philippa Ellis. So I would like to welcome you both to the podcast. We're so excited to have you here, and I will just turn the mic over to you for you two to get started.  Philippa: Thank you, Kendra. It is quite an honor to have this time with you, Marian, as CEO of Leadership Institute for Women of Color Attorneys. And I am excited to talk to you about your role with starting Leadership Institute for Women of Color Attorneys. I'll call it LIWOCA. You know, LIWOCA has awarded over $300,000 in scholarships to deserving law students, hosted 20 national networking conferences for women of color attorneys from across the nation. And the organization has provided a platform for not only professional networking, but also professional development and mentorship connections. So as we're approaching a big number, 20th anniversary, coming up on the April 23rd through 24th conference in 2025, Marian, take us back to the moment in time when you initially had the idea to launch LIWOCA.  Marian: Thank you. And I just want to say before I launch into that, I want to thank Reed Smith on behalf of LIWOCA for underwriting this and Kendra Norwood, partner at Reed Smith, and Rachel Patterson of ORC who facilitated this podcast. Let me go back to the American Bar Association conference in Chicago, which was 20 years ago, the Commission on Women in the Profession were holding a session, and the session focused on a report, a riveting report called Visible Invisibility. That report chronicled the and detailed the sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, and disrespect that women of color all across the nation were experiencing in law firms. So after that report was read, a colleague of mine, Julia Doolin, and I went back to Atlanta and decided that we could do something about this. So my idea was to have an annual conference, bringing all of these talented women into one space and giving them support through sessions, panel discussions, also just keynote speakers who could impart their knowledge and advice regarding becoming successful in law firms. We had to figure out, first of all, how we were going to put this on because we had to have money. So luckily, I had two contacts who were CEOs. One who I'd worked with on the Pace Academy board, the CEO of Rooms to Go, and another who was the CEO of Darden Restaurants, who I'd met through one of my good friends. He was her brother-in-law. And I just sent both of them emails and told them what trying to do. And both sent big checks. And after that, we were on our way because posting those two companies as sponsors. All the Atlanta firms and other firms and companies followed. To put the program together, I just called friends and associates and really calls her friends and associates to work or serve on panels and to serve as keynote speakers. We had two keynote speakers that year. Chief Justice Leah Sears, who was the first African American to serve on the Georgia Supreme Court, and the youngest woman ever to serve on a state Supreme Court, and Judge Glenda Hatchett, the TV personality who was the former juvenile court judge. And we had a Fulton County. And we just had two great speakers. Glenda auctioned off one of her shoes, which launched an auction that we have an auction even today. But it's not her shoe. It's a quilt. We auction off quilts every year that O.V. Brantley, the former Fulton County attorney and DeKalb County attorney, donates to us every year. And that's how we got started. And we did that for two years, we were the Leadership Academy, and then we reincorporated as the Leadership Institute with a planning committee because it was too much work for a couple of people. And so here we are today.  Philippa: And 20 years later, Marian, you know, thinking about what you mentioned about Justice Sears being a first, you yourself have, you know, a checklist of firsts. You were the first woman and first diverse attorney in the legal department at FedEx. You were also the first African-American woman to serve in an executive management position at BP Oil. And those are just a couple of roles you held during your journey to serving as CEO of LIWOCA and at the same time you have an active labor and employment discrimination and wage and hour claims practice. You've practiced for 40 years and just looking at your trajectory and your journey in the legal profession, have you been able or do you feel you've been able to impart that type of support and meet your goals for the organization, as you mentioned, with a goal of supporting diverse women lawyers?  Marian: Absolutely. One of my goals for the annual conference was to bring experienced senior attorneys into a room with attorneys starting out who could impart their knowledge, their expertise, how to navigate racism and sexual harassment in the workplace without derailing your career. I've wanted more experienced attorneys to interface with the younger attorneys to give them informal mentoring. And we've done that. We've done that through just informally, but also we had some what we call speed mentoring sessions throughout the years. But more importantly, I don't think of it as a conference. I thought of it as an experience. It was so uplifting having all these wonderful, accomplished women in one room who were excited to see each other because so many of these women, as I was, are the only ones in their firm, maybe in their law firm, but maybe not in their section if they were in big law. Many women were unhappy with big law, and the study showed, Invisible Invisibility, showed that women of color were leaving the legal profession because they were so disillusioned and so disappointed and unhappy. But one of the goals was to present to them alternatives to working in big law. You could go to a smaller or mid-sized firm and be happier. You could go perhaps in-house or work in the government or work in nonprofits, but don't give up the practice of law because the social implications for that were just huge. And we put so many resources, money and time into going through law school and passing the bar and our hopes and dreams to give up the practice of law just because of bad experience at one firm was just something we didn't want people to consider.  Philippa: You know, Marian, you also, and just kind of thinking about all of the mentorship relationships that have been sparked from the LIWOCA conferences and all of the connections, you know, the legacy of LIWOCA is one of support. Sisterhood, professional sisterhood, and, you know, also the scholarships that have been provided to law students. Can you talk a little bit about how you decided to provide that support for law students, aspiring lawyers?  Marian: We decided to provide scholarships for lawless students, but that was only after we knew financially we could do so. We were a startup organization, and it was important for us to conserve our funds. So the idea for scholarships actually was Julia, who left the organization. And when we got to that point, I think it was maybe our third conference or maybe it was our second conference, we were able to offer some money. But running a business, you know, you want to have money in reserve. We were able to do that, but also what you were saying about the mentoring and support, the environment for leadership is one of support. It is one where people feel comfortable enough to walk up to you and say, at least many have just come up to me and ask a question, and they may have a problem. And I don't think all conferences create that atmosphere. I don't think all conferences create that environment where you feel that comfort level. So for me, I just felt so blessed to be able to meet women from all over the United States, women of color from all of the United States, who were successful, who were committed to their careers, and committed to reaching back and providing advice to younger attorneys who were starting their careers. Throughout sessions, I think we have been able to give support as well. It's important for our attorneys to take care of their physical health, their emotional health. I believe at that first conference, we had one young lady who was obviously suffering from depression. We need to learn how to manage our finances because many start with law firms making lots of money and they don't know how to manage it. And then if they get cut and they have to go to a job paying them less, they are faced with financial challenges. So that first conference, we had someone from one of the big financial firms give a presentation on that. And we have done that almost every year thereafter, how to invest in your retirement, how to have a rainy day fund, you know, live a little below your means. And once you get to the point where you have your savings and you can pay all your bills, we want you to start investing your money in addition to retirement for a rainy day.  Philippa: And those goals you've talked about have, you know, just as a conference attendee at that first conference, I remember learning so much that, you know, so many tools to place in my toolkit. And I know that others that I've heard over the years, how many other attendees say pretty much their cup is full when they attend a conference and they leave ready to tackle the profession, ready to tackle, you know, everything that all of the challenges that are placed before them, you know, in their in this legal profession. And just want to say to you, Marian, I agree with you that your goals have been met and just as someone who has attended every conference. And I'd like to hear from you on what you've had such wonderful conferences and I agree that they are truly an experience. So looking back, can you share some of the most memorable moments for you as the founder and CEO of LIWOCA, just reflecting over the past 20 years?  Marian: Oh, there's so many. One was the networking reception that LexisNexis sponsored. We had several of those receptions where we sat down at tables with our hors d'oeuvres and drinks and wrapped. Each person was asked to bring a book, age appropriate for a young woman, 10 to 14, 10 to 13 years old, and write a little note in the cover of the book. LexisNexis provided the gift wrap and the tape and the scissors. But while we were wrapping, and people wrapped more than one or two books, because LexisNexis also provided some extra books for people who may have forgotten to bring some. And while we were sitting there wrapping all those books, and we wrapped over 300 books that were donated to the Coretta Scott King Academy, and to Girls, Inc. But while we were wrapping those books, we also had conversations with attendees. We met attendees, we networked, and it was a true networking event. And it was fun. And we were at the same time doing something, you know, for charity. And then also, I remember some of our great speakers, the Honorable Vanessa Gilmore, who was the federal district judge at that time for the Southern District of Texas. She was so engaging and so funny, we couldn't get people out of the lunchroom. They continued asking questions. We were ringing the bell. I was trying to usher people out. And we were 30 minutes behind our next session. She was just that fantastic. Michele Coleman Mayes. She was the general counsel of Allstate. And she brought her mentee on the stage. And they engaged in a conversation. And she was really her sponsor. But that conversation was in a format that she created. It wasn't our idea, but it was a big hit because the attendees listening to that conversation were able to walk away with some ideas from that conversation. Also, Sandra Leung, who was the executive vice president and general counsel for Bristol Myers Squibb, she was just fantastic. I think everyone enjoyed her speech. She just gave so much good advice and talked about her career trajectory. And, of course, our first conference was actually my favorite conference because it was probably because it was the first and was like, oh, my God, it's a success, able to do this. It happened. Starting anything from scratch is hard work. And when you say, don't say you Marianne, but it was after, you know, that second year, it was a planning committee. And a lot of people, including you, contributed to making those conferences a success. There's no way year after year I could have done that by myself. Although I was conference president and conference chair for 10 years. And, you know, that is a heavy, that's a heavy burden to carry, but it was a labor of love. So those are some of the highlights of the conference and just mingling with people and meeting new people. I feel so fortunate to have met women of color attorneys from all over the country who I never would have met. And also a lot in Georgia. I never would have met you. Because we work in our silos unless we go to your reception or national conference and that's usually going to you're usually going to gravitate to those sessions in your specialty it's hard to meet new people so those are some of the the highlight for me.  Philippa: You know, LIWOCA has been so successful over these past 20 years. There's a steady flow of lawyers wanting to get involved with planning and those who attend. What else is there for Marian Cover Dockery to do? What do you envision as next steps for LIWOCA? What's on the horizon?  Marian: Well, one of the initiatives we've already started, and that's to have regional events. We had our first in Santa Monica this summer. Teresa Becerra, who's a partner at Spencer Fane, connected with me through one of our attendees, Rachel Patterson, who I guess she said, how can we do this? And I said, you tell me what you want me when you want to do it and I'll be there. And another attorney in Philadelphia, likewise, wants to have a networking reception or a reception actually to introduce LIWOCA to attorneys and partners who are unaware of the organization to help our organization grow. So in Santa Monica, there were eight to 10 attorneys, women of color. None of them had heard of LIWOCA. All of them were excited about it. All of them wanted to come next year and hopefully, you know, bring an associate from their firm. So I would like to see us grow, but I don't, you know, it's really not my decision. We have a board now. We have a planning committee. We were an executive committee. Personally, I don't want us to grow where we've got thousands of people if that were ever possible. I like the idea of having a manageable group of people because I think that the level of comfort for many of the attorneys who aren't real gregarious and outgoing to just approach someone and ask them for advice, I think it increases with a smaller, more comfortable number of attendees. I also would like to see us create a job board so that people know of job opportunities in the legal profession. I would also like a newsletter that would give the attendees an opportunity to submit articles that perhaps they have written or already published to help, you know, get the word out that, and also that's helpful for them if they are trying to develop business. So among our group of attendees, we have so many who are representing corporations like you, law firm, and someone may see an article and be impressed with it, and that might be an opportunity for the person who wrote the article for a future job opportunity. So those are some of the things I would like to see. This podcast is great. More marketing opportunities to get the word out about our organization. There's so much room for, you know, several of these types of organizations You cannot have too many And even though there are not a lot of women of color attorneys We are scattered all over the United States. And there is a critical mass that needs to be served. And just let me just say this, that you were talking about my past. My first job, legal job, was in a law firm where it was as a law clerk. And I was so disillusioned working in that job because one of the partners came on to me and I quit. And it was a small firm. It wasn't like it was a big firm and I could avoid this guy. And so when I heard that report, I understood how many of those women felt who left their law practice. Of course, I was just clerking in a law firm a second year, so that's not the same as having a permanent job where you're depending on that salary. But just think about, I mean, you know, I thought about that. I said, how horrible, all your hopes and dreams and your excitement and enthusiasm, you're going to practice law, you pass the bar, you're entering this firm, and you're faced with all these obstacles. So I think back 40-plus years when that happened, when I was in law school, and to think that it's still going on now is very disconcerting. But I believe that women are smarter now. They can be given tools and advice as to how to circumvent that. And, of course, we have sexual harassment laws. And, you know, most lawyers aren't going to sue a firm, but they have options. They have options to work in other places that are more friendly for women and that are really focused on promoting and elevating women.  Philippa: Definitely, the LIWOCA does serve as a place where women of lawyers can convene and share their journey, you know, obstacles, share their successes, you know, meet, find mentors and become mentors. I mean, you have just really filled an unmet need and so glad you attended that American Bar Association meeting where you learned of the Visible Invisibility Study. And, you know, as we close, you know, what would be your message to any woman of color or any supporter or ally who is contemplating getting involved with LIWOCA or attending a conference? What would be your message to them or what guidance would you provide?  Marian: Well, I would tell them to go to our website, leadingwomanofcolor.org, and register for our next conference and tell their friends about it. I would also say if you've already attended a conference and you'd like to get involved, email our administrator at info@leadingwomanofcolor.org. Sue Ann Daniel will put you in touch with whoever is the president at that time. This year, our president is Gillian Crowl. So, you know, there's always room for help. And if you don't have time to work on a planning committee as a member, because it is a lot of work, we don't want to sugarcoat it. It's a lot of work. You can't practice law and then be involved in 10 other things and then this. Be smart about how you want to contribute. You can contribute to LIWOCA, as I said, by donating, sending an article to us, and, you know, we'll put it in a newsletter or sending your job openings, and we'll put it on a job board. That is the advice I would give to anyone who's interested. And then when they come to the conference, I would seek out a planning committee member and ask them what was involved. But don't get involved just to put it on your resume. You have to be committed because it is a time commitment. It's work. It's work. And let me just add this. It's a lot less work now that we have an administrator because we didn't always have an administrator. And our administrator is fantastic because she's also technologically adapted to doing everything. She has skills that we appreciate. And she is organized and she's worked on these conferences enough to know what has to be done.  Philippa: Well, Marian, as we close, I would like to repeat that email is info@leadingwomenofcolor.org. Marian Cover Dockery, founder and CEO of LIWOCA, thank you so much for your commitment to improving the profession, for helping others, for providing encouragement, support, financial support even for the law school scholars. Thank you for your legacy of excellence. Just thank you.  Marian: Well, thank you, Philippa, and thank you for all that you have done over the years to help make the organization a success as our vice chair.  Kendra: Wow, what a fantastic first episode of our podcast, and how amazing has it been to hear from both of you about all these wonderful memories of such a tremendous organization and one that I'm very, very proud to be affiliated with. So thank you both for your time, for all your efforts over the years, and we look forward to seeing another set of special guests on the very next episode of Inclusivity Included, the LIWOCA edition. Thanks so much.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. 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.

J.P. Duffy is joined by Jeff Zaino, vice president of the AAA-ICDR's Commercial Division, to discuss the AAA's upcoming centenary and its enduring reputation as a trusted choice for resolving commercial conflicts across industries. The conversation delves into the AAA's significant milestones and accomplishments, highlighting its commitment to innovation, including its approach to AI and the recent appointment of Bridget McCormack as president and CEO. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  J.P.: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we'll discuss the American Arbitration Association with Jeff Zaino, who's the vice president of the AAA's commercial division. I'm J.P. Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner based in New York that acts as both counsel and arbitrator in international arbitration seated around the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England, and Wales in the DIFC courts in Dubai, where I previously lived and practiced. I routinely represent clients and arbitrations involving a range of issues and frequently sit as an arbitrator in commercial disputes as well. I also have the good fortune to be a member of the AAA's commercial division arbitrator roster, the ICDR panel, and I'm a member of the AAA-ICDR Life Sciences Steering Committee and a member of the ICDR Publications Committee as well. So I get to do a lot with the AAA, which is really a wonderful organization. As I mentioned, with me today is Jeff Zaino, who's the vice president of the commercial division of the AAA in New York. He oversees administration of the large, complex commercial caseload, user outreach, and panel of commercial neutrals in New York. He joined the association in 1990, and Mr. Zaino is dedicated to promoting ADR methods and services. He's also written and published extensively on the topics of electronic reform and ADR, including several podcasts with the ABA, talks on law, and corporate counsel business. And he's appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and Bloomberg to discuss national election reform efforts and the Help America Vote Act. He was deemed a 2018 Alternative Dispute Resolution Champion by the National Law Journal and received awards for his ADR work from the National Academy of Arbitrators, Region 2 and Long Island Labor and Employment Relations Association. In 2022, Jeff received the Alicott Lieber Younger Committee of the Year Award for the New York State Bar Association Commercial and Federal Litigation Section. And in 2023, the Chairman's Award, NYSBA Dispute Resolution Section. So as you can tell, Jeff is a highly experienced, highly lauded arbitration expert, but we're really lucky to have his valuable insights today. So before we begin with some of the substance, let me just give a little bit of background on the AAA and the commercial division so that those that are less familiar have a little bit of information about what we're going to discuss today. The AAA is a non-profit alternative dispute resolution service provider headquartered in New York that administers arbitrations, mediations, and other forms of dispute resolution, such as ombudsperson and dispute avoidance training. It was founded in 1926 to provide an alternative to civil court proceedings, and that makes the AAA one of the oldest arbitral institutions in the world, as well as one of the largest, having administered over 11,553 business-to-business cases in 2023 alone, with a total value of over $19.1 billion. So that should give you a pretty good idea of the scope of what the AAA does. Notably, the AAA has several divisions that offer users substantial subject matter expertise. For instance, the commercial division, which Jeff heads, specializes in business-to-business disputes of all sizes, but has a particular expertise with large complex cases across a variety of industries, including accounting, communications, energy, entertainment, financial services, franchise, hospitality, insurance and reinsurance, life sciences, sports, and technology. There are also separate AAA divisions that focus exclusively on construction issues, consumer disputes, employment matters, government issues, healthcare, and labor disputes. Lastly, as many of our listeners will know, the AAA has a well-known international division, the International Center for Dispute Resolution, or what's colloquially known as the ICDR, that focuses on disputes that have an international component. Before we get into some of our recent developments, Jeff, if you could tell us a bit about what makes the AAA different than other arbitral administrators, I'm sure our audience would love to hear that.  Jeff: Sure. Hey, thanks so much, J.P., for having me today, and thanks for the kind words at the beginning. It's great to be here today. Well, you mentioned it. The AAA is the largest and oldest ADR provider in the world. We have over 700 staff worldwide and 28 offices, including one in Singapore. And we have a huge panel, and you're on that panel. We have 6,000 arbitrators on our panel, and we consider them experts in the industry. And we're really proud of our panel. And like you mentioned, we're hitting our 100th anniversary in 2026. And since then, when I started, I started in the 90s, like you mentioned, 1990. From 1926, when we were founded, to 1990, we did a million cases, one million cases. And then, since then, from 1990 until now, 2024, we hit 8 million, 8 million cases. So it's growing. And I feel that's because of AAA, AAA-ICDR. Again, we've been around for almost 100 years, and we keep on growing. And I feel that we took the A out of ADR. I mean, everyone says alternative dispute resolution, but I really think now it's, and you'll probably agree with me, J.P., that it's dispute resolution. It's something in our toolbox and it's not alternative any longer. And then another thing about us, a huge difference about AAA-ICDR is we're not for profit. That makes us unique in this space. Profit-based companies are a little bit different than what we are. We're not criticizing them, but we're unique in the sense that we work directly for the parties, not for the arbitrators.  J.P.: That's a really interesting stat, Jeff. Let me unpack some of that because I think, first off, if I understood that correctly, you said up until 1990, there were 1 million cases administered. Is that right?  Jeff: That's correct. We did 1 million cases from our founding, 1926, a year after the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. So we did 1 million when I came on board in 1990. And then from 1990 until now, we've done a total of 8 million. So we doubled that, or tripled it. It's been amazing how the growth that we've seen. And also during a pandemic, we saw a huge growth at AAA-ICDR.  J.P.: And Jeff, one thing that I think you're obviously very involved with the New York State Bar, and I've done quite a bit with the New York State Bar myself over the years. One thing that I noticed, and you just reminded me of this, was an uptick in submission agreements during the pandemic, by which I mean parties taking existing disputes for which there was no arbitration clause, drafting an arbitration clause for it to submit it and move it into arbitration. And I think some of that was a function of the recognition that disputes would founder if the courts were closed and that parties needed things done. Did you see that kind of growth during the pandemic of submission agreements as well?  Jeff: Absolutely. The courts were shut down, like you mentioned, for three to four months worldwide. And the ADR providers, like the AAA-ICDR, did not shut down. And we did have submissions, more submissions than we've ever seen. And usually it's only about, I would say, 2%, 3% of our caseload is submissions, but we saw the court systems. And I had, personally, I had over a billion dollar case, a bankruptcy case that came to us from Texas and it was mediated. We had two mediators, one in Connecticut and one in Texas. We had six parties, 40 people showed up on the Zoom, J.P., it was amazing. And that was a submission to AAA through the court system. The judge talked to the parties and said, listen, we're shut down. This is an important matter. Why don't you go to AAA? And so, yes, we did see submissions during the pandemic. I'm not sure if that's going to continue on. Most of our disputes are features of contract, as you know.  J.P.: Yeah. I mean, that's always going to be the case in arbitration, right? That the vast majority of cases will be subject to a pre-dispute arbitration clause. But I think it's really interesting when you see submission agreements like that, because I think it's a clear recognition that one, arbitration is a really valuable tool. And two, it's a real plus for the AAA and a real nod of confidence that those are submitted to AAA because that's parties taking something they know has to be figured out and saying, all right, AAA is the guy to do. I wanted to pick up, too, on that exponential growth of 8 million cases between 1990 and the present versus 1 million over the first, you know, what is that, 70-something years or 60-plus years?  Jeff: 60-plus years, absolutely, yeah. J.P.: Are there particular industries that you've seen significant growth in since the 1990 period that you were discussing, like between 1990 and the present? Are there particular industries that you are seeing more growth in or that you think there could be more growth in? Just be curious to get your views on that.  Jeff: Sure, sure. And my area of commercial, as you know, because you're on the commercial panel and the ICDR panel, is healthcare. And I know you're a big part of healthcare. Also, financial services. We've seen a huge growth in that in the last five years. We put together an advisory committee for financial services on insurance. And then also, as you probably know, consumer. We saw a big amount of consumer cases during the pandemic and even prior to the pandemic. And that's a big caseload. It's about 30% of our caseload at AAA-ICDR. But again, people criticize that sometimes and say, well, that's not fair to the consumer. They're forced into arbitration. But what I say, J.P., to law students and when I speak at events like this, I say, listen, we don't draft ourselves into contracts. AAA-ICDR does not do that. People draft us into contracts and we just try to make the process, we try to level the playing field. And we do a lot of consumer, but we do a lot of high-end commercial cases, as you know, a lot of international cases and things like that. But the two areas, I would say, a long way to answer to your question, J.P., is I would say healthcare and financial services, insurance, that's where we're seeing a lot of growth and also technology.  J.P.: The consumer aspect is one that is obviously very, very, very hot right now, given things like the mass arbitration rules and things like that. And we will probably touch on that in a bit, but it's a really valuable service to provide. And that's one thing that I think the AAA really does well. As you mentioned, it's a not-for-profit organization. It's not an organization that's out to make money off of consumer disputes. It's really there to help everybody resolve them. So something for everyone to keep in mind.  Jeff: The company bears the cost, not the consumer. And I hope people know that, that we're not out, like you said, we're not out to make a big buck on this. We're just trying to level a playing field and access to justice for these people.  J.P.: Yeah. And that's really what it is. At the end of the day, it's access to justice. And a lot of times the alternative is small claims court, which is not always a great choice. I've sat as an arbitrator in small claims court a few times, and I can tell you it's a great process when it works, but it can be a challenging process as well so  Jeff: Without a doubt.  J.P.: Always something to keep in mind. Yeah. Well, let's talk then about some of the recent developments because there have been quite a few. And as you mentioned, it's coming up on the centennial for the AAA-ICDR. And a lot has happened, obviously, in the 100 years of its existence, almost 100 years of its existence.  Jeff: Sure.  J.P.: And quite a few of those things are pretty monumental. And one of the biggest ones, I guess, is that in February 2023. Bridget McCormack took over as president and CEO of the AAA-ICDR from India Johnson, who was in that role for a lot of years. Bridget was previously the chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, if I'm correct, and was also a professor and associate dean at the prestigious University of Michigan Law School. So she brings a pretty extensive wealth of experience to the AAA. Now that she's been in that role for about a year and a half, how have things been different at the AAA-ICDR under Bridget's leadership?  Jeff: It's been wonderful. I mean, Bridget brings such life to the company right now. I mean, India Johnson was great. She put our house in order, our finances. but Bridget is now doing a wonderful job in getting out there. I'm not sure, J.P., have you met her yet?  J.P.: I have not had the pleasure of meeting her in person, but I'll sort of preview for our listeners that we are in the process of trying to get Bridget into our firm to talk to everyone about what the AAA-ICDR does and give sort of an insider's view for our partners.  Jeff: Oh, wonderful. She's such a dynamic speaker. If you go on YouTube, you'll see she speaks all the time. It's amazing. Whenever I ask her to speak at an event in New York, I feel bad about asking her because I know how busy she is, but she does agree. But I have to find a space in her calendar because if you see on LinkedIn, I know you're on LinkedIn too, J.P., and she is everywhere. It seems like every week she's speaking somewhere, very dynamic, and she embraces AI. And I know we're going to talk about AI a little bit, but also innovation. And she's been doing such a terrific job being the face of the AAA, and we needed that. India, again, did a wonderful job, but Bridget is out there and around the world doing international events, doing events here domestically. And it really, I think, is getting the word out there about ADR and about, well, I should say DR, sorry, dispute resolution, and also access to justice. Being a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan, doing a terrific job. And really, the people in the company are very excited. We have 700 plus employees, and we're excited with our new president. It really has been a great time with her.  J.P.: You know it's funny. The one thing I've universally heard from anyone who works there when I ask about Bridget is everyone says great energy, great leadership, and really, really, really strong presence, which is really wonderful to hear because you seem to be echoing that pretty strongly as well.  Jeff: Yeah, without a doubt. I mean, when she works a room, when she talks at an event, and it's great. We're forward-looking right now, big time. The AAA now is looking, AAA-ICDR, looking towards the future with innovation, with ODR, and we're going to talk about that, and with access to justice, which I love. And she's doing a terrific job.  J.P.: Well, that's great to hear. And I think we are going to talk about odr.com in just a second. But before we do that, I'd just be curious, because they may well be the same thing. But what would you say Bridget's greatest accomplishment is so far?  Jeff: I would say being the face of the AAA and embracing new ideas. For years, we didn't really, we moved kind of slowly. We embraced new ideas, but we moved slowly like a battleship turning around or an aircraft carrier turning around. We moved slowly. We're not doing that any longer. Bridget wants to move on quickly, which is great, and embrace things that are going on. And I think we're ahead of the curve on a lot of things, with acquiring ODR, with our embracing AI, with her ideas about innovation, access to justice. We are, I think, really ahead of the curve with respect to these areas, ahead of law firms, ahead of some of our competitors. And I attribute that to Bridget.  J.P.: That's really great to hear. That's really great to hear. And it's really hard with a large organization to be nimble. Exactly. I know we do that pretty well at Reed Smith, I think, too, but it's a challenge, and it does require great leadership in order to get everybody on board with that. So it's wonderful to hear that's happening at the AAA-ICDR, and you see it.  Jeff: Oh, yeah, without a doubt. And also, we're almost 100-year-old organizations, so you would think that we wouldn't be thinking about these innovation things in the future, but we are, which is terrific. We're an old organization, but not really. We're ready for the future.  J.P.: Well, let's talk about that future a bit because it's clear that there's a strong focus on that. And one of the first things that I noticed is the odr.com resourceful internet solutions acquisition. So for those that don't know anything about that, maybe you could fill the audience in and give us a bit of background about that one and what it's done for the AAA-ICDR.  Jeff: Sure. We just recently, a few months ago, acquired odr.com. It's a company that's been around for approximately 25 years. Online dispute resolution that can be completely customized for your needs for online dispute resolution. And they've been doing a wonderful job for many years. Okay. obviously much smaller than the AAA-ICDR, but they've been working with us. I'm not sure if you know this, J.P., but they've helped us with our no-fault business in New York. They help us set up our system initially years ago. So we've had a relationship with them for probably two decades with ODR. So we recently acquired them and we're working with them. Their most important area is right now is mediation. They have mediate.com and we're looking at  our mediation.org and combining those two. Okay. And we want to expand our mediation business. And again, I mentioned it a couple of times, access to justice. We want high volume cases. Okay. We do obviously high-end cases, high dollar cases, but right now we're seeing with odr.com, we can spread the business, we can grow the business and we can expand our mediation business. And that's what we're trying to do because mediation is growing. As you know, J.P., it's it mediation has grown tremendously over the last couple of decades. But now with ODR online dispute resolution, I mean, it's going to really grow, I think. So that's what that's why we acquired it. And, you know, Colin Rule, I'm not sure, J.P., if you've ever met Colin Rule. The head of ODR.com.  J.P.: I have not had the pleasure.  Jeff: Yeah, he's he's phenomenal. know if anyone that's listening to this podcast, you just Google Colin Rule. He's been in this space for many, many years and he's a phenomenal person. And I'm really excited about this acquisition. And I think we're going to work so well together.  J.P.: Jeff, just for people like me that are a little bit less savvy with how some of these things work technologically and sort of mechanically, is odr.com and mediate.com is a function of that, right? Or a part of that?  Jeff: Yeah, it's a part of it. Yeah. And I believe they have arbitration.com, but now it's going to be merged in with the AAA. And the platform of odr.com is going to be used for our mediation services at AAA for online mediation services.  J.P.: Okay. That's what I was getting at. So this is like a platform where users or parties and the mediator all log in, communicate with each other. Exchange their positions, and do everything that way. So is it correct to say it's sort of a virtual mediation platform?  Jeff: Yeah, without a doubt. And now the timing is perfect, J.P., because we just came off the pandemic about a couple of years ago, and we were seeing, as you probably know, as an arbitrator at AAA, we were doing thousands of virtual hearings arbitration and also mediation, and it worked. It really worked.  J.P.: Yeah. And that's really one of the true benefits that came out of the pandemic, in my view. Prior to the pandemic, I had always done certain aspects of cases virtually. And there was video conferencing was something that you could suggest, but that parties and frankly, arbitrators were not always that willing to embrace. But I think the pandemic really showed everyone that you can do things virtually. Efficiently, cost-effectively, and in a way that you don't need an in-person hearing for, and that it can be really successful. So I'm sure the timing has been right for odr.com and that acquisition. In terms of integrating it, what's the full timeline for getting it fully integrated, if you don't mind my asking?  Jeff: Sure. I mean, right now we're focusing on mediation. Okay. That's going to be our focus for the next several months. And then I think we're going to try to see if we can move this into arbitration also, because we're still seeing a lot of arbitrations, not a lot. I mean, I would say that 30% of our arbitrations are still being done in the virtual world. We're starting to see, and JP you've been at my Midtown office in Midtown Manhattan on 42nd Street, and we're starting to see about 60 to 70% capacity as an in-person for arbitration. But there's still a segment that wants to do it in the virtual world. And this is where odr.com comes into play. And right now it's, but the focus right now is mediation and working with our mediation team at the AAA-ICDR.  J.P.: Got it. Well, you know, it's funny. I have an employment partner who told me the odds of them ever doing an employment mediation below a certain value in person again are slim to none.  Jeff: Interesting.  J.P.: Yeah. And I think you guys have really hit the nail on the head with this.  Jeff: Well, with labor similar to employment, we're seeing almost 80% of labor cases now in New York City, I'm talking, are being done virtual, maybe even a little bit more than that. They got so used to doing it in the virtual world for labor cases, union management. It's interesting to see where we're going with this. But commercial type disputes, the type that you handle, J.P., we're starting to see more people coming back into in-person. However, we're not seeing the days of a witness flying in from Paris for one hour because we have all the technology at the offices, our offices around the country, the voice activated camera. So we don't need to ship in people for one hour. It's a waste of money.  J.P.: Yeah. And that's, you know, that's really the great thing that this technology allows for, which is, you know, I just did a, to mention the hearing space, Jeff, I just did a pretty large week-long hearing earlier in the year at the AAA's offices on 42nd Street. And it was great, but there were, you know, and I do, you know, myself prefer in-person for certain things, but, you know, during that hearing, we had witnesses that were exactly what you're describing, I mean, really only required to confirm a few issues or give, you know, a short cross examination and they were located in pretty diverse regions. Absolutely no reason to incur the time or expense or frankly, just the headache of bringing those people in from around the world for scheduling purposes and everything else.  Jeff: Sure.  J.P.: We did those, you know, we did those witnesses virtually and that is a real, that's a real benefit. You know, you sort of do that hybrid approach and you can save, it's way more efficient, It's way more cost-effective, and it is just easier from a scheduling perspective. So this is a really great development.  Jeff: Yeah, and J.P., have you noticed, I mean, when you were probably at my office on 42nd Street, we have now the big monitors. And I've noticed that arbitrators like yourself and advocates like yourself are using more technology in the rooms. We have these cupboards in our hearing rooms where the binders used to go, the big binders for exhibits and things like that. No longer am I seeing that. Most arbitrators are now using our, we provide iPads, we have the big monitors, and it seems like people are going away from paper, which is great too.  J.P.: Yeah, it's funny. I'm sort of like probably the last of the Mohicans where people really had to do things like mini books. Like when I was a real junior associate, we would have hearing bundles that were in mini book form and they were, you'd have 55 volumes and everything would be in there. I mean, there's sort of those nightmare stories where parties would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just pulling together the paper for a hearing. And that, you know, that to me always seemed a little bit crazy. In this day and age, it is totally unnecessary. I would much prefer to have everything electronically. And that hearing space really allows for that. So really, really great to hear that parties are embracing that because it's such a cost savings and it's an efficiency. You know, it just doesn't need to be the way it was.  Jeff: Sure.  J.P.: Well, let's talk then a bit about some of the AI stuff that you were mentioning, because I think that is really, I have to confess, I don't understand it as well as I should. I think most people, if they were being honest, probably have an inkling of what it does, but don't really know. I'd love to hear what the AAA-ICDR is doing with AI, because it's a really, really, really groundbreaking development.  Jeff: Absolutely. Well, if you Google Bridget McCormack, our president, she speaks on AI quite frequently and it really has embraced it. And how have we embraced that AAA? Well, she encourages the staff to use it. And we have, she's even recommended certain programs that we should use. But with respect to how are we using it with respect to running our business? Well, we have ClauseBuilder and you know about ClauseBuilder. It's a tool that was developed in 2013 where people can go online and develop a clause for arbitration. Now we have ClauseBuilder AI, which as opposed to going through various modules with the original ClauseBuilder, you can just type in, I want an employment clause. I want three arbitrators. I want limited discovery. And the clause builder AI will build that clause for you. That's something we just rolled out. Also for arbitrators, scheduling orders. We have an AI program right now for arbitrators where a scheduling order usually takes an arbitrator, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, J.P., usually about an hour to two hours after you do the preliminary hearing. Well, now AI reduces that time to probably a couple of minutes for an arbitrator. So we rolled that out. And we obviously were having discussions about low dollar cases, high volume cases. Can AI be used? And we're looking into that. We haven't rolled that out yet. It's not going to eliminate you, J.P., but it's something that we're looking at right now. And we are embracing it. I use it for various things. I'll give you an example. I use it for if I'm doing an educational program, I'll type in, you know, I'm doing a program on arbitration and discovery. Can you give me a good title for this program? I've been doing this for years. I've used a lot of different titles for programs, and it's wonderful to use AI for those purposes and for editing things. So I like the fact that our company embraces it. Some companies do not. Some law firms, as you know, J.P., do not embrace AI. And we had that case last year where I think an attorney, it wasn't arbitration, it was litigation, where he cited cases through AI that never existed.  J.P.: Yeah, that's actually happened more than once since then. And it's been kind of amazing to me. Yeah, it's funny. We as a law firm at Reed Smith have definitely embraced AI. We've got a person who's sort of C-suite level that addresses that and that heads that function up. And I know we are trying to bring it in much more for things that are sort of routine, that don't require necessarily true attorney time. And it is a real game changer. I mean, you know, anybody who doesn't get on board with AI is going to get left behind at some point because it is truly, truly the wave of the future, in my view.  Jeff: Oh, absolutely. And the way I look at it, people say, well, it seems scary or whatever. But what about Google Maps and things that we've embraced years ago? I couldn't live, J.P., without Google Maps. So that's technology that it's going to help us. It's not going to take us over or whatever. It's going to help us enhance what we're doing.  J.P.: Yeah, I think the concerns about Skynet are a little bit, you know, Skynet and Terminator are a little bit far-fetched, but it is something that we all need to get on board with. It's a lot like the way that, you know, when I first started practicing the notion of uploading paper documents to be reviewed and then using search terms was really scary for a lot of people, but that, you know, that became commonplace and you couldn't function without it. This will do the same thing to the extent it's not the same. Now, Jeff, what's the overlap, if any, between that you see between some of the AI initiatives and odr.com?  Jeff: We're not really combining those yet, but I think we will. There's discussions about it, but right now we're focusing on mediation with odr.com and we're discussing rolling out AI with various things to help to assist our arbitrators, are mediators, but I think eventually, you know, there'll be a combination, I think, but right now there's not.  J.P.: Got it. Well, we'll stay tuned because I can't imagine those two things are going to stay in separate houses for too long. Well, we could talk all day about what's going on at the AAA-ICDR right now because it's just amazing. I mean, it's really incredibly, incredibly dynamic at the moment. But what I'd like to do is sort of shift ahead to looking ahead to the future. We talked a bit earlier about how the AAA is rapidly approaching its centennial anniversary, And that's kind of a natural reflection point for any organization. If you were to sort of sum things up and say, what accomplishments from its first century of existence that the AAA is most proud of, what do you think you would point to?  Jeff: Well, I would point to two things. First, how amazing the AAA-ICDR was and also other ADR providers. When pandemic hit, within a week, we were up with 700 employees doing thousands and thousands of cases. And I was worried about the arbitrators, not you, J.P., but other arbitrators with the technology. And our 6,000 arbitrators, it was flawless. It was amazing or seamless. It really went well. And that I'm very, very proud of because I had been with the AAA for a long time prior to that. And I was really concerned that the arbitrators weren't going to get it. We weren't going to be able to understand Microsoft Teams, Zoom, all that kind of stuff. So we did a great job during pandemic. We had some of our best years during pandemic with respect to helping society in arbitrating cases. But also some of the things that we've done for state and federal governments, you know, state and federal governments, Storm Sandy, Katrina. Those are the things I'm very proud of. I was a part of the Storm Sandy stuff where we administered 6,000 cases for homeowners and with insurance companies. And we were able to do that very quickly. And we're a not-for-profit. So the federal government and the state governments look at us and will hire us to do those kind of projects. And we can quickly mobilize because of our staff. So those two things really stand out in my career at AAA.  J.P.: That's a really, really interesting thing to point to because that truly embodies the best that the AAA can offer. It's an incredible service that really helped people with real-life issues during really challenging times. So wonderful to hear. What would you see for the next 100 years in the AAA? Like, you know, looking forward, I know it's going to be here for, it's going to be having its two, it's bicentennial at some point. It will absolutely occur. What would you see is, you know, if you were to fast forward yourself a hundred years and still be in the seat, because by then technology will have kept us all alive for the next hundred years, and you're Jeff Zaino 2.0, sitting around in 200 years, where would you see the AAA-ICDR at that point?  Jeff: Well, I'm on part of the committee for the 100-year anniversary. We have a committee already formed two years in advance to get ready for our 100th year anniversary, and we're talking about this stuff. And I think some of the themes that Bridget's talking about, access to justice, I think we're going to be, we saw from 1990 to now 8 million cases, we're going to see far more. We're going to see the public now embracing arbitration. When I was hired by the AAA in the 90s, I didn't even know what AAA stood for. I mean, with the name, American Arbitration Association. I didn't know what arbitration was. We are reaching out to law schools. We're doing collaboration with a lot of law schools in New York and throughout the country, throughout the world. And I think the word's going to get out there that arbitration is the way to go. Our mediation is too. And I'm excited about that. Also, we're going to see far more diversity at AAA and also in the community. And that's something that we really care about at the AAA. Right now, J.P., as you probably know, any list that goes out at the AAA is a minimum of 30% diverse. So we're going to see an increase in that area, but also access to justice for the public.  J.P.: Really, really great. And I think we will all watch with rapt attention to see what happens because it's only good things in the future for the AAA-ICDR, that's for sure. Well, Jeff, I just want to thank you. But before we wrap this up, I'm going to reserve my right to bring you back for another podcast because there's so much more we could talk about. So, but is there anything I missed that we should hit on now that would be great for the audience to hear? I know there's just so much going on.  Jeff: Well, I hope the audience when in 2026, when we have our 100th anniversary, I hope people participate in it because we're going to do things worldwide and we're going to be doing events everywhere. And that year we really are, we have a huge team of people that are working in our 100th year anniversary and not to just necessarily promote AAA-ICDR, but to promote arbitration and mediation. And that's what we're going to be doing in 2026, and I'm very excited about it.  J.P.: You heard it here first, folks. Arbitration is the future. And Jeff said it himself. So we will definitely watch closely. Well, good. And just to give a very quick preview on this one, too, because Jeff, you mentioned it. We are going to, in the future, have your colleagues from the ICDR side of the house come on, and we're going to bring some of the new folks from Singapore and a few other people. So more to come. And it's just incredible to see.  Jeff: We look forward to it. And J.P., I'd love to have another sit down with you. It's been great.  J.P.: Good. We absolutely will. So that then will conclude our discussion at the American Arbitration Association for now. And I want to thank our guest, Jeff Zaino of the AAA Commercial Division for his invaluable insights. And I want to thank you, the audience, for listening today. You should feel free to reach out to Reed Smith about today's podcast with any questions you might have. And you should absolutely as well feel free to reach out to Jeff. I know he's super responsive and he would love to chat with you directly if you have any questions. And we look forward to having you tune in for future episodes of the series, including future updates with Jeff and our podcast with the ICDR as well. So thank you everyone. And we will be back.  Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's global international arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first-of-its-kind mobile app that forecasts the cost of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on podcast streaming platforms, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP.  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.

It's been another busy weekend for Houstonians with lots of news to unpack. Producer Carlignon Jones is chatting with ABC 13 reporter Shannon Ryan to talk about the latest in the investigation into the beleaguered Houston Housing Authority, the surge in racist texts across the country — including right here in Humble ISD — and Mayor John Whitmire's new plan to reduce homelessness. Plus, they share a moment of joy to ease into the week! Dive deeper into the stories we talked about: Beyoncé earns historic Grammy nominations for 'Cowboy Carter'. Will she win album of the year? ‘You are in Plantation Group A': Humble ISD police investigating racist text messages sent to student ‘Homophobic and misogynistic': Texas State University president condemns campus demonstration 13 Investigates: HHA site under federal investigation purchased for 4x appraised value KPRC 2 Investigates culture of intimidation and secrecy at Houston Housing Authority Woman accused of setting fire that a Houston firefighter died in granted $100,000 bond Funeral arrangements for fallen Houston firefighter Marcelo Garcia Houston preparing to open a city-sanctioned homeless encampment. What could that look like? WWII veteran, 100, sharing songs of healing from combat as he plans return for Battle of the Bulge Your Guide to Houston's Best Barbecue Come to Our Community Event at Saint Arnold Brewing Company Learn more about the sponsors of this November 12th episode here: Houston Cinema Arts Society Visit Pearland Holocaust Museum Houston Downtown Houston+ Museum of Fine Arts Looking for more Houston news? Then sign up for our morning newsletter Hey Houston  Follow us on Instagram  @CityCastHouston Don't have social media? Then leave us a voicemail or text us at +1 713-489-6972 with your thoughts! Have feedback or a show idea? Let us know!  Interested in advertising with City Cast? Let's Talk! Photo Credit: Getty Images Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

J.P. Duffy welcomes Luis Martinez, vice president of the ICDR, and Thara Gopalan, director of arbitration and ADR for the Asia-Pacific region, to discuss the organization and its strategic plans for expansion in Asia. Together, they explore the ICDR's role in the global arbitration landscape, the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead in this dynamic region, and the potential impact of these developments on the global arbitration community. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights, and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  J.P.: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we will discuss the ICDR and its Asia initiatives with Luis Martinez and Thara Gopalan, who are both vice presidents of the International Center for Dispute Resolution, or ICDR. I'm J.P. Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner with Reed Smith, based in New York, that acts as both counsel and arbitrator in international arbitration seated around the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England, and Wales, and the DIFC courts in Dubai where I previously practiced. I also have the good fortune to be listed on the ICDR arbitrator roster and to regularly sit as an arbitrator in ICDR Matters, as well as acting as counsel in arbitration governed by the ICDR rules. We're very fortunate to have with us today a repeat guest, Luis Martinez. Luis is the vice president for the ICDR, which is the international division of the American Arbitration Association. Luis is responsible for their business development covering the East Coast of the United States, Latin America, the Caribbean, the EU, and the UK. He's co-chair of the ABA's International Arbitration Committee and an honorary president of the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission. He's admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is a dual citizen of Spain and the United States. And our third guest today is Thara Gopalan. Thara leads the ICDR in Asia and is based in the organization's Asian headquarters in Singapore. Thara brings extensive experience in commercial disputes to the table. Prior to joining the ICDR, she was a commercial disputes attorney, representing clients in international arbitrations and at all levels of the Singapore courts. Her expertise spans a wide range of industries, and she has a proven track record of successfully navigating complex legal issues, including high stakes to bet the company disputes. So as you can see, we have excellent guests today, and Luis and Thara will be able to tell us not just about the ICDR's ongoing initiatives around the world, but in Asia in particular. So we're really looking forward to hearing their insights. Let me just set the table a bit by talking for a moment about the ICDR for those that aren't as familiar with it. The ICDR was established in 1996 and is the international division of the AAA, which was itself founded in 1926. The ICDR provides dispute resolution services to businesses and organizations around the world in cross-border matters and administers all arbitrations filed with the AAA that have an international component. While it's based in New York, the ICDR has offices in Houston, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Singapore. And it also maintains a separate group called ICDR Canada for Canadian disputes. The ICDR has some of the most modern rules in the world, which it last revised in 2021. And you can learn more about those innovations in a podcast I recorded with Luis in April 2021 that's available on iTunes, PodBean, and the Reed Smith website. Now, to give you a sense of the scope of the ICDR's caseload, it administered 848 new claims in 2023 with an amount in controversy of 5 billion. So as you can see, they're one of the largest and most active arbitral administrators in the world. And we're really fortunate to have Luis and Thara here today to talk about that. Now, let's jump right in on that caseload and those caseload statistics for a minute. Luis, of the 848 new cases filed in 2023, what were the top three industries represented?  Luis: Well, thanks, J.P. And it's a real pleasure to join you again on this podcast series and to be here with my colleague from our Asia Case Management Center. To touch base, our statistics are available on our infographics, which we do put one together each year to give some summaries and highlights of our particular caseload. You can find them on our website at icdr.org. But the top three caseloads came in using international arbitration, the ICDR system in the technology sector, the international construction sector, and international financial services. Those are the top three groupings we saw last year in 2023.  J.P.: Now, Luis, that's interesting to me. I think the third category you mentioned was international financial services. Can you expand on that a bit? Because that's an area that I think is underrepresented in most institutions in the international arbitration space.  Luis: Sure. They cover a range of different subtypes in the financial sector. There could be cases involving the financing of infrastructure projects. There could be cases involving financial documents in M&A agreements or shareholder agreements. It is an interesting cross-section, and it is an area that we are focusing on, not only in the international sector, but also working with our colleagues in the domestic divisions. So I think that with the construction and the technology caseloads are areas of focus for us.  J.P.: That's great to hear. Now, Luis, tell me a bit more, too, about the technology sector and the types of cases you're seeing there.  Luis: Sure. And that has been an expanding caseload for us in the last several years. The largest subtypes of these cases, they include, for example, software system developments. We have cases in related to that with partnership and joint ventures. You could have subcontracting agreements with independent contractors and, of course, licensing disputes. An interesting fact that goes with that is that over two-thirds of these technology cases, they actually settle prior to an award hearing and 28% prior to incurring any arbitrator compensation at all. As you know, we do a great deal at the outset to try to explore any procedural efficiencies. As we covered in the rules, the mediation step is actually obligatory with us unless the parties opt out. We will be amenable, of course, especially if the case falls within the appropriate range, use the expedited rules. So whatever the institution can do to bring the parties together and try to get these things settled at the earliest possible step is something that we try to explore.  J.P.: That's really interesting. And I guess it's unsurprising to me that the technology sector would be so highly represented in the case statistics, because we really are seeing a lot more cross-border technology transactions, both in software, hardware. I mean, I think all the different facets of the technology sector, which is really, really broad. So that's pretty interesting. What are some of the other industries, Luis, that you're seeing cases come from?  Luis: The other top leaders that use our rules are the real estate. We have entertainment cases. We actually are the administrators for the International Film and Television Alliance that also has opted to use our rules. Insurance, energy is very important. We have subgroups, by the way, that we've created joint teams internally, combining international and our commercial colleagues to focus on various sectors. So energy, construction, life sciences, financial services are all areas where we're pooling our resources and studying the market and seeing how best to position our domestic and international services. Energy is very important. And I think, you know, the subtopic of that, of course, obviously the upstream and downstream types of disputes, but certainly the ESG-related claims that we're going to be seeing and we're forecasting that that's going to be on the rise, Cases brought to mandate perhaps climate change-related policy or conduct. Cases brought to seek financial redress for damages associated with climate change, etc. And I think the energy sector is going to see a surge on that and probably some other sectors too because it's not limited only to the energy sector.  J.P.: That's really interesting. And just to circle back on one of the earlier industries you mentioned, it's kind of fascinating to me. I've had the opportunity to sit as an arbitrator and to act as counsel in a few entertainment cases. And that's a sector globally that I think gets overlooked on occasion. People tend to not realize how broad that industry is and how much cross-border activity there is in that industry. So pretty fascinating.  Luis: It also plays a large part in our history. I mean, as you mentioned, the ICDR was started in '96, but going far back as 1927, we had a foreign division. And in the 50s, we also worked with the motion picture industry, which really helped us establish offices throughout the country because they wanted to have local offices in many locations where they have theaters. And that really led to our national infrastructure to provide ADR services in the United States.  J.P.: Interesting. I was not aware of that history, but that makes an awful lot of sense. Now, let's turn to Thara for a minute, just to sort of talk about that caseload as well. Thara, how many of those cases had an Asian component to them?  Thara: So we're seeing about 351 Asian parties use our services in 2023. A lot of these parties come out of China, about 174 Chinese parties. And our second largest user is India at about 32 parties. We've got some uses in Central Asia as well as Southeast Asia and Korea as well. Those tend to really focus on construction as well as energy projects.  J.P.: Interesting. So just my sort of back of the napkin calculation, a little over 40% of the cases have an Asian component to them, if I've understood you correctly.  Thara: Absolutely right. 351 out of 848.  J.P.: That's great. And then of those users, predominantly China first and then India second.  Thara: That's correct. So China from really all over the Chinese market, whether that's Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong parties as well. But we're seeing that across a whole gamut of industries, a lot in technology, but quite a significant number in construction as well.  J.P.: That makes a lot of sense. And I would assume, I may have missed you saying it, but I would assume energy is a relatively significant one there as well.  Thara: That's absolutely right. You'll find that a lot of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean contractors are building some of the energy projects that we're seeing in Southeast Asia. And there's a big sort of energy transition era that's going on in Southeast Asia. So a lot of Chinese parties are involved in that, and we're seeing some of that work come to us.  J.P.: That's great. Now, amongst the Indian parties that you're seeing, what sectors do those cases typically fall into, if any?  Thara: Some of those cases are pure commercial cases, things like contractual disputes, partnership disputes. But we are seeing some technology cases, especially from parties situated in Bangalore. And we've got a small number of construction and infrastructure cases as well.  J.P.: Interesting. I would suspect that you're going to see many more technology cases. And I'm also surprised to hear that there aren't more life sciences cases. But I think that is probably coming as well, because those are two sectors I see an awful lot in the Indian market. Unsurprisingly, given the makeup of the Indian economy.  Thara: Yeah, you're absolutely right. I think pharmaceuticals, life sciences is a really big economic driver for India for some time now. And we probably will expect to see a lot more of cases that come out of those regions. But for the time being, really a lot of the stuff that we are seeing is in that technology and construction space.  J.P.: That makes a lot of sense. That makes a lot of sense. Now, amongst the caseload or the 2023 caseload, how many cases were emergency cases?  Thara: Right. So we've actually had about 160 cases up till the end of 31st December 2023 that are emergency arbitration cases. And quite a lot of these disputes, we had 72, I think, where emergency relief was granted either partially or in full. 24 of those cases, parties settled. 21 cases, the application was withdrawn.  J.P.: Interesting. Well, it's such a high number of cases settling at the outset. I think that's a real testament to how the ICDR does things because I'm not sure that's the case with every institution. So kudos to the ICDR for its administration plans.  Thara: You know, some of the things that are really interesting about the ICDR, and I love sharing this number because it's just astonishing, really. We have 72% of cases settle out of all arbitrations that are filed with us, and over 30% of those settle without any arbitrator compensation. That's based on a study that we commissioned in 2016, and we are in the process of updating that, but we expect those statistics to be roughly similar.  J.P.: Interesting. Now, will those statistics also break out? I know you said about 30% of those cases will settle without any arbitrate or compensation. Will it also break out, for instance, cases that settle before the final hearing or after the preliminary hearing conference? It would be interesting to see. And I don't even know how you would capture that easily, but the various stages of which cases settle.  Thara: Well, I've got to discuss that with my data analytics team. I don't think they're going to be my best friends if I make them do all that work. But certainly 72% before final award is just kind of remarkable. I don't think I've seen comparable statistics anywhere else.  J.P.: Yeah, I certainly haven't heard of any, so that's pretty amazing.  Luis: I will add that technology that we are implementing, incorporating AI, has been the focus for us, especially with the arrival of Bridget McCormack, who's really emphasized the need to update and focus on innovation, on the incorporation of AI. We're really looking at what we can do to simplify the capture and tracking of our data with these new tools. And the team has been increased, including adding some data scientists as well. So we all know that data is king, especially in this field. Obviously, we're bound by confidentiality to a great extent. But where we can pull relevant data from the actual process without revealing the identity of the parties, I think will really be helpful for the marketplace to understand the ICDR caseload and system. So it's an exciting time for us with this focus on AI.  J.P.: Yeah, that's really great to hear because it's such an interesting dichotomy that confidentiality is so important and such a valuable aspect of the process, but it does hinder some of the ability to get transparency and understanding from the outside. So finding a happy medium there with tools like AI is really important. Let's transition a bit to talk somewhat more about the ICDR's Asia plans. Thara, you've obviously been on the ground in Singapore for quite a while. Why don't you tell us a little bit and tell the audience a little bit more about the ICDR's presence in Asia?  Thara: Thanks, JP. So we've actually been in Asia since February 2006, where we were invited to come into Singapore to help them with their plans to grow Singapore as a hub for arbitration. We officially started an Asia case management center in 2019, and that's staffed with full-time case managers who handle a substantial portion of our Asian caseload. Apart from our sort of formal setup, what we've been doing in the last couple of months is really establishing inroads into the markets directly across Asia. We've refreshed something called the ICDR Asia Advisory Council, And that's chaired by a leading arbitration practitioner, former president of the CIArb, Francis Xavier Senior Counsel. And we've also set up national committees in Singapore and the greater China region. We will shortly be setting up a committee in India. And we're really excited about that because the whole gamut of AAA-ICDR is actually going to descend on India to launch that in a couple of weeks.  J.P.: That's great to hear. That's great to hear. Well, Francis Xavier is certainly an excellent person to help with that effort. And it's really wonderful to hear about the India Initiative, because that is such an important market. It's one I've practiced in or dealt with, I should say, more accurately for well over 20 years. And it's just such a rich market that really has so much possibility. So really wonderful to hear. Now, in addition to India and China, what are some of the other markets that the ICDR is focusing on?  Thara: Well, we're really looking at sectors, I want to say. So technology and construction are the focus, and we're sort of looking at geographic markets based on those sectors. So for the time being, apart from China and India, there's actually a lot that's going on in Southeast Asia at the moment. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam all have a ton of infrastructure projects that are up incoming and plans for the construction of significant infrastructure in the next five to 10 years. And a lot of that is being built by Chinese contractors, Japanese contractors, and Korean contractors, in addition to the very large domestic players in each of these markets. So that's really where a lot of our attention is going to be focused on for the next couple of years.  J.P.: Wow, that's really impressive. That's really impressive. Now, what are some of the other initiatives that the ICDR has to strengthen its ties in Asia?  Thara: What we're really focusing on now is trying to spotlight thought leadership that's coming out of Asia. We've got a ton of really clever lawyers all over Asia, and we're trying to give them better opportunities to have a greater voice, rather, on the global stage. So that's something that our national committees are working really hard to do. In Singapore, that's led by Theo Shen Yi Senior Counsel, and in Greater China, that's led by Dr. Zhang Lixia. So there's a bit of a focus on trying to ensure that there's pathways for younger practitioners who are up and coming in the market, that we tap on the expertise of our extremely qualified and senior international panel of arbitrators, but also that we spotlight or we shine the spotlight rather on groups that may not necessarily have as much access to high-powered arbitration careers. So in some jurisdictions, that might be minority racial groups, and in other jurisdictions, that might be gender-diverse groups like women in arbitration, for example. So those are some things that we're really trying to do to ensure we make a positive difference in the market, but also that we're spotlighting local practitioners as we engage in our efforts in those markets.  J.P.: That's excellent to hear. Now, let me drill down on that a bit because some jurisdictions are obviously very well known in Asia for being thought leaders. And the one in which you sit is an obvious one to me. India is certainly an obvious one, and you see a great deal of thought leadership coming out of China as well. But what are some of the specific ways that you're trying to increase visibility for practitioners in those jurisdictions? Is it through increased speaking opportunities, increased publication opportunities. How are you going about that?  Thara: So you've hit the sort of nail right on the head. Speaking opportunities and publications are the main focus of these committees. We will be bringing really substantive programs that involve genuine thought leadership, not purely sort of anecdotal recollections through to major cities across China as well as India. In China, that's Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong. In India, for a start, that's going to be Bombay, Chennai, Bangalore, and Delhi. And of course, in Singapore, we're fairly small in Singapore. So that's really going to be all over Singapore that we're trying to do these programs. But apart from programs, we do have publications that have always been run by the AAA-ICDR, and we're looking to increase Asian content on those publications. Be that the AAA-ICDR blog for sort of short-form contributions up to about 2,500 words, or the AAA-ICDR dispute resolution journal, which is for slightly longer-form content.  J.P.: Excellent to hear. Excellent to hear. And let me put a very quick plug in for the dispute for the DRJ, which is the journal. I published articles in there. I always encourage our associates at Reed Smith to do so. It's a really excellent publication. It's really wide reaching. And it's a huge, huge benefit to you personally to put something in there in the audience. So definitely submit articles. It's a really top-notch publication and a wonderful way to increase your exposure yourself. So excellent to hear that you're going about that. Now, I'm sure we could talk all day. And what I'm going to do is rather than continue to do that, I'm going to reserve my right to call you guys back. But let me move on before I do that to some of the ICDR's other plans. I don't want to lose sight of those before we conclude this podcast today. So one of the things that's really amazing is the AAA has been very active recently. Luis, you mentioned Bridget McCormack taking over as president about a year and a half ago. You talked about some of the IA initiatives. There's been the recent ODR.com acquisition. With all that and the fact that the AAA is coming up on its centennial anniversary in 2026, which is an incredible achievement, there's a natural opportunity there for the organization to reflect upon its future objectives. What would you like to see the ICDR accomplish in the next five years?  Luis: Well, I really like the direction we're going in with exploring our traditional caseloads. Of course, we always start from the position that we want to make sure our services, the administration of arbitrations and mediations are at the top level that they can be. And we've looked at that and how to improve those mechanisms and the related technology in our administrative platforms. But I think there's so many new opportunities for us. You were discussing some particular caseloads. Certainly, you're aware of all our initiatives in the life sciences sector. We have an advisory committee that focuses on that particular market. We're looking at enhanced arbitrator selections and lists that have high levels of experience for those particular types of disputes. Other markets that I think are important is we're seeing a surge in cases that we administer involving sovereigns, states, state-related entities, for example, in Latin America, in construction and infrastructure projects, where the participating sovereigns actually design the arbitral provision they're going to offer perhaps a potential for an investor. And we've been selected to administer a number of caseloads following that type of mechanism and example. The ODR acquisition, which is relatively new, presents us with a number of opportunities. The ODR platform is incredibly sophisticated. It has some incredible features to be able to customize really on a dime for the needs of a particular sector or a caseload. It has language capabilities. And we're looking now as a team, all of us to explore in our assigned regions, what potential opportunities there are to handle caseloads that we would be hard pressed to bring in because we didn't have a tool such as odr.com. So I think that opens the door for us to explore some emerging markets. So looking at technology, looking at emerging markets, looking at cases with sovereigns and the focus on the sectors are all very promising directions for us. And I should really mention, by the way, that the AAA itself has invested considerably and expanded the ICDR team. We now have three new people working in just the business development side. And I think that expansion will allow us to explore opportunities that there were just not enough hours in the day before to do.  J.P.: Wow, that's a very ambitious program. And that's wonderful to see. Not surprising given the trajectory that the AAA ICDR is on, but wonderful to hear. Now Thara, where would you like to see the ICDR in Asia in the next five years?  Thara: You know, I think apart from innovations in procedure and technology, where I think we've really been leading the charge, what I do want to see is us focusing on a lot more appropriate dispute resolution, as opposed to purely alternative dispute resolution. The AAA ICDR really does have the full suite of dispute resolution services, everything from neutral evaluation, mediation, arbitration, as well as disputes, avoidance boards for construction. So we want to see parties have the information and have the resolve to be able to use the most appropriate mechanism for resolving their disputes across all disputes that they come across.  J.P.: Excellent. That is truly, truly, again, a very ambitious and sage outlook. And I'm quite certain you're going to accomplish it with the efforts that you're putting behind it. Well, one thing I just wanted to circle back on quickly is Luis mentioned ODR.com. We are going to have an episode released in the near future where I speak with Jeff Zaino, who's the vice president of the commercial division for the AAA. And he discusses the ODR acquisition a bit more as well. I definitely recommend that to listeners because it's a truly innovative move by the AAA and a really, really good reflection on how forward-thinking the AAA ICDR is. Well, we've got a pretty good idea of what the ICDR has been doing around the globe and in Asia in particular, and we've got a very good sense of where the ICDR would like to see itself in the next five years. So I would definitely like to reserve my right to bring you both back to hear how that's gone because I'm quite certain with all the forward-thinking and all the effort behind it that the ICDR will be highly successful in all its initiatives. But with that, that will then conclude our update on the ICDR and its Asia initiatives. I want to thank our guests, Luis Martinez and Thara Gopalan from the ICDR for their invaluable insights. And I want to thank you, the listeners, for tuning in. You should feel free to reach out to Luis or Thara with any questions you might have, as I'm sure they'd be happy to speak with you directly. You should also feel free to reach out to Reed Smith about today's podcast with any questions you might have. And we look forward to having you tune in to future episodes in the series. So thank you, Luis. Thank you, Thara. And we do hope to have you back soon.  Luis: Thank you.  Thara: Thanks so much for having us, J.P.  Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's global international arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first-of-its-kind mobile app that forecasts the cost of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on podcast streaming platforms, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP.  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.

In this episode, we spotlight members of Reed Smith's UNIDOS business inclusion group for Latin/Latinx attorneys and staff. Join DEI talent development supervisor Bareeq Barqawi as she moderates an insightful conversation with senior associate Daniel Avila, senior paralegal Kathy Puente-Ladisa, and associate Isabella Lorduy. They share their unique career journeys, how their Latin/Latinx identity has influenced their professional experiences, and the powerful role that UNIDOS has played in fostering community and support within the firm. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith podcast, Inclusivity Included: Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions, and challenges, past and present, all with a goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included.  Bareeq: Welcome everyone to another episode of Inclusivity Included, Reed Smith's DEI podcast series, where we dive into the experiences, stories, and insights of our diverse firm members, clients, community members, and allies. I'm Bareeq Barqawi, Reed Smith's DEI Talent Development Supervisor, and today I'm thrilled to be joined by three distinguished members of our UNIDOS Business Inclusion Group for Latin and Latinx attorneys and staff, Danny Avila, Kathy Puente-Ladisa, and Isabella Lorduy. So Danny, Kathy, Isabella, could you each briefly introduce yourselves to our listeners and tell us about your current roles at Reed Smith. Danny, I will start with you.  Daniel: Perfect. Thank you so much, Bareeq. So I'm based out of the Houston office of Reed Smith. I'm part of Reed Smith's international arbitration team and the complex disputes teams. I'm currently the global chair for UNIDOS, our Hispanic Latinx business inclusion Group, as well as the head of our pro bono for our Houston office.  Bareeq: Thank you, Danny. And Kathy?  Kathy: Hi, everyone. Thank you, Bareeq, so much for having me. My name is Kathy Puente Larisa, and I am originally from Quito, Ecuador. I joined Reed Smith over 10 years ago, starting as a paralegal for the transportation group. However, I just recently transitioned into a newly created role as the industry group administrator for the transportation industry group. It's a bit of a hybrid role. And I am also the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion staff liaison for the New York office.  Bareeq: Fantastic. Thank you. And Isabella?  Isabella: Hello, everyone. I am Isabella Lorduy. I am originally from Colombia, and I am an associate at Reed Smith, where I'm part of both the Energy and Natural Resources group, focusing on international arbitration cases. And I'm also part of the Latin American business team. And And I'm also a member of the UNIDOS group here at Reed Smith.  Bareeq: Wonderful. Thank you so much for your introductions. It's always inspiring to hear about the variety of roles within our firm. So let's dive into what brought you here. I'm really inspired to learn more about your stories and inspired to learn what made you pursue a career in law or the legal industry, specifically maybe in your current role, and how did that lead you to Reed Smith specifically? I'm actually going to start with you, Isabella.  Isabella: So from a very young age, I've always been passionate about international politics and relations. And when I discovered the world of international law, particularly arbitration, it truly clicked for me. It's a field where I get to do what I love, which is interacting with diverse cultures, languages, backgrounds, and even different laws. So I think there are three key moments in my journey that led me to where I am today and being at Reed Smith. First, pursuing a career in international law through law school in Colombia, and then finding great mentors who not only guided me in law, but also taught me important life lessons. And then doing my LLM at NYU, passing the bar and transitioning into the US legal market. I thought that being a Latino was kind of a handicap or a difficulty in the American market. But when I discovered Reed Smith and found it as a place where I could leverage my civil law background, but also my common law knowledge and my diverse Latina background and everything that I have learned before coming to Reed Smith, I thought it was the right place, especially in the Latin American business team. So that's kind of the story of why I am here today.  Bareeq: That's so interesting, Isabella. Thank you so much for sharing. I love to hear about how you thought it would be maybe something of a hindrance, but actually your Latin identity ended up being something of a strength for you. That's great. And let's go to Kathy. What about you? How did you find your way to read Smith?  Kathy: So my career started right after I graduated from John Jay College. I always found law to be so fascinating, but my original career path was to join the NYPD. While I was in the process of going through the program, my path took a very fascinating turn when I was introduced to the world of law firms, and I was given the opportunity to work at Holland & Knight as a paralegal in the aircraft finance group. I found the work to be interesting, and I knew that that was going to be the kind of work that was like a great fit for me. And I then joined Watson Farley as a corporate and shipping finance paralegal. And I built a really great connections there. So all those experiences ultimately led me to the transportation group here at Reed Smith, when they were just starting to expand the transportation group in the New York office. And there was a great need for a paralegal support. So that's how I got my start here at Reed Smith.  Bareeq: I love that insight, Kathy. Thank you so much for sharing. And Danny, what about you? Did you have similar experiences or was your path different?  Daniel: I guess there's two different points here. The first, the path to law. And the second one is to Reed Smith, which I think deserves a little bit of separation. For law, my mom worked for United Blood Services her entire career, which is now called Vitalant. It's one of the biggest nonprofit blood banks in the country. She was the regional president for that company. That company supplies blood to hospitals and helps get donations. Blood donations throughout the communities and make sure that there's blood on the shelves so we don't have to scramble to try to get blood in a case of emergency, say of a car accident or something else, which is the case in several countries. In several countries, if your uncle or your parent or somebody is hurt or needs blood, you literally have to call siblings and family members to donate blood. Here in the U.S., we have great companies like Vitalant who make sure that there's blood on the shelves in case of these emergencies. So growing up, I would see how much my mom benefited from helping the community out. But more importantly, I would see her company being sued for something very trivial, like say you got a bruise when you're donating or say something else, right? And as a child, it made me very angry and I wanted to defend them. So as a child, I said, I want to be a lawyer for these companies that are helping our communities. And now full circle Vitalant is a client of mine and I was able to assist them in a dispute in Texas. It was really incredible to see that full circle as a child and now being able to help by talent, which was my dream. To Reed Smith, I think, is even is another more. It goes back to Reed Smith's values and their dedication and attention to diversity. When I was going through law school application or law firm applications in law school, I looked for firms that really had a focus in diversity initiatives, who put their money where their mouth is. And it wasn't just lip service. And Reed Smith did that. And when I was in law school, I applied for a diversity scholarship through Reed Smith, and I was very fortunate to get it. And Reed Smith not only gave me a position through the diversity scholarship, but paid for my 3L in law school, which was amazing given that I was working during law school. So it was through Reed Smith's diversity initiatives that actually got me in the door at Reed Smith and what's kept me here so many years.  Bareeq: That's fantastic and incredibly inspiring. I love those full circle moments that you're having. So thank you all for sharing your experiences. It's clear that each of you has had a unique path that led you to Reed Smith. Now I'd love to hear a bit more about your career journeys. Was there a key moment or decision in your career that shaped where you are today? Feel free to share any specific challenges or obstacles you've overcome in your time. And Danny, I'm actually going to start with you and go the other way around.  Daniel: Absolutely. I think one of the obstacles I had is I wanted to do international law, but my profile was very Texas-specific. I went to undergrad and law school in Texas. So I wanted to have a more diverse international profile. So what I did in law school was I applied and worked at a law firm in Bogota, Colombia. And that experience exposed me to how work is done in Latin America, working in the Spanish language. And it just kind of opened up the door to everything I do now, which is Latin American arbitration disputes and work in Latin America. So I think that was probably my biggest obstacle to overcome was to how do I create a more international profile? And yeah, I guess that's what I've overcome.  Bareeq: I love that. Thank you so much. Isabella, what about you?  Isabella: I can't think of a specific moment that really challenged me, but I guess my answer to this would be being constantly exposed to situations that I am really scared of and doing it anyways. I remember during law school, I was the youngest participant of the ELSA Moot Court competition, which was basically a cross-border litigation moot court. And I was really scared everyone was very senior, about to start their jobs at really big law firms. But I did it anyways. And it really shaped my career and who I know and my network today. And then after that, just going into the LLM and not being scared of taking the hardest classes and speaking with my accent in these very difficult situations. And constantly being exposed of being criticized or having it wrong the first time but then doing it anyways because I know I'll get it somehow, I think it has shaped my career and put me where I am today. Just the fact that I applied to Reed Smith with a lot of doubts and fears and that I got over that fear and being accepted into this great firm has been just an example of how being exposed to those fears always gets me to good places.  Bareeq: Thank you so much for sharing that. And, you know, it's interesting. It's a vulnerable thing to share, but we've actually talked about it in other podcasts where, you know, when you have an accent or something that identifies you as someone that might not be from here and how that might come with some unconscious bias on other people's parts. But I love the idea of you did it and you scared anyway, which is a quote I always live by as well. So I love that level of vulnerability to share and overcome that. So thank you.  Isabella: Thank you.  Bareeq: And Kathy?  Kathy: So overcoming specific challenges, I think that being a Latina, a minority woman, for me, particularly in the maritime industry, has been challenging because it's very much a male-dominated industry. I have to say what has helped me overcome those challenges has been having great mentors, having great supporters who truly value the work and dedication and who encourage your growth in your career. So I think those have been the things that have helped me during my challenges.  Bareeq: Absolutely. Thank you so much for sharing. So hearing about these pivotal moments is really insightful, especially for our listeners. And I think it gives great insight to the people that they work alongside. And now I'd love to explore how your Latin / Latinx identity has shaped your experiences in the workplace. So I'm going to start with you, Kathy. How has your Latin / Latinx identity influenced your professional experiences? And can you talk about how it has impacted your work at Reed Smith?  Kathy: Sure. My Latinidad has inspired me. I have to say that in our culture, we tend to be resilient and warm people, and those are very powerful traits. I love that in our culture, we blend strength and passion, and facing challenges head on and coming out stronger always speaks volumes. My experiences taught me to be adaptable, especially in the law firm industry. You have to be resourceful, always turning challenges into opportunities. And that's what I've seen me doing here. And I've been given the opportunity here at Reed Smith. So, you know, you grow and you innovate.  Bareeq: I love that. I always think of the word grit. Like, I feel like if you overcome some challenges along the way, you develop this sense of resilience and grit where things don't phase you as much as they once did. As Isabella was talking about some of the challenges as well, you kind of develop this strength over time as well. I love that. And Danny, over to you next.  Daniel: So I think how my Latinx or Latin identity influenced my professional experiences has been through being able to work in the Spanish language and having an understanding of the Spanish culture, or I guess cultures in language speaking countries. I would say that it's impacted my work at Reed Smith because I have developed, I guess I would say that I've always wanted to use my Hispanic heritage as a value add, not just a checkbox or anything like that. I wanted it to be how can I improve? How can I provide value at Reed Smith? How can I provide value to our clients having Hispanic background, being able to speak Spanish. And how that's developed, I would say, is being able to develop business in Latin America, being able to work on cases where there may be Spanish aspects or Spanish or cultures from Latin America. I think it's been a value add in that sense. Every time, at least in my younger years, or my first years at Reed Smith, I was one of few that even spoke Spanish. So it was very, very great for internal business development to be able to get every single case that came in that had some sort of Spanish aspect to it or was in Latin America. And now Reed Smith has done a great job of recruiting great people like Isabella and other Spanish speaking lawyers that are that now we have that value add across the board and various offices. So that's how I would say it's influenced my professional experiences.  Bareeq: I love that. Thank you so much, Danny. And Isabella, what about you?  Isabella: I think I totally agree with Danny on this. I think the more I own my Latin background, the more I take advantage of it. Definitely working at Reed Smith and understanding the Latin American business interactions, the political complexities of the countries, how the judiciary systems work within Latin America has definitely helped on the work we do a Reed Smith and really having this global perspective and approach to the cases has been great. And I'm constantly looking for the opportunities to leverage this knowledge because it's not only about the legal knowledge, which is, of course, crucial, but it's also about understanding the complexities of these Latin American countries, which are way different from what we're used to here in the U.S. And I think it's beautiful to connect both legal systems and, of course, cultures.  Bareeq: Absolutely. And so many people you probably interact with, whether it's at networking functions or different clients, prospective clients, I'm sure that comes into play. And like Danny said, I love the value add. You didn't want it to be just a checkbox. It was something that added value. Thank you so much, all of you, for sharing those personal reflections. And now I'm going to shift to your involvement with UNIDOS. So how has being a part of the UNIDOS community supported you in your journey at Reed Smith? And why do you think groups like this are so important? I'm going to start with you, Isabella.  Isabella: I think it has been great to be part of UNIDOS because it has created this sense of community and being part in a deeper level with like a Latino group within the firm. I think from the moment I started at Reed Smith, I was welcomed by the UNIDOS community. I felt other people with accents and we could share different stories about the Latino American community. So I think it has been great to have this sense of belonging even more to the firm just through UNIDOS. I think the initiatives have been great. I remember in the Houston office, we've always had, and also thanks to Danny, amazing events with tacos and chismecitos and these great initiatives that just expose, of course, the Latin American culture in a great sense, but also make you, as I said at the beginning of this intervention, feeling that you belong into the Reed Smith Latino community.  Bareeq: I love that. What about you, Kathy? How has your time at UNIDOS been?  Kathy: I have to say, like Isabella, it's been a great experience. Joining UNIDOS has provided an invaluable support through shared experiences, building a network, a space where you can meet people that think like you, that share similar backgrounds. And really, I think inclusion groups like UNIDOS are very important because they promote diversity. They offer mentorship. They create an inclusive environment where everybody can thrive. And they also help amplify voices and drive positive change within the firm. So it's been really a great experience.  Bareeq: I love that, especially when you talked about driving positive change and Isabella talking about feeling a sense of belonging and feeling seen. Wonderful. What about you, Danny?  Daniel: Yeah, I think I think I'd have to echo everything that was already said. I think the biggest thing that UNIDOS has done for me is just, you know, there it's a very like a collaborative firm, but it's a firm that has your back. And in big, huge corporations and big firms like this, you can feel maybe isolated if you don't have people that look like you or identify like you and have your similar backgrounds. And having these business inclusion groups helps you not only, like, say you're in an office that only has one Hispanic or Latino / Latinx person in the office. Well, you can still collaborate with someone that's in New Jersey or in Chicago. So it makes Reed Smith really be able to use their global platform and make it smaller as far as like being able to meet with other people. Now, I have cases with UNIDOS folks in different offices that have brought me onto their teams, even though I'm not in their office, just having that experience with UNIDOS. And I think another big part of UNIDOS that I've liked is having someone to be kind of a cheerleader for you when it comes to promotions, when it comes to just engagement within the firm. UNIDOS, I feel, does a great job of highlighting all our accomplishments. You know, what have we been doing in the community? What have we been doing as lawyers? So I think it's been an amazing journey here in Reed Smith doing that.  Bareeq: Thank you for sharing, Danny. You brought up such a great point, which is making a community, you know, when you have over 3,000 members at the firm, it's hard to create that sense of community when you're scattered all over the states and over different countries. And so for need those to be able to create that for you all. And so it's so heartwarming to hear. So the importance of community within the workplace, as we talked about, is such a powerful takeaway. And as we wrap up, let's talk about offering maybe some advice to the next generation. To wrap up, what advice would you offer to younger professionals from diverse backgrounds who are considering a career in law or similar roles at a firm like Reed Smith? And I will actually start with you, Danny.  Daniel: I would say embrace your heritage. Embrace your Hispanic or other diverse background that you have and figure out how it can be of value at and make you more marketable and valuable to your team. I've pushed that since I was going through law school. I wanted to make sure that how can I provide this value add? How can I develop business that maybe wasn't there to develop because there were these obstacles of language barriers or culture barriers? So embracing your heritage, being proud of your heritage, and seeing how it can be a value add and make you more marketable.  Bareeq: I love that. Thank you. And Isabella?  Isabella: I believe that it's kind of a twofold approach. First, I would say to absorb everything you can from your mentors. And in this sense, find people that you admire both professionally and personally and learn by mimicking their best qualities. But at the same time, discover what sets you apart, what makes your style kind of unique and embrace it fully. As Danny was saying, I think that leveraging that to stand out, it's a great strategy. In my case, I used my Spanish, my understanding of the legal systems in Latin America, my approach to the clients. And I think that has helped me to still find my style because, of course, I'm a young practitioner myself, but I am learning day by day that owning that Latino heritage has been great for me.  Bareeq: Wonderful. Thank you, Isabella. And Kathy?  Kathy: I have to agree with both Danny and Isabella. Definitely embrace your heritage. And for me, I have to say, sometimes life happens and paths change. And that's perfectly fine. The important thing is here to seek out for mentors and build networks like UNIDOS, because those connections really are golden. For me, I have to say mentors have played a huge role in my life. They've been instrumental in shaping my journey. And I would also have to say to people to stay resilient, stay curious, never shy away from asking questions or even taking risks.  Bareeq: Thank you so much. That is wonderful. I think people are really going to, that's going to hit home for a lot of people. So I want to first thank you all so much for sharing your journeys with us today and for joining the podcast. Your stories are not only inspiring, but also show the value of community and support within the firm. And to our listeners, we hope you've enjoyed this episode of Inclusivity Included. Stay tuned for more conversations highlighting the diverse voices that make up Reed Smith and make us such a dynamic and inclusive place to work. Thank you for tuning in and thank you for joining and catch you next time.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. 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.

J.P. Duffy welcomes Serena Lee, the new President and CEO of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR), for an engaging discussion about CPR's foundational principles, its unique origin as an organization dedicated to helping corporations, and the influential role it plays in the global arbitration community. Serena explains CPR's inner workings, delves into recent case statistics, and shares her vision for CPR's future. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  J.P.: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we'll discuss the International Institute for Conflict Resolution, known in the legal community as CPR, with Serena Lee, who's CPR's new president and CEO. I'm J.P. Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner based in New York that acts as both counsel and arbitrator and international arbitration seated around the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England, and Wales, and the DIFC courts in Dubai, where I previously practiced. I also have the good fortune to be listed on the CPR arbitrator roster, which is called the Panel of Distinguished Neutrals. With me today, as I mentioned, is Serena K. Lee. Serena is a lawyer qualified in New York who previously practiced on the West Coast. Before joining CPR, Serena served as the Vice President of Operations for JAMS in San Francisco, where she managed three resolution centers, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, and Seattle, and oversaw approximately 85 neutrals. And before that, Serena was vice president with the AAA in the construction and commercial divisions, first in Seattle and then San Francisco. So as you can tell, Serena brings a wealth of experience and perspective to her new role and to the audience. And we're thrilled to have her because she's a very recent addition to CPR. She's going to give us some updates on everything that CPR has been up to and what she plans for CPR to do. Before we begin, let me just give some brief background information about CPR itself for those that aren't as familiar with it. CPR was established in 1977 in New York by James F. Henry to help businesses find better ways to resolve commercial disputes. CPR does this through the CPR Institute, which acts as a think tank and a thought leader, and through the CPR Institute's subsidiary, CPR Dispute Resolution Services, which provides dispute resolution and prevention services to users, including the administration of CPR's arbitration rules. CPR has a unique origin because it was established by in-house counsel from Fortune 100 companies to bring together corporate counsel and their law firm clients to collaborate on ways to reduce dispute resolution costs by finding alternatives to court litigation. Today, CPR has a membership community that comprises corporate counsel, law firms, academics, and neutrals. Over the decades, this unique membership community has produced a variety of thought leadership pieces, and innovative yet practical rules for arbitration and mediation, as well as the CPR pledge, which more than 4,000 companies and 1,500 law firms have signed to show their commitment to considering ADR for the speed resolution. So as you can tell, CPR, while it is an arbitral administrator, does a lot more and is relatively unique in the space in the way that it operates. So with that, let's turn to Serena a bit, because I want to hear from her about everything that CPR has been up to. Serena, welcome.  Serena: Thank you so much, JP. Pleasure to be here. Good. J.P.: Well, we're so glad you could join us. And I think, you know, one of the first things that our listeners would love to know is, how many cases did CPR administer in 2023?  Serena: Well, thanks for the questions, J.P., and you're right. I think often people are interested in the number of cases CPR administered. So CPR Dispute Resolution, our arbitral provider subsidiary, administers cases, including complex commercial arbitrations, and offers a number of related services such as mediation, fund holding, appointment services, and others. Our first rule set ever published was actually a non-administered arbitration, and we offer services to help parties through those ad hoc processes. So there's really not a straightforward answer to your question because it depends on how we dissect the data. Oftentimes, parties don't tell us if they are using CPR for their ad hoc arbitrations. Sometimes the parties will come to us for only parts of the services they're seeking, such as for fund holding or for appointment or for conflicts checks. So I don't have a specific number of how many cases CPR has administered based on the data I just shared with you. But I can tell you that CPR dispute resolution handles fewer cases each year than the AAA or JAMS. But because we're smaller, our team is oftentimes very high contact and responsive to questions. So I guess it's all good.  J.P.: That's a great answer. Now, it highlights a point, too, that I think is pretty interesting. What year, if I remember correctly, CPR introduced administered rules in sometime around 2010. Is that correct?  Serena: Close. 2013 was when our first set of administered arbitration weeks were located.  J.P.: Okay, so Serena, so the administer rules got introduced in 2013, and if I've understood you correctly, CPR still gets used relatively frequently by parties, or the CPR rules do, for non-administered cases.  Serena: Correct.  J.P.: What's the breakdown for administered cases between domestic and international cases?  Serena: The majority of the cases that we are aware of were domestic, but we also have received international cases. They're devoted to certain regions, such as in Canada and in Brazil, being maybe our two most prominent areas where we have received international matters.  J.P.: Interesting. And are there particular industries that feature more prominently in the cases than others?  Serena: Well, from the industries that we've seen in the past few years, that they are, as many providers also experience, they come from a wide variety of industries and sectors. Employment, healthcare and life sciences, energy, oil and gas, accounting and financial service are some of our largest caseloads. We also see franchise, insurance, technology, sports law, construction, professional fees. I'm rattling off some of the ones that come to mind. Of course, straight commercial matters as well. And we do see sometimes unfair competition matters come in as well.  J.P.: Interesting. So it's really a pretty broad range of disputes that CPR helps administer.  Serena: Correct.  J.P.: That's great. Now, how much of that is driven by CPR's membership? And it may be worth it when you answer that just to give a little bit of background on that and to explain how the CPR membership process works and maybe talk a bit about who some of the CPR members are. So to probably take this time to distinguish between the CPR Institute, which I'm going to refer to as the Institute, and CPR Dispute Services. So the Institute, of course, as you had mentioned, J.P., was started in 1977. And that is the think tank or the thought leadership portion of CPR and essentially why we exist. Now, CPR dispute resolution was created some three years ago to help parties who were interested in administered arbitrations or other ADR services to help administer those. So they were created as a subsidiary under the Institute to do so. There is a division between the Institute and the work that the Institute does and administration and dispute resolution services that CPR Dispute Resolution provides. Those who are interested in coming into the Institute as members of the thought leadership portion of CPR join as members and they can join as individuals, they can join as firms or as corporations. We have some of the largest organizations to the smallest companies in America who are interested in joining CPR Institute because they're interested in being part of the dialogue and workshopping ideas and solutions to issues they're seeing out in their business landscape. And law firms who also join as well as academics who want to contribute and also listen to what the businesses are asking for and what they're trying to resolve to make sure that the processes are efficient, that they're fair, that they are practical in a business context, and so forth. So I make mention of that because the Institute has very little to do with the case management. The only thing that the institute provides for CPR dispute resolution are the rules and the protocols are promulgated within the institute are then pushed over to the DR or the Dispute Services to issue out and to use. So those who file cases with dispute resolution services have no real interaction with the members. I hope that's clear.  J.P.: It is clear. Yeah. And I think there's a lot to unpack there that's really fascinating and different than a lot of other institutions. So let me just take that in pieces if I could. So the Institute has, that's what has the 4,000 members and the 1,500 law firm members. Is that right?  Serena: Yes.  J.P.: Okay. What are some examples of say fortune 500 companies, if you don't mind sharing that are members of the Institute?  Serena: Certainly, I mean, I can't name all 4,000, but if you actually just jump onto our website on the CPR Institute Board of Directors, you'll see some of the board members come from prominent companies such as Microsoft, Amgen, ConocoPhillips, I'm trying to think, Palo Alto Networks, and others. And the law firms, the biggest law firms in the country are part of the Institute. If you also look at our corporate leadership dinner brochure that's also online, you'll see some of the sponsors of the Institute listed, both corporate as well as law firm contributors.  J.P.: Well, that's really interesting, Serena. So if I'm understanding it correctly, those members that you mentioned of the Institute are the ones that are creating the rules pursuant to which cases may be administered. Is that right?  Serena: Well, it's a little bit more nuanced than that. The members can send associates and their in-house counsel and members of their in-house team to be part of committees within the CPR Institute, as well as law firms who also can comprise of neutrals and academics and attorneys from both maybe the more plaintiff's side and defense side. And they are the ones who workshop the protocols as well as the rules. So for instance, right now we are updating all of our rules as we do every five years and within the arbitration rules committee revision team, you'll see that there are members within all the groups I just mentioned, all the stakeholders who are involved at looking at the rules and discussing whether there should be updates.  J.P.: Got it. So really, at the end of the day, is it fair to say the rules are being pretty heavily influenced by both potential users and law firms? Serena: Yes, I would say that the rules and the protocols are created to maximize efficiency. Obviously, the businesses are in the business of not being in law pursuits, at least our corporate members aren't. And also to make sure that the arbitrators who may have some input into whether the rules can be refined or tweaked to promote efficiency or expediency. So I would say that the end users have a lot of say into the rules. And also the academics who are in the space of dispute resolution are part of the committee and part of the conversation to ensure that the rules and the protocols that we're issuing meet due process.  J.P.: That's really great. I mean, I think that's a really unique feature of CPR, that there's so much input from the actual users and the law firms that will likely be recommending it. It's a really unique feature that probably, if I understand it correctly, stems from the way that CPR was created. Is that correct?  Serena: It's exactly correct. Now, because I worked with the two other arbitral institutions, the largest ones in the U.S., I can say for certain that I find the rules and the refinements of the CPR rules to be different based on the feedback from the field.  J.P.: Interesting. Now that raises an interesting transition point, Serena, because you've been in this role, you haven't been in this role terribly long, right? When did you join CPR?  Serena: My first day of CPR was on April 1st. So it's just been four months.  J.P.: Wow. Okay. So still relatively fresh in the role. How have you found it so far?  Serena: It's been just very, very enriching, I think, for years after being, decades of being on the provider side, to finally work with the end users and to talk to the people who are drafting ADR clauses and trying to think on how to avoid disputes early on or to resolve disputes as quickly as they can when they arise in a way that's fair and economical and business friendly. Meaning for everyone, all the parties involved in disputes. I'm really enjoying the fact that I can share the other side of the equation, so to speak, feel as passionately and as dedicated in resolving disputes in a way that can minimize cost and damage to relationships. That's been really rewarding.  J.P.: I like that. You mentioned a way of minimizing damage to relationships, because it's something that I see a lot. I practice a lot in the life sciences space, and I find that arbitration in particular for those types of industries that have a lot of long-term collaborations like life sciences and some others can be really beneficial because it does allow parties to continue doing business together afterwards in a way that doesn't often happen with litigation. So that's a really interesting point to raise. And it sort of me to something else I wanted to just touch on too. Like, are there particular industries that you think CPR is better suited to than others?  Serena: I'm racking my brain because I frankly can't think of an industry that could not benefit from the structure of CPR dispute resolution. I suppose if the parties in a dispute are interested in preserving relationships and have a say in the rules that are being used to resolve their disputes, and they want to make sure that the rules are ones that they can be assured that they are efficient, then they should know that the rules and the process by which CPR Dispute Resolution follows are based on the end users from its creation. I also think that because we are not as big as the other arbitral providers, our case managers are very responsive and experienced, not that they aren't in the other providers, but because our caseloads are smaller, the case managers at CPR dispute resolution can talk through the variety of a la carte services that are available to parties. If they aren't interested in full-blown arbitration, there is something different that we can talk to them about. Our complete case platform is a very secure case management system that was built specifically for dispute resolution. And since we accept submission agreements and our roles were developed by task force of all the stakeholders we just talked about, I think that there isn't a industry or a group that I don't think wouldn't benefit from using CPR, dispute resolution service. I know that seems perhaps a bit self-serving to say, but I think that might be true given the fact that come from the other providers as well.  J.P.: Yeah, no, not self-serving at all. I mean, I think it's the best endorsement you can give. You know, it's a really broad statement that's reflective of how broad the Institute membership is and CPR's genesis. Well, now you've been in the role for four months, you mentioned. So let me ask you this, what would you like to accomplish for the remainder of 2024, given that we're sort of rolling in towards the end of the year?  Serena: Well, I'm very much looking forward to amplifying CPR's mission, our resources, and to involve incredible members here in the U.S. and internationally. We've been primarily focused in Europe, as I mentioned, in Brazil, and I imagine that in subsequent years we'll expand more broadly to other countries. We are actually right now testing a new membership concept to connect our members into areas where they live and they work. So to that end, what I've planned to do is to launch our inaugural regional chapter of CPR, something we've never done before, in Seattle in November. I chose a city that had very strong corporate support. As I mentioned, Microsoft has been a corporate member of CPR for many years, and one of the board members of CPR, John Palmer, is a huge proponent for CPR and its resources. And I also chose Seattle for its vibrant legal community that actively uses alternative dispute resolution.  J.P.: That's great. Now, tell the listeners a bit more about what you mean by the regional chapter.  Serena: Sure. So I'm hoping that these regional chapters can connect and provide those in the legal community with an opportunity to engage in the same thought leadership on a local level and also to consider CPR. In, I think, the ADR space sees our role as the conveners of conversations and discussions. So while we can have national and industry-specific conversations remotely in this day of post-COVID discussions, we also wanted to bring an in-person experience to the local chapters that we are starting. It will be a pilot for us in Seattle. And what I'm hoping that we can provide for a local chapter of CPR is an ability to bring all the local general councils of the large corporations based in that city, as well as the law firms, the law schools, as well as the neutrals who practice in that area to come together, again, to get to know each other in a way that is meaningful so that they may learn from each other to hear each other's perspective in real time. And then to broadcast or transmit their ideas from a regional chapter onto the national roster. There's no reason why the thought leadership can't originate from a regional chapter such as Seattle.  J.P.: That's great. Now, what are some of the other regions that you're envisioning regional chapters for?  Serena: That's hard to say. We have had a very, very strong presence in Houston for decades now. The energy, oil, and gas industries have been great supporters of CPR. I surmise this because they are a very small industry where there are lots of repeat players in the space. So because we're conveners, I think that we may look into Houston as our next regional chapter. And then I think I'll have to see. I think there has been an appetite in other areas such as Chicago. And of course, I'd love to be able to start a chapter in California.  J.P.: Right. Well, and obviously, California is such a large market. You could probably do one in Northern California and Southern California separately. But it remains to be seen, I guess, where you would want to go.  Serena: Correct. I'm also very interested in making sure that we are actively engaged with our members of arbitrators. Our panel of distinguished neutrals has about 600 members, and perhaps I'm showing my years of working with the providers, but I do think that the arbitrators, mediators, and other neutrals within our panel are a hugely important component within CPR, and I like to engage with them in more ways in the coming years. And I know that our law firms and our corporate members really appreciate the role of CPR as the conveners. So to have the opportunity to talk to neutrals and academics about thought leadership in the dispute resolution space is very important to them.  J.P.: That's great. Well, I think it's, you know, from my perspective as both someone who acts as both counsel and an arbitrator, I think it's really great when an institution does solicit the views of arbitrators because in so many ways they are the front lines of what's occurring, right? I mean, obviously end users have the biggest stake and should have the largest voice in my view because they are the people that are impacted by all this most. But certainly arbitrators do see, what works well, what may not work as well, areas that can be improved, things that might be made more efficient. So it's really important, in my view, to solicit the arbitrator's views. And that's a really great initiative.  Serena: Thank you. And I actually think that it's almost vital to ensure that everyone that's in the ecosystem of dispute resolution understand the needs and expectations of each other and to make sure that the rules and protocols that we are promulgating and asking our neutrals to use in their processes make sense and that there is buy-in. And if there isn't buy-in, if there is a way to iterate a better system, that we capture that feedback and to integrate innovations and refinements to process as we move forward into the future.  J.P.: That's great. I mean, absolutely. It's an inclusive environment that considers all the different stakeholders and all the different voices, always produces a better result. So wonderful to hear that that's something that you're considering. Now, that would be for 2024, which is a pretty ambitious agenda, it sounds like. What would you see or where would you like to see CPR in five years?  Serena: Yeah. Well, in five years' time, I, of course, hope to continue to build on an even stronger CPR institute that can work collaboratively with additional stakeholders to identify ways that parties can resolve their disputes more effectively. There's sometimes, I think, a sentiment in the legal community that the use of mediation and arbitration is now a mainstay tool in resolving disputes, in legal disputes. But I still strongly believe that mediation, as is being used now, is still more evaluative. It'd be great if the parties are open to a more transformative process. And I've seen over the years, unfortunately, arbitration being conducted more like litigation. And the benefits of arbitration, namely being more streamlined, quicker, and more cost-effective, and so forth, are being eroded by attorneys who are either not understanding the advantages of arbitration's more informal process, and also arbitrators who may not be willing to streamline the process. So my hope is that CPR can continue to help keep the dialogue of better dispute resolution process, open, engaging, and responsive to the expectations of the parties who go into mediation and arbitration. CPR dispute resolution services, which of course, as I mentioned, only issued out its administered rules in 2013, has shown steady growth year over year as more companies are either submitting their disputes to CPR dispute resolution or they're opting to write CPR rules into the contracts because they're comfortable with the rules and the process designed by the end users. So I'm hoping that we can continue to grow CPR dispute resolution services as well.  J.P.: It's a really important agenda to take on because there's absolutely a dialogue going on in the community right now that you're seeing on various platforms, particularly from arbitrators about, and some of the arbitrators that have been around for a little bit longer, about arbitration becoming too much like litigation, becoming too similar to court procedures, and becoming too burdensome to really achieve its purposes. And it's interesting to see that discussion arise because it sort of goes on hand in glove with, you know, the explosive growth of arbitration as an alternative process. And if it really becomes too much like court, then it's not really an alternative to court. It's just another sort of venue for promulgating those types of processes, which really defeats the purpose in some ways. So it's great to hear the CPR is taking that on and that you want to promote revisiting really what arbitration is about.  Serena: Correct. And I think that we must be vigilant and not rest on our laurels that we think that alternative dispute resolution is being used widely does not mean that it's being used as well as we probably hope or have promised parties at times.  J.P.: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely right. The mere fact that somebody is doing something one way doesn't mean they're doing it right. That's a very, very, very good point. Right. Well, it sounds like if I'm doing my math correctly, in 2027, CPR as a body will have been around for 50 years. So it sounds like you've got a pretty good handle on where you want to see CPR when it hits its 50th anniversary. So that's pretty interesting.  Serena: That's right. We are actually excited to celebrate our 50th. I believe that the Federal Arbitration Act, I think, goes first in celebrating its 100th year anniversary in 2026, I believe.  J.P.: That's right.  Serena: So in 2027, we'll celebrate our 50th.  J.P.: Yeah, or maybe it's 1925. I can't remember, but there's certainly...  Serena: Oh, I think you might be right.  J.P.: I think they're certainly right around there. Either way. Well, good. Well, there's a lot of ground we've covered, and I think we could probably keep going all day. But it might make more sense to reserve my right to invite you back for a future update, because you've obviously got a lot that you intend to do, and it will be great to hear about how all that execution has gone on all these plans.  Serena: Well, JP, I'd love to come back. I really enjoyed our time together and this experience and opportunity to talk about CPR. And my new role has been welcomed. And I hope that in five years' time or maybe in two years' time, I can come back and report on our efforts to expand our regional chapters and to report back on other projects that we are working on currently.  J.P.: Absolutely. And I'll tell you right now, it'll be a lot sooner than two years time. It's certainly sooner than five years. I'm a little more impatient than that. So we won't wait that long, but thank you. It's been a real pleasure. That will conclude then our discussion of CPR. I want to thank Serena Lee for sharing her thoughts and vision for CPR. And I want to thank you, the listeners, for listening in. You should feel free to reach out to Reed Smith about today's podcast with any questions you might have. And you should feel free to reach out to Serena as well. I've had that discussion with her. I know she'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. We look forward to having you tune in for future episodes in this series. And we look forward to follow-ups with Serena in the future. So thank you very much.  Serena: Thanks, J.P.  Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's global international arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first-of-its-kind mobile app that forecasts the cost of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on podcast streaming platforms, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP.  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.

Reed Smith partners Claude Brown and Romin Dabir discuss the challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence in the financial services sector. They cover the regulatory, liability, competition and operational risks of using AI, as well as the potential benefits for compliance, customer service and financial inclusion. They also explore the strategic decisions firms need to make regarding the development and deployment of AI, and the role of regulators play in supervising and embracing AI. ----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.  Claude: Welcome to Tech Law Talks and our new series on artificial intelligence, or AI. Over the coming months, we'll explore key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, we're going to focus on AI in financial services. And to do that, I'm here. My name is Claude Brown. I'm a partner in Reed Smith in London in the Financial Industry Group. And I'm joined by my colleague, Romin Dabir, who's a financial services partner, also based in London.  Romin: Thank you, Claude. Good to be with everyone.  Claude: I mean, I suppose, Romin, one of the things that strikes me about AI and financial services is it's already here. It's not something that's coming in. It's been established for a while. We may not have called it AI, but many aspects it is. And perhaps it might be helpful to sort of just review where we're seeing AI already within the financial services sector.  Romin: Yeah, absolutely. No, you're completely right, Claude. Firms have been using AI or machine learning or some form of automation in their processes for quite a while, as you rightly say. And this has been mainly driven by searches for efficiency, cost savings, as I'm sure the audience would appreciate. There have been pressures on margins and financial services for some time. So firms have really sought to make their processes, particularly those that are repetitive and high volume, as efficient as possible. And parts of their business, which AI has already impacted, include things like KYC, AML checks, back office operations. All of those things are already having AI applied to them.  Claude: Right. I mean, some of these things sound like a good thing. I mean, improving customer services, being more efficient in the know-your-customer, anti-money laundering, KYC, AML areas. I suppose robo-advice, as it's called sometimes, or sort of asset management, portfolio management advice, might be an area where one might worry. But I mean, the general impression I have is that the regulators are very focused on AI. And generally, when one reads the press, you see it being more the issues relating to AI rather than the benefits. I mean, I'm sure the regulators do recognize the benefits, but they're always saying, be aware, be careful, we want to understand better. Why do you think that is? Why do you think there's areas of concern, given the good that could come out of AI?  Romin: No, that's a good question. I think regulators feel a little bit nervous when confronted by AI because obviously it's novel, it's something new, well, relatively new that they are still trying to understand fully and get their arms around. And there are issues that arise where AI is applied to new areas. So, for example, you give the example of robo-advice or portfolio management. Now, these were activities that traditionally have been undertaken by people. And when advice or investment decisions are made by people, it's much easier for regulators to understand and to hold somebody accountable for that. But when AI is involved, responsibility sometimes becomes a little bit murkier and a little bit more diffuse. So, for example, you might have a regulated firm that is using software or AI that has been developed by a specialist software developer. And that software is able to effectively operate with minimal human intervention, which is really one of the main drivers behind it, behind the adoption of AI, because obviously it costs less, it is less resource intensive in terms of skilled people to operate it. It but under those circumstances who has the regulatory responsibility there is it the software provider who makes the algorithm programs the software etc etc and then the software goes off and makes decisions or provides the advice or is it the firm who's actually running the software on its systems when it hasn't actually developed that software? So there are some naughty problems i think that regulators are are still mulling through and working out what they think the right answers should be.  Claude: Yeah I can see that because I suppose historically the the classic model certainly in the UK has been the regulator say if you want to outsource something thing. You, the regulated entity, be you a broker or asset manager or a bank, you are, or an investment firm, you are the authorized entity, you're responsible for your outsourcer or your outsource provider. But I can see with AI, that must get a harder question to determine, you know, because say your example, if the AI is performing some sort of advisory service, you know, has the perimeter gone beyond the historically regulated entity and does it then start to impact on the software provider. That's sort of one point and you know how do you allocate that responsibility you know that strict bright line you want to give it to a third party provider it's your responsibility. How do you allocate that responsibility between the two entities even outside the regulator's oversight, there's got to be an allocation of liability and responsibility.  Romin: Absolutely. And as you say, with traditional outsource services, it's relatively easy for the firm to oversee the activities of the outsource services provider. It can get MI, it can have systems and controls, it can randomly check on how the outsource provider is conducting the services. But with something that's quite black box, like some algorithm, trading algorithm for portfolio management, for example, it's much harder for the firm to demonstrate that oversight. It may not have the internal resources. How does it really go about doing that? So I think these questions become more difficult. And I suppose the other thing that makes it more difficult with AI to the traditional outsourcing model, even the black box algorithms, is by and large they're static. You know, whatever it does, it keeps on doing. It doesn't evolve by its own processes, which AI does. So it doesn't matter really whether it's outsourced or it's in-house to the regulated entity. That thing's sort of changing all the time and supervising it is a dynamic process and the speed at which it learns which is in part driven by its usage means that the dynamics of its oversight must be able to respond to the speed of it evolving.  Romin: Absolutely and and you're right to highlight all of the sort of liability issues that arise, not just simply vis-a-vis sort of liabilities to the regulator for performing the services in compliance with the regulatory duties, but also to clients themselves. Because if the algo goes haywire and suddenly, you know, loses customers loads of money or starts making trades that were not within the investment mandate provided by the client where does the buck stop is that with the firm is that with the person who who provided the software it's it's all you know a little difficult.  Claude: I suppose the other issue is at the moment there's a limited number of outsourced providers and. One might reasonably expect competition being what it is for that to proliferate over time but until it does I would imagine there's a sort of competition issue a not only a competition issue in one system gaining a monopoly but that particular form of large model learning then starts to dominate and produce, for want of a better phrase, a groupthink. And I suppose one of the things that puzzles me is, is there a possibility that you get a systemic risk by the alignment of the thinking of various financial institutions using the same or a similar system of AI processes, which then start to produce a common result? And then possibly producing a common misconception, which introduces a sort of black swan event that was anticipated.  Romin: And sort of self-reinforcing feedback loops. I mean, there was the story of the flash crash that occurred with all these algorithmic trading firms all of a sudden reacting to the same event and all placing sell orders at the same time, which created a market disturbance. That was a number of years ago now. You can imagine such effects as AI becomes more prevalent, potentially being even more severe in the future.  Claude: Yeah, no, I think that's, again, an issue that regulators do worry about from time to time.  Romin: And I think another point, as you say, is competition. Historically, asset managers have differentiated themselves on the basis of the quality of their portfolio managers and the returns that they deliver to clients, etc. But here in a world where we have a number of software providers, maybe one or two of which become really dominant, lots of firms are employing technology provided by these firms, differentiating becomes more difficult in those circumstances.  Claude: Yeah and I guess to unpack that a little bit you know as you say portfolio managers have distinguished themselves by better returns than the competition and certainly better returns than the market average and that then points to the quality of their research and their analytics. So then i suppose the question becomes to what extent is AI being used to produce that differentiator and how do you charge your you know your your fees based on that is this you've got better technology than anyone else or is it you've got a better way to deploy the technology or is it that you've just paid more for your technology you know how did how because transforming the input of AI into the analytics and the portfolio management. Is quite a difficult thing to do at the best of times. If it's internal, it's clearly easier because it's just your mousetrap and you built that mousetrap. But when you're outsourcing, particularly in your example, where you've got a limited number of technology providers, that split I can see become quite contentious.  Romin: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And I think firms themselves will need to sort of decide what approach they are going to take to the application of AI, because if they go down the outsourced approach, that raises issues that we've discussed so far. Conversely if they adopt a sort of in-house model they have more control the technology's proprietary potentially they can distinguish themselves and differentiate themselves better than relying on an outsource solution but then you know cost is far greater will they have the resources resources expertise and really to compete with these large specialist providers to many different firms. There's lots of strategic decisions that firms need to make as well.  Claude: Yeah but I mean going back to the regulators for a moment Romin, it does seem to me that you know there are some benefits to regulators in embracing AI within their own world because certainly we already see the evidence that they're very comfortable using manipulation of large databases. For example, it's trade repositories or it's trade reporting. We can see sort of enforcement actions being brought using databases that have produced the information the anomalies and as I see it AI can only improve that form of surveillance enforcement whether that is market manipulation or insider dealing or looking across markets to see whether sort of concurrent or collaborative activity is engaged and it may not get to the point where the AI is going to to bring the whole enforcement action to trial. But it certainly makes that demanding surveillance and oversight role for a regulator a lot easier.  Romin: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I mean, historically, firms have often complained. And it's a very common refrain in the financial services markets We have to make all these ridiculous reports, detailed reports, send all this information to the regulator. And firms were almost certain that it would just disappear into some black hole and never be looked at again. Again, historically, that was perhaps true, but with the new technology that is coming on stream, it gives regulators much more opportunity to meaningfully interrogate that data and use it to either bring enforcement action against firms or just supervise trends, risks, currents in markets which might otherwise not have been available or apparent to them.  Claude: Yeah, I mean, I think, to my mind, data before you apply technology to it, it's rather like the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark in the Spielberg film, you know, where they take the Covenant and push it into that huge warehouse and the camera pans back and you just see massive, massive data. But I suppose you're right with AI, that you can go and find the crate with the thing in other Spielberg films are available. it seems to me almost inexorable that the use of AI in financial services will increase and you know the potential and the efficiencies particularly with large scale and repetitive tasks and more inquiry it's not just a case of automation it's a case of sort of overseeing it but I suppose that begs a bit of a question as to who's going to be the dominant force in in the market. Is it going to be the financial services firms or the tech firms that can produce more sophisticated AI models.  Romin: Absolutely, I mean I think we've seen amongst the AI companies themselves so you know the the key players like google open AI microsoft there's a bit of an arms race between themselves as to the best LLM who can come up with the most accurate, best, fastest answers to queries. I think within AI and financial services, it's almost inevitable that there'll be a similar race. And I guess the jury's still out as to who will win. Will it be the financial services firms themselves, or will it be these specialist technology companies that apply their solutions in the financial services space? I don't know, but it will certainly be interesting to see.  Claude: Well, I suppose the other point with the technology providers, and you're right, I mean, you can already see that when you get into cloud-based services and software as a service and the others, that the technology is becoming a dominant part of financial services, not necessarily the dominant, but certainly a large part of it. And that, to my mind, has a really interesting question about the commonality of technology and I in general and AI in particular in you, know you can now see the these services and particularly you know and I can see this with AI as well entering into a number of financial sectors which historically have been diffused so the use of AI for example in insurance the the use in banking, the use in asset management, the use in broking, the use in advisory services, there's now a coming together of the platforms and the technology, such as LLM, across all of them. And that then begs the question, is there an operational resilience question? It's almost like, does AI ever become so pervasive that is a bit like electricity, power. You can see the CrowdStrike. Is the technology so all-pervasive that actually it produces an operational risk concern that would cause a regulator to take it to an extreme, to alter the operational risk charge in the regulatory capital environment?  Romin: Yeah, exactly. I think these are certainly is the space that regulators are looking at with increased attention, because some of the emerging risks, etc, might not be apparent. So like you mentioned with CrowdStrike, nobody really knew that this was an issue until it happened. So regulators, I think, are very nervous of the unknown unknowns.  Claude: Yeah. I mean, it seems to me that AI has a huge potential in the financial services sector, in, A, facilitating the mundane, but also in being proactive in identifying anomalies. Potentials for errors, potentials for fraud. It's like, you know, there's a huge amount that it can contribute. But as always, you know, that brings structural challenges.  Romin: Absolutely. And just on the point that we were discussing earlier about the increased efficiencies that it can bring to markets you know there's been a recognized problem with the so-called advice gap in the uk where the kind of mass affluent less high net worth investors aren't really willing to pay for the receipt of financial advice. As technology gets better, the cost of accessing more tailored, intelligent advice will hopefully come down, leading to the ability for people to make more sensible financial decisions.  Claude: Which I'm sure was part of the responsibility of financial institutions to improve financial and fiscal education. That's going to be music to a regulator's ears. Well, Romin, interesting subject, interesting area. We live, as the Chinese say, in interesting times. But I hope to those of you who've listened, it's been interesting. We've enjoyed talking about it. Of course, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us, my colleague, Romin Dabir, or myself, Claude Brown. You can find our contact details accompanying this and also on our website. Thank you for listening.  Romin: Thank you. 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.

This episode highlights the new benefits, risks and impacts on operations that artificial intelligence is bringing to the transportation industry. Reed Smith transportation industry lawyers Han Deng and Oliver Beiersdorf explain how AI can improve sustainability in shipping and aviation by optimizing routes and reducing fuel consumption. They emphasize AI's potential contributions from a safety standpoint as well, but they remain wary of risks from cyberattacks, inaccurate data outputs and other threats. ----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.  Han: Hello, everyone. Welcome to our new series on AI. Over the coming months, we will explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, my colleague Oliver and I will focus on AI in shipping and aviation. My name is Han Deng, a partner in the transportation industry group in New York, focusing on the shipping industry. So AI and machine learning have the potential to transform the transportation industry. What do you think about that, Oliver?  Oliver: Thanks, Han, and it's great to join you. My name is Oliver Beiersdorf. I'm a partner in our transportation industry group here at Reed Smith, and it's a pleasure to be here. I'm going to focus a little bit on the aviation sector. And in aviation, AI is really contributing to a wide spectrum of value opportunities, including enhancing efficiency, as well as safety-critical applications. But we're still in the early stages. The full potential of AI within the aviation sector is far from being harnessed. For instance, there's huge potential for use in areas which will reduce human workload or increase human capabilities in very complex scenarios in aviation.  Han: Yeah, and there's similar potential within the shipping industry with platforms designed to enhance collision avoidance, route optimization, and sustainability efforts. In fact, AI is predicted to contribute $2.5 trillion to the global economy by 2030.  Oliver: Yeah, that is a lot of money, and it may even be more than that. But with that economic potential, of course, also comes substantial risks. And AI users and operators and industries now getting into using AI have to take preventative steps to avoid cyber security attacks. Inaccurate data outputs, and other threats.  Han: Yeah, and at Reed Smith, we help our clients to understand how AI may affect their operations, as well as how AI may be utilized to maximize potential while avoiding its pitfalls and legal risks. During this seminar, we will highlight elements within the transportation industry that stand to benefit significantly from AI.  Oliver: Yeah, so a couple of topics that we want to discuss here in the next section, and there's really three of them which overlap between shipping and aviation in terms of the use of AI. And those topics are sustainability, safety, and business efficiency with the use of AI. In terms of sustainability, across both sectors, AI can help with route optimization, which saves on fuel and thus enhances sustainability.  Han: AI can make a significant difference in sustainability across the whole of the transportation industry by decreasing emissions. For example, within the shipping sector, emerging tech companies are developing systems that can directly link the information generated about direction and speed to a ship's propulsion system for autonomous regulation. AI also has the potential to create optimized routes using sensors that track and analyze real-time and variable factors such as wind speed and current. AI can determine both the ideal route and speed for a specific ship at any point in the ocean to maximize efficiency efficiency and minimize fuel usage.  Oliver: So you can see the same kind of potential in the aviation sector. For example, AI has the potential to assist with optimizing flight trajectories, including creating so-called green routes and increasing prediction accuracy. AI can also provide key decision makers and experts with new features that could transform air traffic management in terms of new technologies and operating procedures and creating greater efficiencies. Aside from reducing emissions, these advances have the potential to offer big savings in energy costs, which, of course, is a major factor for airlines and other players in the industry, with the cost of gas being a major factor in their budgets, and in particular, jet fuel for airlines. So advances here really have the potential to offer big savings that will enable both sectors to enhance profitability while decreasing reliance on fossil fuels.  Han: I totally agree. And further, you know, in terms of safety. AI can be used with the transportation industry to assist with safety assessment and management by identifying, managing, and predicting various safety risks.  Oliver: Right. So, in the aviation sector, AI has the potential to increase safety by driving the development of new air traffic management systems to maintain distances from aircraft. Planning safer routes, assisting in approaches to busy airports, And the development of new conflict detection, traffic advisories, and resolution tools, along with cyber resilience. What we're seeing, of course, in aviation, and there's a lot of discussion about, is the use of drones and EV tools, so electronic, vertical, takeoff, and landing aircraft. All of which add more complexity to the existing use of airspace. And you're seeing many players in the industry, including retailers who deliver products, using eVTOLs and drones to deliver product. And AI can be a useful assistant, that is, to ATM actors from planning, to operations, and really across all airspace users. It can benefit airline operators as well, who depend on predictable routine routes and services by using aviation data to predict air traffic management more accurately.  Han: That's fascinating, Oliver. Same within the shipping sector, for example, AI has the capacity to create 3D models for areas and use those models to simulate the impact of disruptions that may arise. AI can also enhance safety features through the use of vision sensors that can respond to ship traffic and prevent accidents. As AI begins to be able to deliver innovative responses that enhance predictability and resilience of the traffic management system, efficiency will increase productivity and enhance use of scarce resources like airspace, runways, and stuff.  Oliver: Yeah. So it'll be really interesting to follow, you know, how this develops. It's all still very new. Another area where you're going to see the use of AI, and we already are, is in terms of business efficiency, again, in both the shipping and aviation sectors. There's really a lot of potential for AI, including in generating data and cumulative reports based on real-time information. And by increasing the speed by which the information is processed, companies can identify issues early on and perform predictive maintenance to minimize disruptions. The ability to generate reports is also going to be useful in ensuring compliance with regulations and also coordinating work with contractors, vendors, partners, such as code share partners in commercial aviation and other stakeholders in the industry.  Han: Yeah, and AI can be used to perform comprehensive audits to ensure that all cargo is present and that it complies with contracts, local and national regulation, which can help identify any discrepancies quickly and lead to swift resolution. AI can also be used to generate reports based on this information to provide autonomous communication within contractors about cargo location and the estimated time of arrival. Increasing communication and visibility in order to inspire trust and confidence. Aside from compliance, these reports will also be useful in ensuring efficiencies in management and business development and strategy by performing predictive analytics in various areas, such as demand forecasting.  Oliver: And despite all these benefits, of course, as with any new technology, you need to weigh that against the potential risk and various things that can happen by using AI. So let's talk a little bit about cybersecurity and regulation being unable to keep pace with technology development, inaccurate data, and industry fragmentation. Things are just happening so fast that there's a huge risk. Associated with the use of artificial intelligence in many areas, but also in the transportation industry, including as a result of cybersecurity attacks. Data security breaches can affect airline operators or can also occur on vessels, in port operations, and in undersea infrastructure. Cyber criminals who are becoming more and more sophisticated can even manipulate data inputs, causing AI platforms on vessels to misidentify malicious maritime activity as legitimate trade or safe. Actors using AI are going to need to ensure the cyber safety of AI-enabled systems. I mean, that's a focus in both shipping and aviation and in other industries. Businesses and air traffic providers need to ensure that AI-enabled applications have robust cybersecurity elements built into their operational and maintenance schedules. Shipping companies will need to update their current cybersecurity systems and risk assessment plans to develop these threats and comply with relevant data and privacy laws. A real recent example is the CrowdStrike software outage on July 19th, which really affected almost every industry. But we saw it being particularly acute in the aviation industry and commercial aviation with literally thousands of flights being canceled with massive disruption to the industry. And interestingly, the CrowdStrike software outage, what we're talking about there is really software that's intended to avoid cyber criminal risk. And a, you know, a programming issue can result in, you know, systems being down and these types of massive disruptions, because of course, in both aviation and in shipping, we're so reliant on technologies and the issue of regulation and really the inability of regulators to keep up up with this incredible fast pace is another concern. And regulations are always reactive. In this instance, AI continues to rapidly develop and regulations do not necessarily effectively address AI. In its most current form. The unchecked use of AI could create and increase the risk of cybersecurity attacks and data privacy law violations, and frankly, create other risks that we haven't even been able to predict.  Han: Wow, we really need to buckle up in the times of cybersecurity. And talking about inaccurate data, quality of AI depends upon the quality of its data inputs. Therefore, misleading and inaccurate data sets could lead to imprecise predictions for navigation. Alternatively, there is a risk that users may rely too heavily on AI platforms to make important decisions about collision avoidance and route optimization. And so the shipping companies must be sure to properly train their employees on the proper uses of AI. And speaking of industry fragmentation, AI is an expensive tool. Poor economies will be unable to integrate AI platforms in their maritime or aviation operations, which could fragment global trade. For example, without harmony in the AI use and proficiency, the shipping industry may see a decrease in revenue, a lack of global governance, and the rise of the black market dark fleets.  Oliver: There's just so much to talk about in this area. It's really almost mind-blowing. But in conclusion, I think a couple points that have come out of our discussion is that if the industry takes action and fully captures AI-enabled value opportunities in both the short and the long terms, the potential for AI is just huge. But we have to be very mindful of the associated risks and empower private industry and governments to provide resolutions through technology, but also regulations. So thank you very much for joining us. That's it for today. And we really appreciate you listening in to our Tech Law Talks.  Han: Thank you.  Oliver: Thank you.  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 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.

Learn about the history, purpose and work of the Hispanic National Bar Association's Health & Life Sciences section, as shared by its co-chairs, Gelvina Rodriguez Stevenson, general counsel at the Wistar Institute and Mildred Segura, litigation partner at Reed Smith. The discussion will be moderated by Anna Lozoya from Sentara Health. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith podcast, Inclusivity Included, Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions and challenges, past and present, all with the goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included.  Anna: Welcome back to Inclusivity Included. And today's episode is in partnership with the Hispanic National Bar Association. And today we'll be learning about the Health and Life Sciences section, along with co-chairs Gelvina Rodriguez-Stevenson and Mildred Segura. Gelvina Rodriguez is the General Counsel and Corporate Secretary at Wistar Institution, an international biomedical institute. Gelvina's career spans various sectors of the healthcare industry, including hospitals, academic medical centers, and pharmaceutical companies in government. Gelvina serves as the co-chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association's Health and Life Sciences Section and as a board member of the American Health Law Association. Mildred Segura is a litigation partner at Reed Smith LLP, a full-service global law firm. She is based in Los Angeles and is a member of Reed Smith's Life Sciences Health and Industry Group, specializing in complex products liability litigation, matters focused on medical device and pharmaceutical litigation in state and federal courts across the United States. Well, Mildred and Gelvina, excited to have you here so we can learn more about the Health and Life Sciences section of HNBA. Gelvina, can you give the audience a brief history of what was the inspiration to create the section and a brief overview of the history of the section?  Gelvina: Yeah, great, Anna. Thank you. Thank you for that that introduction for putting together this session. Very happy to talk about the health and life sciences section of the HNBA. So we started this section of the HNBA years ago. And, you know, really the idea came when I had started my first in-house job, and it just happened to be in the health sector. It was at an academic medical college. And, you know, I got there. I was like, oh, I don't know anything about health law. So let me, you know, look for mentors. And I've been fortunate through my career to always be able to find, you know, wonderful mentors through the HNBA and, you know, LaLSA, when in law school. And I started looking around to find other attorneys who were in this sector and really couldn't find anyone. I looked around, you know, my, the legal department where I was, you know, other organizations and just really couldn't find any mentors, role models to figure out how to navigate this area. So, you know, having always been active with the HNBA, you know, doing law school and having served as a regional president for the HNBA, I knew that there were very active sections within the HNBA in other areas, business law, labor and employment, employment, compliance. And I thought, gosh, it'd be great if there were a health law section where I could meet other Latino and Latina lawyers working in this space and kind of learn how it works. So I proposed to leadership at the HNBA the idea of forming this section. They thought it was a great idea, and it was formed. So then at that point, sections formed, and we had to build the community. So basically, me and our co-chair reached out to people we knew who were in you know, pharmaceutical device companies, hospitals, and invited them to join. And then also when you're part of the HNBA, you can check off what section you're interested in joining. So we had members join that way. And, you know, over the years, it's grown to be a really wonderful network of Latino and Latino lawyers across the country who are either working in healthcare and life sciences or interested in it. And it really has become, you know, that mentoring, you know group that what didn't exist years ago so really really excited to you know have that come to fruition have it become what it's become.  Anna: That sounds like really great work and it sounds like we needed that and you recognized that was something we needed so good work there and and for contributing that.  Gelvina: yeah and so wonderful that the HNBA was just so open and willing to you know jump on a new idea and move it forward so that's always wonderful.  Anna: Yeah yeah definitely HNBA is It's big about innovating. And as we grow as a legal community as well, expanding to meet the needs of the members. But I'm sure Mildred, as it sounds from Gelvina, that this is growing and growing. What do you find to be the most rewarding and most challenging aspects of co-chairing this vastly growing and expanding section here?  Mildred: That's a great question, Anna. And I've been co-chair, Gelvina invited me to serve in that position maybe three, four years ago now, Gelvina, maybe, right? And prior to that, there were other co-chairs. But I know Gelvina has been there since inception, as she just described. And I would say, you know, during my tenure these last couple of years, I would say the most rewarding aspect of co-chairing the section has been the opportunity to make a tangible impact on our community, which is health and life sciences, lawyers, policymakers, students, right? People who are interested in maybe getting into this space or maybe don't even have a clue what the space really is. And I've had the privilege of working with really, you know, brilliant people like Gelvina, like yourself, Anna, and others that are in our section and learning just how vast this practice area really is, right, of health and life sciences and how much it encompasses. Purposes and um and it's nice as Gelvina said you know it's a place of like-minded people doing you know they're in different practices but under the same umbrella and we're all our goal is the same right to advance health care and life sciences while ensuring that our voices are heard in these critical areas whether it's representing our clients you know in big law or in public interest or in the government and so wherever you are it's it's a nice sort of place to come together and be be able to showcase, you know, what's going on in your practice or in this area. And it's a really collaborative spirit as well, where people bring ideas. You know, if someone comes to us and say, hey, I have an idea for a webinar that I want to put on, focused on health and life sciences, it's great, right? And we're learning as we go, too, because I'm a litigator. And so there may be ideas and trends that I'm not even aware of. So it's a really great way to stay abreast of what's going on in this space as well. And Gelvina mentioned mentoring. And so we do have students that are members. version. I would say that's the other rewarding aspect of this is the ability to mentor young attorneys is incredibly fulfilling, right? And we put on a CLE panel presentation at one of our corporate council conferences for the HNBA, which was focused on careers in life sciences and healthcare, because a lot of students have no clue, you know, well, what does that mean? You know, what kind of careers do you have within that space? And there was a panel of litigators, government attorneys, policymakers. Gelvina moderated that panel. I was on it as well. And it was great to see the type of questions that we were getting from these up-and-coming, soon-to-be lawyers. And on the flip side, you asked me what's been the most challenging. I would say is balancing the diverse interests of our members within the section, right? Because like I said, that I'm a litigator, Gelvina's in-house, we have people in government, you know, all across the board in transactional spaces. And so it's really, you know, trying to cater to our members, ensuring that we are responsive to their needs and what they're interested in. And so we try and cover a broad range of topics to ensure that we provide value to our members, which requires, you know, careful planning, constant communication. But these challenges also present opportunities for growth and innovation. Like I said, as a litigator, I'm learning a lot about other aspects of health and life sciences beyond what my firm offers, obviously, which also does a little bit of everything within the life sciences space. So that's what I would say have been the most rewarding and challenging aspects of being co-chair of the section.  Anna: Oh, that's a lot. But it sounds like you and Gelvina have a good handle of that and having such a wide spectrum of individuals from law students to seasoned attorneys. And it sounds like your panel regarding careers in health and life sciences really try to hold in on the great plethora of opportunities for someone who's interested in our great section, our section that we love.  Mildred: That's exactly right.  Anna: From this section's name, health and life sciences, Gelvina, who do you think should join this section? And like, what are the benefits of joining HNBA's Health and Life Sciences section?  Gelvina: Yep. So in terms of who should join, I think, you know, Mildred touched on this a bit. And I think she went over sort of the diversity of this field, right, and the breadth of who is a healthcare lawyer, who is a life sciences lawyer. And it's really anyone who's like, you know, knee deep in that space. Like you're on a hospital attorney or someone at a pharmaceutical company in healthcare and life sciences, or it could be someone just sort of interested in maybe exploring that space. Or it could be someone who's a litigator and they happen to have a case that involves two healthcare-related companies. They want to, you know, learn more about this space and how it works or just, you know, interact with people working in this space. It could be, you know, anyone from like the knee-deep healthcare life sciences lawyers to people who are just tangentially involved. And, you know, again, the spectrum there is hospital attorneys, pharmaceutical device company attorneys and other legal professionals, folks working in health tech, AI, which is huge in health care, health insurance companies. PBMs, pharmacies, labs, you know, government, AG offices do lots of the, you know, credentialing and licensing for health care providers. It's, you know, we cover topics in reproductive health, public health. We have lots of members who are working in the antitrust space. There's lots of activity and healthcare entities related to antitrust. So, you know, as you can see, public policy, Mildred mentioned that. And really just in terms of, you know, you asked about the benefits of joining. So, again, for the folks who are knee deep, like we get to, you know, get on these calls and say, you know, this is this topic that we're starting to see, you know, more of in our space. What are you all seeing? And just kind of share ideas and approaches. And, you know, for those who are not knee deep learning about the area, you know, and for students, you know, Mildred mentioned we have lots of students who join. And I think historically, healthcare and life sciences hasn't been like one of those key areas that you focus on in law school. It's not like, you know, securities, which is kind of all over. And so it's a new area. So we can provide, you know, mentoring and exposure to different career opportunities in this space, which is very exciting and growing. And we also coordinate with other organizations like the American Health Law Association and build liaisons there and share speaking opportunities that we're aware of that folks may want to be interested in, job opportunities. So I could go on and on forever about all the benefits of joining this section, but I'll pause there.  Anna: Thank you. I can definitely say I have benefited both from being a section member, from Gelvina's mentorship, which is a benefit. Mildred mentioned that it's having had the opportunity to present at the American Health Lawyers Association and also learning. I know we last year had someone present on privacy and AI and how that affects our our industry. And that was really great and insightful. I was like driving, but trying to take notes. And I'm like, I need to pay attention. And so it was just really enthralled and learned a lot. And I was able to take that back into my actual practice and still have. And it's been very impactful. So definitely a great benefit. And so really, really appreciative of the section doing that. And I have a question for both of you. Can each of you share how the section has influenced your practice and your personal life?  Gelvina: Yeah. You know, I think, like you said, just being able to meet other attorneys in this space like you and Mildred and, you know, work together. Yeah. And just finding that sense of community and others who've, you know, maybe are like in a field that I've been interested in or, and it's really just invigorating, right? Once you start looking for other Latino and Latina lawyers working in this space, we find each other and it's very inspiring. So, for example, we did a podcast series through the section where we interviewed Latino and Latina leaders in health care and life sciences. We, you know, for example, Lisa Pino, who was the director of the Office for Civil Rights within HHS, which is the office that enforces HIPAA, a really important position. So just being able to, you know, connect with her and, you know, expose our membership to people like her and really exciting positions like that. And, you know, she provided mentorship and advice on that call. Like, how do you get to these positions if you're interested? How do you navigate these positions as a Latina? So, you know, just being able to meet people and interact with people in this space has just been inspiring and made me feel very optimistic and supported in my career. So that's really been, you know, that's from a professional and personal, again, from a personal perspective, meeting other professionals who are working in similar space. You have so much in common and you can share so much. You become, you know, colleagues and friends, which is just wonderful. Yeah.  Mildred: Yeah, and I would echo a lot of what Gelvina just said in terms of just on a, in my practice alone, right, having immersed myself into the section, taken on the role of co-chair, having to learn sort of, okay, who's our membership? What are they interested in? But more than that really was the friendships that I've been able to build. Obviously, your network expands, right, which is always great. And just deepening my own understanding of health and life sciences. Like I said, I come from the litigation side of life sciences. So to be able to speak with you, Anna, about risk management issues that impact hospitals, for instance, right? And sort of those folks that are in that space is important because it helps inform perhaps how I may be counseling my clients on my end when it comes to the litigation side. So there's this cross-pollination. I think that's very beneficial and is one of the things that has greatly influenced my practice by virtue of serving as co-chair. And on a personal level, I would say that it's just reinforced my commitment to advocating for our community. It's nice, yes, we have a place of like-minded folks who can come together, share ideas, trends, and practices that cut across the health and life sciences space, but also what we do for the larger community. And one thing that HNBA offers is something called Advocacy Day, which is a day where HNBA members, section members can go to Congress, and we have various meetings with congressional representatives on issues of importance to our section. So as a health and life sciences section, we, you know, one issue that came to mind was on mental health, which is a key issue for the Latino community and something that can be, you know, has a lot of, could be taboo and a lot of, you know, people don't want to come forward and say, you know, I'm suffering from mental health and get the care that they need. So to me, that was the first time I participated in that advocacy date program. So to be able and have these meetings with, you know, the congressmen and congresswomen and be able to talk about these issues was really a different experience for me that I had not engaged in before. So I would say, you know, that experiences like that is something that our section offers and that I would recommend to anyone.  Gelvina: Yeah. And just to pick up on that point that Mildred just made, we also work very closely with the leadership of the health and life sciences section of the Asian American Bar Association, the South Asian NAPABA, SABA, and the NBA. And especially during the pandemic, we really were coordinating on health equity issues. And we did some publications for the HNBA on health equity to elevate being in a position where we could elevate those important topics. And as lawyers, a resource on how those issues impact our community from a legal perspective has been key. And, you know, to Mildred's point, being able to bring these important topics up at Advocacy Day has been a really important role for this committee.  Anna: Yeah, I think this section is really good at doing that, bringing forward not only our issues and what we need as section members, but also for the community at large. And not just professionally, but also just, you know, the overall Latino, Latina, Hispanic community across the U.S. I know we also have written, Gelvina and I and a few of us others, we wrote an article on how we could give back and give our skill sets since we have such a variety of skills across different spectrums of areas, whether it's helping with wills or sitting on a board. I know Gelvina sits on several boards and giving back in different ways to impact to ensure health care equity within our community and not just out in the sense of professional legal realm. Mildred, can you share any exciting initiatives that the section currently has and any that they might have going on in the future with our listeners?  Mildred: Sure. Good question. So, you know, right now our section is focused on a few key initiatives. One of them is creating more educational resources and webinars that address emerging issues in health and life sciences, particularly those affecting the Hispanic community, obviously, but also other trends that we're seeing that are of interest to our members. And we're also strengthening our mentorship program, aiming to provide guidance and support to the next generation of legal professionals in the field. This year, which kicked off in the fall of 2023, we kicked it off with a social media campaign, right? Because we know the younger generation is on Instagram and what used to be Twitter, so now X. And so HNBA has been really active in engaging with the social media platforms and getting the word out about sections like ours that are offered through the HMBA. So we had a social media campaign that featured myself, Gelvina, and you were part of that as well as our other vice chairs of the section to really get the word out about who we are, what's our mission, what's our purpose, right? We're here to serve you and to get more membership to join the section. So that's been one initiative in terms of just getting the word out. Other initiatives that we've taken on this year have been highlighting select members of our section on topics of interest. And we touched on this already earlier today. You know, we've had people from who are at the top pharma companies present on data privacy issues. We've had people within the medical device industry come and speak to us about what they're seeing relative to AI and life sciences and some of the implications coming out of that, both on the regulatory side and the litigation side, for instance. Instance, we had presentations on the impact of the recent FTC ruling on non-compete agreements, which now we have a federal court, right, who's come out and said, okay, you know, you don't have the authority to do that. So a lot of activity that's relevant to our section across the board, right, no matter whether you're in-house or at a firm or perhaps in government. And another initiative we had was focused on the Supreme Court's decision related to DOBS and reproductive health. And we put on a CLE panel at one of our corporate council conferences for the HNBA focused on sort of sexual and reproductive health post-DOBS, which was well attended and extremely timely just because of all the issues, you know, no matter what side you are on that issue, you know, it's always helpful to bring that to our community and have people, you know, have a discussion and a debate around those issues. More recently, coming up for our annual convention in September, taking place in D.C., we will have a panel focused on GLP-1 pharmaceuticals. It's called GLP-What? Exploring the Weighty Legal Issues of Pharma's Blockbuster Weight Loss Drug, which will feature our very own Anna, who's with us today, along with some other members of our section and the IP section of the HNBA. So we're looking forward to that. And we're busy working on some additional webinars coming up later this year, including one, like I said, on non-compete agreements, as well as because we are in election season, sort of the impact of the elections on health and life sciences. We know there's a lot of impact there and we want to be able to bring that to our members as well. And just getting creative, thinking outside the box. You know, this idea of this podcast, Anna, was yours. I thought, you know, it's a great idea. So initiatives like that, trying to get a little bit more creative in how we can, again, bring our section and the most value to our members as much as we can. And lastly, as Gelvina touched on, we're collaborating with other bar and healthcare-related organizations, such as the American Health Law Association, which you both touched on. And, yeah, so we're trying to do, you know, as much as we can, again, because, you know, we don't get paid for this. We do it because we like it, we want to. And it's, as Gelvina said, very inspiring and invigorating to be doing this work. So really lucky to have the opportunity to do it.  Anna: That's a lot of great work, a lot of great initiatives, and I look forward to that. I hope our listeners join us so you can learn. Even if you don't practice in this area, a lot of that expands and cross-pollinates and touches different aspects of our daily life. Gelvina, so where can people that are interested in learning more about this section and wanting to just find out when is the next podcast or when is the next webinar, where can they find us?  Gelvina: Yep, there's a number of ways. Number one, you can go on HNBA, Hispanic National Bar Association.com. And there's a drop down link to sections and you'll find the health section, health and life sciences section there. You can join that way. Also, as a member, you can join through your membership portal, but also you can join through the section portal. We have a LinkedIn page. It's HNBA Health and Life Sciences. So you can find us on LinkedIn and join that way. And we send out information about our upcoming events and activities via the LinkedIn page. On the LinkedIn page, there's also email addresses where you could email Mildred or me and we'll get you on the listserv. So we send out emails and calendar invites for the meetings. We usually have, as Mildred mentioned, a meeting at the annual conferences for the HNBA. There's two annual conferences a year, one in September and one in March. So we usually have an in-person meeting there. And then we have one to two virtual meetings throughout the year where folks can join. And like Mildred said, we have people present on topics of interest. But also, we start each of those meetings with everyone introducing themselves and where they work or what their interest is. And that's a really great way to get to know the community. So I would encourage folks to get on the LinkedIn page, join via the HNBA.com website, email us if you have any questions and, you know, come attend one of our meetings or activities.  Anna: Great. Thank you for sharing that. I want to thank everyone for joining us today here on Inclusivity Included in our partnership today with the Hispanic National Bar Association Health and Life Sciences section. Thank you, Gelvina and Mildred, taking time out of your busy days as co-chairs and sharing with us your experiences, your contributions, and as well as all the exciting new initiatives and planning that the section has. Please join us next time on our next episode on Inclusivity Included.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. 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 of 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.

Reed Smith emerging tech lawyers Andy Splittgerber in Munich and Cynthia O'Donoghue in London join entertainment & media lawyer Monique Bhargava in Chicago to delve into the complexities of AI governance. From the EU AI Act to US approaches, we explore common themes, potential pitfalls and strategies for responsible AI deployment. Discover how companies can navigate emerging regulations, protect user data and ensure ethical AI practices. ----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.  Andy: Welcome to Tech Law Talks and our new series on artificial intelligence. Over the coming months, we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape globally. Today, we'll focus on AI and governance with a main emphasis on generative AI in a regional perspective if we look into Europe and the US. My name is Andy Splittgerber. I'm a partner in the Emerging Technologies Group of Reed Smith in Munich, and I'm also very actively advising clients and companies on artificial intelligence. Here with me, I've got Cynthia O'Donoghue from our London office and Nikki Bhargava from our Chicago office. Thanks for joining.  Cynthia: Thanks for having me. Yeah, I'm Cynthia O'Donoghue. I'm an emerging technology partner in our London office, also currently advising clients on AI matters.  Monique: Hi, everyone. I'm Nikki Bhargava. I'm a partner in our Chicago office and our entertainment and media group, and really excited to jump into the topic of AI governance. So let's start with a little bit of a basic question for you, Cynthia and Andy. What is shaping how clients are approaching AI governance within the EU right now?  Cynthia: Thanks, Nikki. The EU is, let's say, just received a big piece of legislation, went into effect on the 2nd of October that regulates general purpose AI and high risk general purpose AI and bans certain aspects of AI. But that's only part of the European ecosystem. The EU AI Act essentially will interplay with the General Data Protection Regulation, the EU's Supply Chain Act, and the latest cybersecurity law in the EU, which is the Network and Information Security Directive No. 2. so essentially there's a lot of for organizations to get their hands around in the EU and the AI act has essentially phased dates of effectiveness but the the biggest aspect of the EU AI act in terms of governance lays out quite a lot and so it's a perfect time for organizations to start are thinking about that and getting ready for various aspects of the AAC as they in turn come into effect. How does that compare, Nikki, with what's going on in the U.S.?  Monique: So, you know, the U.S. is still evaluating from a regulatory standpoint where they're going to land on AI regulation. Not to say that we don't have legislation that has been put into place. We have Colorado with the first comprehensive AI legislation that went in. And we also had, you know, earlier in the year, we also had from the Office of Management and Budget guidelines to federal agencies about how to procure and implement AI, which has really informed the governance process. And I think a lot of companies in the absence of regulatory guidance have been looking to the OMB memo to help inform what their process may look like. And I think the one thing I would highlight, because we're sort of operating in this area of unknown and yet-to-come guidance, that a lot of companies are looking to their existing governance frameworks right now and evaluating how they're both from a company culture perspective, a mission perspective, their relationship with consumers, how they want to develop and implement AI, whether it's internally or externally. And a lot of the governance process and program pulls guidance from some of those internal ethics as well.  Cynthia: Interesting, so I'd say somewhat similar in the EU, but I think, Andy, the consumer, I think the US puts more emphasis on, consumer protection, whereas the EU AI Act is more all-encompassing in terms of governance. Wouldn't you agree?  Andy: Yeah, that was also the question I wanted to ask Nikki, is where she sees the parallels and whether organizations, in her view, can follow a global approach for AI are ai governance and yes i like for the for the question you asked yes i mean the AI act is the European one is more encompassing it is i'm putting a lot of obligations on developers and deployers like companies that use ai in the end of course it also has the consumer or the user protection in the mind but the rules directly rated relating to consumers or users are I would say yeah they're limited. So yeah Nikki well what what's kind of like you always you always know US law and you have a good overview over European laws what is we are always struggling with all the many US laws so what's your thought can can companies in terms of AI governance follow a global approach?  Monique: In my opinion? Yeah, I do think that there will be a global approach, you know, the way the US legislates, you know, what we've seen is a number of laws that are governing certain uses and outputs first, perhaps because they were easier to pass than such a comprehensive law. So we see laws that govern the output in terms of use of likenesses, right, of publicity violations. We're also seeing laws come up that are regulating the use of personal information and AI as a separate category. We're also seeing laws, you know, outside of the consumer, the corporate consumer base, we're also seeing a lot of laws around elections. And then finally, we're seeing laws pop up around disclosure for consumers that are interacting with AI systems, for example, AI powered chatbots. But as I mentioned, the US is taking a number of cues from the EU AI Act. So for example, Colorado did pass a comprehensive AI law, which speaks to both obligations for developers and obligations to deployers, similar to the way the EU AI Act is structured, and focusing on what Colorado calls high risk AI systems, as well as algorithmic discrimination, which I think doesn't exactly follow the EU AI Act, but draws similar parallels, I think pulls a lot of principles. That's the kind of law which I really see informing companies on how to structure their AI governance programs, probably because the simple answer is it requires deployers at least to establish a risk management policy and procedure and an impact assessment for high risk systems. And impliedly, it really requires developers to do the same. Because developers are required to provide a lot of information to deployers so that deployers can take the legally required steps in order to deploy the AI system. And so inherently, to me, that means that developers have to have a risk management process themselves if they're going to be able to comply with their obligations under Colorado law. So, you know, because I know that there are a lot of parallels between what Colorado has done, what we see in our memo to federal agencies and the EU AI Act, maybe I can ask you, Cynthia and Andy, to kind of talk a little bit about what are some of the ways that companies approach setting up the structure of their governance program? What are some buckets that it is that they look at, or what are some of the first steps that they take?  Cynthia: Yeah, thanks, Nikki. I mean, it's interesting because you mentioned about the company-specific uses and internal and external. I think one thing, you know, before we get into the governance structure or maybe part of thinking about the governance structure is that for the EU AI Act, it also applies to employee data and use of AI systems for vocational training, for instance. So I think in terms of governance structure. Certainly from a European perspective, it's not necessarily about use cases, but about really whether you're using that high risk or general purpose AI and, you know, some of the documentation and certification requirements that might apply to the high risk versus general purpose. But the governance structure needs to take all those kinds of things into account. Account so you know obviously guidelines and principles about the you know how people use external AI suppliers how it's going to be used internally what are the appropriate uses you know obviously if it's going to be put into a chatbot which is the other example you used what are rules around acceptable use by people who interact with that chatbot as well as how is that chatbot set up in terms of what would be appropriate to use it for. So what are the appropriate use cases? So, you know, guidelines and policies, definitely foremost for that. And within those guidelines and policies, there's also, you know, the other documents that will come along. So terms of use, I mentioned acceptable use, and then guardrails for the chatbot. I mean, I mean, one of the big things for EU AI is human intervention to make sure if there's any anomalies or somebody tries to game it, that there can be intervention. So, Andy, I think that dovetails into the risk management process, if you want to talk a bit more about that.  Andy: Yeah, definitely. I mean, the risk management process in the wider sense, of course, like how do organizations start this at the moment is first setting up teams or you know responsible persons within the organization that take care of this and we're gonna discuss a bit later on how that structure can look like and then of course the policies you mentioned not only regarding the use but also how to or which process to follow when AI is being used or even the question what is AI and how do we at all find out in our organization where we're using AI and what is an AI system as defined under the various laws, also making sure we have a global interpretation of that term. And then that is a step many of our clients are taking at the moment is like setting up an AI inventory. And that's already a very difficult and tough step. And then the next one is then like per AI system that is then coming up in this register is to define the risk management process. And of course, that's the point where in Europe, we look into the AI Act and look what kind of AI system do we have, high risk or any other sort of defined system. Or today, we're talking about the generative AI systems a bit more. For example, there we have strong obligations in the European AI Act on the providers of such generative AI. So less on companies that use generative AI, but more on those that develop and provide the generative AI because they have the deeper knowledge on what kind of training data is being used. They need to document how the AI is working and they need to also register this information with the centralized database in the European Union. They also need to give some information on copyright protected material that is contained in the training data so there is quite some documentation requirements and then of course so logging requirements to make sure the AI is used responsibly and does not trigger higher are risks. So there's also two categories of generative AI that can be qualified. So that's kind of like the risk management process under the European AI Act. And then, of course, organizations also look into risks into other areas, copyright, data protection, and also IT security. Cynthia, I know IT security is one of the topics you love. You add some more on IT security here and then we'll see what Nikki says for the US.  Cynthia: Well, obviously NIST 2.0 is coming into force. It will cover providers of certain digital services. So it's likely to cover providers of AI systems in some way or other. And funny enough, NIST 2.0 has its own risk management process involved. So there's supply chain due diligence involved, which would have to be baked into a risk management process for that. And then the EU's ENISA, Cybersecurity Agency for the EU, has put together a framework for cybersecurity, for AI systems, dot dot binding. But it's certainly a framework that companies can look to in terms of getting ideas for how best to ensure that their use of AI is secure. And then, of course, under NIST, too, the various C-Certs will be putting together various codes and have a network meeting late September. So we may see more come out of the EU on cybersecurity in relation to AI. But obviously, just like any kind of user of AI, they're going to have to ensure that the provider of the AI has ensured that the system itself is secure, including if they're going to be putting trained data into it, which of course is highly probable. I just want to say something about the training data. You mentioned copyright, and there's a difference between the EU and the UK. So in the UK, you cannot use, you know, mine data for commercial purposes. So at one point, the UK was looking at an exception to copyright for that, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. So there is a divergence there, but that stems from historic UK law rather than as a result of the change from Brexit. Nikki, turning back to you again, I mean, we've talked a little bit about risk management. How do you think that that might differ in the US and what kind of documentation might be required there? Or is it a bit looser?  Monique: I think there are actually quite a bit of similarities that I would pull from what, you know, we have in the EU. And Andy, I think this goes back to your question about whether companies can establish a global process, right? In fact, I think it's going to to be really important for companies to see this as a global process as well. Because AI development is going to happen, you know, throughout the world. And it's really going to depend on where it's developed, but also where it's deployed, you know, and where the outputs are deployed. So I think taking a, you know, broader view of risk management will be really important in the the context of AI, particularly given. That the nature of AI is to, you know, process large swaths of information, really on a global scale, in order to make these analytics and creative development and content generation processes faster. So that just a quick aside of I actually think what we're going to see in the US is a lot of pulling from what we've seen that you and a lot more cooperation on that end. I agree that, you know, really starting to frame the risk governance process is looking at who are the key players that need to inform that risk measurement and tolerance analytics, that the decision making in terms of how do you evaluate, how do you inventory. Evaluate, and then determine how to proceed with AI tools. And so, you know, one of the things that I think makes it hopefully a little bit easier is to be able to leverage, you know, from a U.S. Perspective, leverage existing compliance procedures that we have, for example, for SEC compliance or privacy compliance or, you know, other ethics compliance programs. Brands and make AI governance a piece of that, as well as, you know, expand on it. Because I do think that AI governance sort of brings in all of those compliance pieces. We're looking at harms that may exist to a company, not just from personal information, not just from security. Not just from consumer unfair deceptive trade practices, not just from environmental, standpoints, but sort of the very holistic view of not to make this a bigger thing than it is, but kind of everything, right? Kind of every aspect that comes in. And you can see that in some of the questions that developers are supposed to be able to answer or deployers are supposed to be able to answer in risk management programs, like, for example, in Colorado, right, the information that you need to be able to address in a risk management program and an impact assessment really has to demonstrate an understanding of, of the AI system, how it works, how it was built, how it was trained, what data went into it. And then what are the full, what is the full range of harms? So for example, you know, the privacy harms, the environmental harms, the impact on employees, the impact on internal functions, the impact on consumers, if you're using it externally, and really be able to explain that, whether you have to put out a public statement or not, that will depend on the jurisdiction. But even internally, to be able to explain it to your C-suite and make them accountable for the tools that are being brought in, or make it explainable to a regulator if they were to come in and say, well, what did you do to assess this tool and mitigate known risks? So, you know, kind of with that in mind, I'm curious, what steps do you think need to go into a governance program? Like, what are one of the first initial steps? And I always feel that we can sort of start in so many different places, right, depending on how a company is structured, or what initial compliance pieces are. But I'm curious to know from you, like, Like, what would be one of the first steps in beginning the risk management program?  Cynthia: Well, as you said, Nikki, I mean, one of the best things to do is leverage existing governance structures. You know, if we look, for instance, into how the EU is even setting up its public authorities to look at governance, you've got, as I've mentioned, you know, kind of at the outset, you've almost got a multifaceted team approach. And I think it would be the same. I mean, the EU anticipates that there will be an AI officer, but obviously there's got to be team members around that person. There's going to be people with subject matter expertise in data, subject matter expertise in cyber. And then there will be people who have subject matter expertise in relation to the AI system itself, the data, training data that's been used, how it's been developed, how the algorithm works. Whether or not there can be human intervention. What happens if there are anomalies or hallucinations in the data? How can that be fixed? So I would have thought that ultimately part of that implementation is looking at governance structure and then starting from there. And then obviously, I mean, we've talked about some of the things that go into the governance. But, you know, we have clients who are looking first at use case and then going, okay, what are the risks in relation to that use case? How do we document it? How do we log it? How do we ensure that we can meet our transparency and accountability requirements? You know, what other due diligence and other risks are out there that, you know, blue sky thinking that we haven't necessarily thought about. Andy, any?  Andy: Yeah, that's, I would say, one of the first steps. I mean, even though not many organizations allocate now the core AI topic in the data protection department, but rather perhaps in the compliance or IT area, still from the governance process and starting up that structure, we see a lot of similarities to the data protection. Protection GDPR governance structure and so yeah I think back five years to implementation or getting ready for GDPR planning and checking what what other rules we we need to comply with who knew do we need to involve get the plan ready and then work along that plan that's that's the phase where we see many of our clients at the moment. Nikki, more thoughts from your end?  Monique: Yeah, I think those are excellent points. And what I have been talking to clients about is sort of first establishing the basis of measurement, right, that we're going to evaluate AI development on or procurement on. What are the company's internal principles and risk tolerances and defining those? And then based off of those principles and those metrics, putting together an impact assessment, which borrows a lot from what, you know, from what you both said, it borrows a lot from the concept of impact assessments under privacy compliance, right? Right, to implement the right questions and put together the right analytics in order to measure whether a AI tool that's in development is meeting up to those metrics, or something that we are procuring is meeting those metrics, and then analyzing the risks that are coming out of that. I think a lot of that, the impact assessment is going to be really important in helping make those initial determinations. But also, you know, and this is not just my feeling, this is something that is also required in the Colorado law is setting up an impact assessment, and then repeating it annually, which I think is particularly important in the context of AI, especially generative AI, because generative AI is a learning system. So it is going to continue to change, There may be additional modifications that are made in the course of use that is going to require reassessing, is the tool working the way it is intended to be working? You know, what has our monitoring of the tool shown? And, you know, what are the processes we need to put into place? In order to mitigate the tool, you know, going a little bit off path, AI drift, more or less, or, you know, if we start to identify issues within the AI, how do we what processes do we have internally to redirect the ship in the right process. So I think impact assessments are going to be a critical tool in helping form what is the rest of the risk management process that needs to be in place.  Andy: All right. Thank you very much. I think these were a couple of really good practical tips and especially first next steps for our listeners. We hope you enjoyed the session today and look forward if you have any feedback to us either here in the comment boxes or directly to us. And we hope to welcome you soon in one of our next episodes on AI, the law. Thank you very much.  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 established 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.

Reed Smith partners share insights about U.S. Department of Health and Human Services initiatives to stave off misuse of AI in the health care space. Wendell Bartnick and Vicki Tankle discuss a recent executive order that directs HHS to regulate AI's impact on health care data privacy and security and investigate whether AI is contributing to medical errors. They explain how HHS collaborates with non-federal authorities to expand AI-related protections; and how the agency is working to ensure that AI outputs are not discriminatory. Stay tuned as we explore the implications of these regulations and discuss the potential benefits and risks of AI in healthcare.  ----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.  Wendell: Welcome to our new series on AI. Over the coming months, we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, we will focus on AI in healthcare. My name is Wendell Bartnick. I'm a partner in Reed Smith's Houston office. I have a degree in computer science and focused on AI during my studies. Now, I'm a tech and data lawyer representing clients in healthcare, including providers, payers, life sciences, digital health, and tech clients. My practice is a natural fit given all the innovation in this industry. I'm joined by my partner, Vicki Tankle.  Vicki: Hi, everyone. I'm Vicki Tankle, and I'm a digital health and health privacy lawyer based in Reed Smith's Philadelphia office. I've spent the last decade or so supporting health industry clients, including healthcare providers, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, health plans, and technology companies navigate the synergies between healthcare and technology and advising on the unique regulatory risks that are created when technology and innovation far outpace our legal and regulatory frameworks. And we're oftentimes left managing risks in the gray, which as of today, July 30th, 2024, is where we are with AI and healthcare. So when we think about the use of AI in healthcare today, there's a wide variety of AI tools that support the health industry. And among those tools, a broad spectrum of the use of health information, including protected health information, or PHI, regulated by HIPAA, both to improve existing AI tools and to develop new ones. And if we think about the spectrum as measuring the value or importance of the PHI, the individuals individuals identifiers themselves, it may be easier to understand that the far ends of the spectrum and easier to understand the risks at each end. Regulators in the industry have generally categorized use of PHI in AI into two buckets, low risk and high risk. But the middle is more difficult and where there can be greater risk because it's where we find the use or value of PHI in the AI model to be potentially debatable. So on the one hand of the spectrum, for example, the lower risk end, there are AI tools such as natural language processors, where individually identifiable health information is not centric to the AI model. But instead, for this example, it's the handwritten notes of the healthcare professional that the AI model learns from. And with more data and more notes, the tool's recognition of the letters themselves, not the words the letters form, such as patient's name, diagnosis, or lab results, the better the tool operates. Then on the other hand of the spectrum, the higher risk end, there are AI tools such as patient-facing next best action tools that are based on an individual's patient medical history, their reported symptoms, their providers, their prescribed medications, potentially their physiological measurements, or similar information, and they offer real-time customized treatment plans with provider oversight. Provider-facing clinical decision support tools similarly support the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients based on individual's information. And then in the middle of the spectrum, we have tools like hospital logistics planners. So think of tools that think about when the patient was scheduled for an x-ray, when they were transported to the x-ray department, how long did they wait before they got the x-ray, and how long after they received the x-ray were they provided with the results. These tools support population-based activities that relate to improving health or reducing costs, as well as case management and care coordination, which begs the question, do we really need to know that patient's identity for the tool to be useful? Maybe yes, if we also want to know the patient's sex, their date of birth, their diagnosis, date of admission. Otherwise, we may want to consider whether this tool can be done and be effective without that individually identifiable information. What's more is that there's no federal law that applies to the use of regulated health data in AI. HIPAA was first enacted in 1996 to encourage healthcare providers and insurers to move away from paper medical and billing records and to get online. And so when HIPAA has been updated over the years, the law still remains outdated in that it does not contemplate the use of data to develop or improve AI. So we're faced with applying an old statute to new technology and data use. Again, operating in a gray area that's not uncommon in digital health or for our clients. And to that end, there are several strategies that our HIPAA-regulated clients are thinking of when they're thinking of permissible ways to use PHI in the context of AI. So treatment, payment, healthcare operations activities for covered entities, proper management and administration for business associates, certain research activities and individual authorizations, or de-identified information are all strategies that our clients are currently thinking through in terms of permissible uses of PHI in AI. Wendell: So even though HIPAA hasn't been updated to apply directly to AI, that doesn't mean that HHS has ignored it. So AI, as we all know, has been used in healthcare for many years. And in fact, HHS has actually issued some guidance previously. Under the White House's Executive Order 14110, back in the fall of 2023, which was called Safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence, jump-started additional HHS efforts. So I'm going to talk about seven items in that executive order that apply directly to the health industry, and then we'll talk about what HHS has done since this executive order. So first, the executive order requires the promotion of additional investment in AI, and just to help prioritize AI projects, including safety and privacy and security. The executive order also requires that HHS create an AI task force that is supposed to meet and create a strategic plan that covers several topics with AI, including AI-enabled technology, long-term safety and real-world performance monitoring, equity principles, safety, privacy, and security, documentation, state and local rules, and then promotion of workplace efficiency and satisfaction. faction. Third, HHS is required to establish an AI safety program that is supposed to identify and track clinical errors produced by AI and store that in a centralized database for use. And then based on what that database contains, they're supposed to propose recommendations for preventing errors and then avoiding harms from AI. Fourth, the executive order requires that all federal agencies, including HHS, focus on increasing compliance with existing federal law on non-discrimination. Along with that includes education and greater enforcement efforts. Fifth, HHS is required to evaluate the current quality of AI services, and that means developing policies and procedures and infrastructure for overseeing AI quality, including with respect to medical devices. Sixth, HHS is required to develop a strategy for regulating the use of AI in the drug development process. Of course, FDA has already been regulating this space for a while. And then seventh, the executive order actually calls on Congress to pass a federal privacy law. But even without that, HHS's AI task force is including privacy and security, as part of its strategic plan. So given those seven requirements really for HHS to cover, what have they done since the fall of 2023? Well, as the end of July 2024, HHS has created a funding opportunity for applicants to receive money if they develop innovative ways to evaluate and improve the quality of healthcare data used by AI. HHS has also created the AI task force. And many of our clients are asking us, you know, about AI governance. What can they do to mitigate risk from AI? And HHS has, the task force has issued a plan for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments related to privacy, safety, security, bias, and fraud. And even though that applies to the public sector, Our private sector clients should take a look at that so that they know what HHS is thinking in terms of AI governance. Along with this publication, NIST also produces several excellent resources that companies can use to help them with their AI governance journey. Also important is that HHS has recently restructured internally to try to consolidate HHS's ability to regulate technology and areas connected to technology and place that under ONC. And ONC, interestingly enough, has posted job postings for a chief AI officer, a chief technology officer, and a chief data officer. So we would expect that once those roles are filled, they will be highly influential in how HHS looks at AI, both internally and then also externally, and how it will impact the strategic thinking and position of HHS going forward with respect to AI. Our provider and tech clients have also been interested in how AI and what HHS is saying affects certified health IT. And earlier this year, actually, ONC published the HTI-1 rule, which, among other things, is establishes transparency requirements for AI that's offered in connection with certified health IT. And that rule, the compliance deadline for that rule is December 31st of this year. HHS has also been involved in focusing on non-discrimination just as the executive order requires. And so our clients are asking, can they use AI for certain processes and procedures? And in fact, it appears that HHS strongly endorses the use of AI in technology, improving patient outcomes, etc. They've certainly not published anything that says AI should not be used. And in fact, CMS issued a final rule this year and FAQs that clarify that AI can be used to process claims under Medicare Advantage plans, as long as there's human oversight and all other laws are compliant. So there is no indication at all from HHS that using AI is somehow prevented or companies should be worried about using it as long as they comply with existing law. So after the White House executive order in the fall of 2023, HHS has a lot of work to do. They've done some, but there's still a lot to do related to AI. And we should expect more guidance and activity in the second half of 2024.  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.

It's been almost a year since the Houston Police Department overhauled their policy on high spped car chases, but did it make a difference? Plus, parents and students are on edge after threats were made on social media towards schools in Texas and two schools went on lockdown. And, a mall that's beating the odds and celebrating Houston's diversity. Host Raheel Ramzanali is talking about those stories and more with Shannon Ryan, a reporter at ABC-13, to get you ready for this week in H-Town.  Dive deeper into the stories we talked about in today's episode: Houston high-speed police chases drop 35% after Chronicle investigation reveals chronic problem Family and friends demand justice for murdered Missouri City mother: 'What kind of evil?' One month after Marshall Middle School student's death, his family still seeks answers from Houston ISD Sharpstown International, Neff Elementary School placed on lockdown Houston ISD announces increased security following a 'statewide situation' 16-year-old arrested for posting photo on social media about school shooting Galleria's last original solid street sign ring removed Sunday, replaced with modern design Sharpstown Mall opened 63 years ago. After a successful rebranding, it's as popular as ever Learn more about the sponsors of this September 17th episode here: The Moody Center for the Arts Looking for more Houston news? Then sign up for our morning newsletter Hey Houston  Follow us on Instagram  @CityCastHouston Don't have social media? Then leave us a voicemail or text us at +1 713-489-6972 with your thoughts! Have feedback or a show idea? Let us know!  Interested in advertising with City Cast? Let's Talk! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AI-driven autonomous ships raise legal questions, and shipowners need to understand autonomous systems' limitations and potential risks. Reed Smith partners Susan Riitala and Thor Maalouf discuss new kinds of liability for owners of autonomous ships, questions that may occur during transfer of assets, and new opportunities for investors. ----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.  Susan: Welcome to Tech Law Talks and our new series on AI. Over the coming months, we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. And today we will focus on AI in shipping. My name is Susan Riitala. I'm a partner in the asset finance team of the transportation group here in the London office of Reed Smith.  Thor: Hello, I'm Thor Maalouf. I'm also a partner in the transportation group at Reed Smith, focusing on disputes.  Susan: So when we think about how AI might be relevant to shipping, One immediate thing that springs to mind is the development of marine autonomous vessels. So, Thor, please can you explain to everyone exactly what autonomous vessels are?  Thor: Sure. So, according to the International Maritime Organization, the IMO, a maritime autonomous surface ship or MASS is defined as a ship which, to a varying degree, can operate independently of human interaction. Now, that can include using technology to carry out various ship-related functions like navigation, propulsion, steering, and control of machinery, which can include using AI. In terms of real-world developments, at this year's meeting of the IMO's working group on autonomous vessels, which happened last month in June, scientists from the Korean Research Institute outlined their work on the development and testing of intelligent navigation systems for autonomous vessels using AI. That system was called NEEMO. It's undergone simulated and virtual testing, as well as inland water model tests, and it's now being installed on a ship with a view to being tested at sea this summer. Participants in that conference also saw simulated demonstrations from other Korean companies like the familiar Samsung Heavy Industries and Hyundai of systems that they're trialing for autonomous ships, which include autonomous navigation systems using a combination of AI, satellite technology and cameras. And crewless coastal cargo ships are already operating in Norway, and a crewless passenger ferry is already being used in Japan. Now, fundamentally, autonomous devices learn from their surroundings, and they complete tasks without continuous human input. So, this can include simplifying automated tasks on a vessel, or a vessel that can conduct its entire voyage without any human interaction. Now, the IMO has worked on categorizing a spectrum of autonomy using different degrees and levels of automation. So the lowest level still involves some human navigation and operation, and the highest level does not. So for example, the IMO has a degree Degree 1 of autonomy, a ship with just some automated processes and decision support, where there are seafarers on board to operate and control shipboard systems and functions. But there are some operations which can be automated at times and be unsupervised. Now, as that moves up through the degrees, we get to, for example, Degree 3, where you have a remotely controlled ship without seafarers on board the ship. The ship will be controlled and operated from a remote location. All the way up to degree four, the highest level of automation, where you have a fully autonomous ship, where the operating systems of the ship are able to make their own decisions and determine their own actions without human interaction. action.  Susan: Okay, so it seems like from what you said, there are potentially a number of legal challenges that could arise from the increased use of autonomy in shipping. So for example, how might the concept of seaworthiness apply to autonomous vessels, especially ones where you have no crew on board?  Thor: Yeah, that's an interesting question. So the requirement for seaworthiness is generally met when a vessel's properly constructed, prepared, manned and equipped for the voyage that's intended. Now, in the case of autonomous vessels, they're not going to be able to. The kind of query turns to how a shipowner can actually warrant that a vessel is properly manned for the intended voyage where some systems are automated. What standard of autonomous or AI-assisted watchkeeping setup could be sufficient to qualify as having excised due diligence? A consideration is of course whether responsibility for seaworthiness could actually be shifted from the shipowner to the manufacturer of the automated functions or or the programmer of the software of the automated functions on board the vessel as you're aware the concept of seaworthiness is one of many warranties that's regularly incorporated in contracts for the use of ships and for carriage of cargo. And a ship owner can be liable for the damage that results if there's an incident before which the ship owner has failed to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy. And this, in English law, is judged by the standard of what level of diligence would be reasonable for a reasonably prudent ship owner. That's true even if there has been a subsequent nautical fault on board. But how much oversight and knowledge of workings of an autonomous or AI-driven system could a prudent ship owner actually have? I mean, are they expected to be a software or AI expert? Under the existing English law on unseaworthiness, a shipowner or a carrier might not be responsible for faults made by an independent contractor before the ship came into their possession or before it came into their orbit. So potentially faults made during the shipbuilding process. So to what extent could any faults in an AI or autonomous system be treated in that way? Perhaps a ship owner or carrier could claim a defect in an autonomous system came about before the vessel came into their orbit and therefore they're potentially not responsible for subsequent unseaworthiness or incidents that result. There's also typically an exception to a ship owner's liability for navigational faults on board the vessel if that vessel has passed a seaworthiness test. But if certain crew and management functions have been replaced by autonomous AI systems on board, how could we assess whether there's or not there has actually been a navigational fault for which the owners might escape liability or pre-existing issue of unseaworthiness, so a pre-existing hardware or software glitch? This opens up a whole new line of inquiry as to at what might have happened behind the software code or the protocols of the autonomous system on board and the legal issues of responsibility of the ship owner and the subsequent applicable liability for any incidents which might have been caused by unseaworthiness are going to involve a significant legal inquiry and in new areas where it comes to autonomous vessels.  Susan: Sounds very interesting. And I guess that makes me think of, I guess, a wider issue that crewing is only part of, which would be standards and regulations relating to autonomous vessels. And obviously, as a finance lawyer, that would be something my clients will be particularly interested in, in terms of what standards are there in place so far for autonomous vessels and what regulation can we expect in the future?  Thor: Sure. Well, the answer is at the moment, there's not very much. So as I've mentioned already, the IMO has established a working group on autonomous vessels. And the aim of that IMO working group is to adopt a non-mandatory goal-based code for autonomous vessels, the MASS code, which will aim to be in place by 2025. But like I said, that will be non-mandatory, and that will then form the basis for what's intended to be a mandatory MASS Code, which is expected to come into force on the 1st of January 2028. Now, the MASS Code working group last met in May of this year. And it reports on a number of recommendations for inclusion in the initial voluntary MASS Code. Interestingly, one of those recommendations was for all autonomous vessels, so even the fully autonomous degree four vessels, to have a human being, a person in charge designated as the master even if that person is remote at all times so that may rule out a fully autonomous non-supervised vessel from being compliant with the code. So mandatory standards still very much under develop in development and not currently in force until 2028 at the moment that doesn't mean to say there won't be national regulations or flag regulations covering those vessels before then.  Susan: Right. And then I guess another area there would be insurance. I mean, what happens if something happens to a vessel? I mean, I'm looking at it from a financial perspective, of course, but obviously for ship owners as well, insurance will be the key source of recovery. So what kinds of insurance products would already be available for autonomous vessels?  Thor: Well, good to know that some of the insurers are already offering products covering autonomous vessels. So just having Googled what's available the other day, I bumped into Ship Owners Club, which holds entries for between 50 and 80 autonomous vessels under their All Risks P&I cover. And it seems that Guard is also providing hull and machinery and P&I cover for autonomous vessels. And I can see that their industry is definitely taking steps to get to grips with cover for autonomous vessels. So hull and P&I cover is definitely out there. So we've covered some of the legal challenges and insurance and what autonomous vessels are. I wonder, Susan, what other more specific challenges people interested in financing autonomous vessels might face?  Susan: Sure. Yeah. So, I mean, I guess I'll preface that by saying that I'm an asset finance lawyer. So instinctively, when I think about financing autonomous vessels, I'm thinking about the assets itself. So either financing the construction or the acquisitions of of the vessel. But in terms of autonomous vessels in particular, there are boundless investment opportunities beyond just the vessel itself, you know, on the financing, some of the research and development, some of the corporate finance of the companies designing and building those vessels, and the technology used to operate them. So there's, I imagine, a vast opportunity here for an investor who's keen to get involved. From a commercial perspective, autonomous vessels are pretty new. They're pretty untested. Obviously, you've talked a lot about the fact that a lot of the regulation isn't really completely there yet. There's a lot of development still to come. So it takes quite a brave investor to put funding into it. And so far, at least, the return on investment is a bit uncertain. It's not like investing in a tanker or a bulk carrier where you've got a known market. Everyone knows what the problems are. Everyone knows what the risks are, how to mitigate them. So in a lot of ways, this is all still very, very new, both for the owners and for the finances. But investors are very interested in sustainability solutions. They're interested in what the next big thing is. So I imagine that the autonomous ships are quite likely to appeal with potentially better safety records, being more sustainable. That in turn would then make the asset better value for the investors and less likely to result in insurance claims or reputational damage resulting from incidents and that sort of thing. From a legal perspective, it doesn't immediately seem that there would be a huge difference in taking a mortgage over an autonomous ship versus a manned one. But then it becomes a bit more complicated if we start to think about enforcing that mortgage. So in the traditional way to enforce a mortgage, the mortgagee will arrest the vessel in a suitable port. Depending on where the vessel is, the lender may need to instruct the borrower or the manager to sail the vessel to a suitable port. And if the borrower fails to do this, the lender can become a mortgagee in possession, take over the ship, sail it into a friendly port and apply for traditional sale. But how are you going to do that if you can't just go on board and say to the master, hey, I've arrested this ship, I'm going to take over now. And thinking about, for example, the degree three vessels where you'd have a remote operator redirecting the ship, what happens? Presumably the mortgagee would have to go to them and say we'd like you to redirect this vessel what if they refuse can the lender take over can they override the autonomous system or the remote operation would they have to. Would there be cybersecurity issues, issues with password and access and things like that? I mean, these are all kind of big questions at the moment that no one's tried to do this yet. So it isn't really clear how all of this would fit in with the existing law on the rights of a mortgagee in possession, which is a very well-tested legal concept, but it does assume physical control of the ship, which is not as obvious in an autonomous scenario as it would otherwise be. And a conducted issue to that would be, what I already mentioned, is kind of the absence of a clear market, and this would be relevant in the context of a judicial sale. So at least at the outset, valuing autonomous vessels could be a bit difficult. And until there's a clearly defined secondhand market, it might be difficult to lend us to determine whether it's even worth enforcing in terms of the potential return they would get, because it's difficult to analyze how much you might be able to get for the vessel. Not aware of any cases where someone has tried to do this. So the existing law will definitely need to develop and it's going to be very interesting times as we navigate these changes in the market in relation to autonomous vessels.  Thor: Yeah, I can see that autonomy definitely throws up a whole bunch of issues for financing.  Susan: Definitely. I mean, at the moment, we don't entirely know all the answers, but we're definitely looking forward to finding out.  Thor: Right.  Susan: Thank you so much for joining us for our AI podcast today.  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.

In this episode, we consider how to be our authentic selves in the workplace. Joining Clare Sutton, Reed Smith's EMEA DEI coordinator and Multicultural Network (MCN) co-chair, are three of the MCN's esteemed members: Dashni Khimji, Saiya Guo and Arlington Todman. The team delves into shared experiences and insights on being your true self while remaining professional at work. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith podcast, Inclusivity Included, Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions and challenges, past and present, all with the goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included.  Clare: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Inclusivity Included. My name is Clare Sutton, and I am DEI coordinator for EMEA. I also co-chair ReadSmith's Multicultural Network. Today we have a very special episode discussing authenticity and being your authentic self in the workplace. I'm really excited to be joined by three MCN colleagues, Dashni Khimji, an associate in our real estate group, Saiya Guo, an associate in our global corporate group, and Arlington Todman, a desktop support specialist in our IT team. So thank you to everyone for joining me today. I'd like to ask you one by one to share a little bit about yourselves and your background, starting with Dashni please.  Dashni: Hi Clare thanks for having me as always. I joined Reed Smith back in 2015 as a paralegal. I think it was in the real estate group. It feels like it was such a long time ago now and I've since actually qualified into the group. It's definitely been a bit of a journey for me and so I'm actually looking forward to having some real and raw discussions questions on authenticity.  Clare: Okay, and Arlington?  Arlington: Good morning, everyone. Morning, Clare. Thanks for having me as well. I'm in IT. I've joined Reed Smith in 2023. I love it here. I've been doing computer for 35 years, and I just like the chance to, you know, share some of my technical knowledge with the staff and the people and everyone listening.  Clare: Thank you, Arlington. And Saiya.  Saiya: Hi everybody, I'm Saiya. I'm originally from New Zealand and I joined Reed Smith around the end of '22, start of '23, so it's been about 18 months now.  Clare: Brilliant, thank you all for sharing. So let's get started. So we often show the more professional side of our personalities, a more polished version of ourselves. Instead of bringing our whole selves to work, we bring a different version. So Arlington, what does it mean to you to bring your true self to work?  Arlington: Well, it means to be able to, when I come to work, to speak to my colleagues as the same way I would speak to my family in a nice manner. Sometimes, you know, we get upset, but I let that, I try to let that fly. And what I do is I take the instances that I have with the team members here and the users and I actually just try to make it work and seem like it's friendly, common, and normal. As far as my original self, I try to be soft-spoken, don't get too angry, and I just let it flow.  Clare: Thank you. And Saiya?  Saiya: I think it means when you think about bringing your true self to work, it means that you're not putting on a different persona or that you don't feel like you need to be an entirely different person for work. I think you can just feel a bit more relaxed that you can feel yourself when you're at work.  Dashni: Yeah, I sort of echo that as well. So to me, bringing your true self to work, you know, it goes beyond just trying to be your best in a professional environment. It's all about staying true to who you are and openly sharing all of your strengths and that that's what makes you who you are but I think a huge part of bringing your true self to work requires a lot of self-discovery and accepting who you actually are as a person so I echo what's already been said by Saiya and Arlington so if you're not bringing your true self to work you're almost masking who you are which can lead to a lot of confusion and wasted energy so I think bringing your true self to work provides a means to really succeed. It allows you to reach your true potential and feel safe enough to really be challenged. And I guess bouncing off from that, Clare, I actually have a question for you. What do you feel are the benefits of bringing your whole self to work and why does that matter?  Clare: Oh, great question, Dashni. Thank you. So for me, there are several benefits to being your authentic self, especially in the workplace. place. And I'll just run through the top six that kind of work for me. So trust and respect. And that's like trusting the judgments and the decisions that you make, because that means others will trust and respect you in return because you're standing by your actual values and your beliefs. Integrity is another big one you know just doing the right thing um so you never have to second guess yourself then the ability to deal with problems is uh having the strength and the openness to deal with issues quickly instead of procrastinating you know i kind of find that once i start doing that i don't actually focus on what it is that i want to say or you know how i want to project myself realizing your potential is another big one so for me that's trusting yourself and doing what you know is right instead of letting others dictate what's best for you having confidence and self-esteem which means that you can trust yourself to make the right decisions when you're being genuine and doing the right thing which in turn leads on to a higher self-confidence and higher self-esteem and then lastly just having less stress. Just imagine the happiness and the self-respect you'd feel every day if you said what you meant and stay true to yourself being authentic to yourself is a lot less stressful than being someone you're not. And that kind of leads me me back to what you guys were saying previously so for me bringing my true self to work means leveraging my unique perspectives and experiences for my personal and professional growth. It's about being brave enough to be yourself and align who I am and by that I mean my personality my values and my emotions what I do my competencies and what I do well and then what I project so how I show myself to others that's very very important to me and I don't think that means that you have have to give everyone you know. Your personal details your family life you know what you do every weekend but. I do think it means that you behave in the same way as. You do at home so you don't create a different persona when you're in the office you should always be the same in the office as you are at home. So authenticity to me means being genuine and real but in the workplace we often feel like we have to hide our true selves or we tell ourselves that we need to act a certain way or say things to colleagues so that we fit in, even if it goes against how we actually do feel. So being someone that you're not is effectively telling yourself that who you really are isn't okay, which can make us feel lonely or disconnected from others.  Dashni: Yeah, just to weigh in there. I think I read recently about this concept of masking. So many people put on this mask at work, don't they? And they try and put on this persona of an acceptable character. And it's mostly to just try and fit in. and I remember during my training contract and actually you know shortly after when I qualified, I felt as though I couldn't be myself if I wanted to succeed in this legal world so this this actually took a huge toll on me where I actually became quite reserved I was constantly comparing myself to others and I felt this great deal of anxiety and actually in turn this actually halted my performance at work and it became a barrier. And it was actually a barrier that I created myself. So I think you know when it comes to being your authentic self it's all about self discovery you know that that's a huge thing we're all constantly learning and constantly working out how to unmask but when I discovered who I was and I started putting all of my energy into that instead I ended up you know bringing my true self to work and it almost felt like a great deal of relief. I became slightly more confident and more accepting of feedback and I started to really to excel in my role.  Saiya: No, I think it's true. And I think it goes to that concept of kind of the amount of energy that you would put into masking and also what Clare said about less stress. And I think unless you actually see the difference between when you're doing it and when you're not, you don't realize how much energy that you've actually put into doing it and how much that energy can be used into other things.  Arlington: And going off of what Saiya said, it's the amount of energy that you dedicate to trying to mask and pretend to be someone for everyone else, when in turn, you're not being true to yourself. You're not being authentic. And that, to me, that's difficult. But I try to do my best to be authentic in many given situations.  Clare: Have you kind of come across any situations where you were made to maybe change your natural authenticity and and how did you actually deal with that on the spot? Because sometimes something could come up and you may not actually realize that it's happened and then you walk away and suddenly think oh hold on a minute I've actually changed who I am just to be that other person. Have you ever had any kind of situations like that and what did you do to kind of get past it? How did it make you feel?  Arlington: Well, I have a technician in my office and he's actually been here 25 years. And some of the things that he instructs me about, it sort of gets under my skin because of the way he speaks to people. And whenever I have any interaction with him, I find myself just being absolutely quiet, listening to his instructions and just doing things, whatever he tells me. And I got home this weekend. And I said to myself, wow, whenever I get around him, I just automatically shut down, listen to what he says, do it. And I said, no. So when I changed, I just started listening to him, responding to him, conversing with him. And now all this week, I find myself doing everything that he had suggested that I do, even when he's not around. And I find myself in a better spot for my work that I do. And it's thanks to him a little bit. So I've learned to take his suggestions with ease as opposed to being rubbed the wrong way when he speaks to me and thereby acting a certain way instead of just being my natural self. And it's actually, like I said, it's benefited me a lot. And I have him to thank for that.  Clare: Saiya, did you have any comments?  Saiya: Yes, I think in terms of kind of situations, I suppose it's not so much a specific situation that I'm kind of thinking about. But I think it's a general tendency, right, that if you're, let's say if you're in a group and you happen to be the odd one out or everybody else in the group is, you know, just from, you know, whatever common factor there is in a certain group, I think there's a natural tendency to try to adapt, to try to fit in. And sometimes you don't realize you're doing it consciously. It's almost unconscious. But then something might jolt you out a bit and you realize, hold on, I've actually gradually and gradually just moved so far towards fitting in that I've actually lost track of actually this is not really who I am or I'm more than this aspect of my personality that I show in this group. And you realize you've kind of drifted away from what was in your whole self.  Dashni: Yeah. Yeah, and quite similar, you know, so when I was a paralegal, it's almost like you have this vision of what it's like to be a lawyer. And what you're trying to do is fit into this vision rather than bring your true self. And I think I struggled with that quite a lot, where it was like, it's such a traditional industry, isn't it, where you have to behave and act in a certain way. And that's what the clients expect. And that's almost what's expected of you in the workplace afterwards. And I think it is going back onto that whole concept of unmasking. It's about, you know, believing in who you are, your core values and trying to adjust them to the legal industry and also who the audience is. So, yeah, those are my thoughts on that.  Clare: You're also right. It's so difficult trying to navigate that and, you know, not lose your cool, I guess, but still be happy with the way that you're acting, what you're saying. It's a difficult process a difficult juggling act so i completely agree with what you've all said um so i guess what we're all saying is authenticity at work is facilitated when we share core values with our colleagues you know the more that we embrace our true self is the more our peers will do the same which can create a positive work environment. It's not morally or ethically important but it's practical strategic because it leads to better relationships increased innovation, and more robust and thriving workspaces and communities. So I'd just like to share a quote with you all from Dr. Brené Brown, who is a research professor at the University of Houston. And she states, authenticity is the daily practice of letting go of who we think we're supposed to be and embracing who we are. I believe that authenticity can mean different things to different people. But in general, it refers to the ability to live by our values speaking our truth with assertiveness and developing the courage to allow our true selves to be seen. How do you think people can foster a more authentic and inclusive environment of work? And I'll direct that one to Dashni first.  Dashni: Thanks Clare, for me I think the key lies in really knowing who you are and I you know I've echoed that elsewhere it's almost a journey of self-discovery um which isn't an easy one for anyone really. I guess you must really know who you are. You must learn your own strengths and weaknesses and work out where you actually add value. In a way, it's all about integrating your genuine self with the role that you play at work to create this harmonious and productive environment where you're really able to excel.  Clare: And Arlington, do you have any thoughts?  Arlington: Well, being my authentic self at work, again, I'm in IT. So to me, it's difficult because I don't socialize with a lot of people here at work. We just get up to deal with machines and everything else. So I guess being my authentic self, I just love being able to fix the machines and just chat whenever I can with attorneys, paralegals, and other staff members and try to be realistic as opposed to trying to be someone that I'm not.  Clare: And Saiya?  Saiya: I think it's helped to have lots of role models at work and in the workplace so that you can see that there are different ways of being your authentic self or there are different ways to practice law, to be a leader, all those different kind of things. And I think it's helpful to be able to see that and realize, no, you don't have to mold yourself in one certain way.  Dashni: And I think what I actually quite like now is how diverse most law firms are now becoming. So when you look at a law firm page, you're now seeing all of these faces, faces that look like you, which, you know, 10 to 15 years ago, you didn't usually see. So I kind of echo the role model concept. I think it really helps.  Clare: Yeah, I think business inclusion groups can be very important as well to help you be more authentic. You know, especially if you've got one that, as we all know, if you offer food, everyone's happy. Everyone gets involved.  Dashni: Was that aimed at me?  Clare: Ah slightly you know everyone has fun and it allows you to be more open and honest with the people around you which you know then in turn you know people see that when you're acting like yourself more they probably get to understand you a bit more because you're more open to speaking you know about your backgrounds even down to the foods you eat, your kind of cultures and your traditions and things like that so yeah I agree with all of you with what you're saying there. So while it's important to be authentic at work, some organizations do have different cultures when it comes to how much personal expression is encouraged or accepted at work. Some companies may ask for a formal and reserved atmosphere, whereas others encourage employees to bring their whole selves to work. For me, balancing authenticity and professionalism at work is important. No matter what your culture, I do think we should maintain professionalism, respect the company's policies and align our actions with job responsibilities. Authenticity should be exercised with discretion respecting personal and professional boundaries and being mindful of our colleagues privacy but I do think that showing up totally unfiltered could go down downhill very quickly but also if you hide your true self you might miss out on fostering the kind of relationships that can fulfill your life and your career so how much of ourselves do you think we should really bring?  Arlington: I believe we should at least bring 75% of our whole selves. I believe if we come with less than 75%, we're only giving a percentage of what our job is, what our roles are, what our colleagues are. And then we're just not being who we are or true to ourselves. And again, I usually have a lot to say, but it comes out more in written form. I don't speak as much. That's another thing here. So I'll leave it at that.  Clare: Arlington that's great because you're being your authentic self and that's all we can ask for. Dashni do you have any thoughts on that?  Dashni: I think I do echo what you said you know we're in a professional environment you're you're acting for clients and I think while it's important to sort of foster that and bring out your true self you have to sort of maintain some professional boundaries because I think it's quite a new concept isn't it? And it's quite revolutionary in that sense.  Clare: Saiya?  Saiya: I think the true self, it doesn't have to be a static kind of thing. You can be your true self in different environments. Just because you need to be professional at work doesn't mean that you can't be your true self. I think there's different ways of expressing it. And I think it's about having the freedom or feeling that you have the flexibility to be your own version of what professionalism means within certain boundaries, within certain requirements. I think that it's just the fact that it's not one static fixed very rigid idea of what you need to be at work what you need to be in any certain environment.  Clare: Brilliant thank you and so I'll ask you all what can we do to bring our whole self to work as as a firm as a collective. What do you think we could do to show ourselves more who we are without I guess you know kind of stepping on boundaries?  Dashni: I guess i've sort of echoed it again throughout and that's that's you know to sort of enjoy this this whole self-discovery journey and you know start embracing journaling and start really enjoying to work out who your true self is and i think once you do that um you will start bringing your true self to work.  Arlington: And just be more relaxed around others and and just let's have everyone enjoy our life. Just like Siaya said, it doesn't have to be in one specific dimension. It could just be overall. We could laugh and joke, yet have to maintain a level of professionalism.  Saiya: Maybe some of it comes down to your mindset as well, or it's internally giving yourself permission to bring your whole self to work or your true self to work and just trying that and just seeing what that's like.  Clare: It's just taking, you know, one small step at a time towards a bit of change. I like that idea about mindset. It's very difficult to, you know, keep inside yourself how much. I mean, like for myself, sometimes I struggle. I can give you an example, actually. So I've been in the new office and sitting with a new team now. I'm sitting with people that have never actually worked with me before. So they don't actually know who I am apart from who I normally project. Whereas now they see me more often. So, you know, my personality comes out. I probably laugh a lot more. I can be very loud sometimes when I get very excitable. I've said some really silly things that make me giggle and I've had some very funny looks with my team now so they never knew that about me before but I feel comfortable enough now that I'm in a space where I can do that I'm not going to be judged and and people will laugh along with me. So like on the back of that do you have any tips to be more authentic in the office? Can you think of any way that we can tell our listeners you know how to just not be frightened and to be brave?  Dashni: I guess it's more about recognizing when you're not being real. So stop telling yourselves how we should behave at work and, you know, just start opening up a little.  Saiya: I think it would be just along the lines of what everybody else has similarly said. You know, just kind of being open, giving a go, being brave about being your true self.  Arlington: I have to agree as well. You know, just relax, enjoy yourself and just take things as they come.  Clare: I love that. I love your honesty, all of you. For me, I guess the tips I would give are, they echo, basically. So, you know, working out who your true self is, you know, who you are, who you stand for, what you truly want out of your work life, and reconnecting with what's really important, you know, to ourselves, i.e. our values, our strengths, and our unique value. And recognizing, as Dashni said, when you're not being real, take small steps to open up. I think most importantly is setting clear boundaries, because your values always give clues as to what's important. So we should do what we can to protect those for ourselves, because if we allow behaviors that we deem to be unacceptable to go unchecked, then we're probably giving off a signal to others that their actions are okay. But by calmly and explaining how actions make us feel clarifies what your boundaries are whilst being true to your authentic self. And I think pushing for a broader cultural change because when we feel empowered to share our true selves and opinions at work with no fear of reprimand a culture of psychological safety then occurs and it just means that we all feel happy to open up and just be true. And finally this is to all three of you you've achieved so much in your careers so if you could what piece piece of advice would you give your younger self now that you have further awareness of what authenticity means to you?  Dashni: Yeah I guess I'd probably tell her to stop being afraid that she is good enough and to accept the help like it's okay to accept help sometimes and advice from your mentor's.  Saiya: I would say just relax a lot more. I think we don't realize how many thoughts go into our head about this is what we should do or what we should be. And a lot of those actually don't turn out to be relevant in the long run.  Arlington: I have to agree with both of them. But I would also say just take things as they come, challenge them, accept them, and don't try to push away or hide away from certain situations. Let them come. And just like Saiya said, a lot of those instances that we think about really don't happen and they really take no part anyway. They just take up room in our mentality. That's it.  Clare: Yeah, I kind of agree with you that it takes up a lot of space in the mind and creates a lot of worry and anxiety, which, as you say, probably isn't even there. Usually by the time you've said something to someone, you know, everything's dissipated. You can get on with life again and, you know, everyone's happy and it's all great. I completely agree with everything you've all said. So thank you all so much. It's been an absolute pleasure speaking with you all today. And thank you again, just for being so honest and truthful with your answers. Thank you, Dashni, Saiya and Arlington for sharing your insights and thoughts with us today. And thank you to our listeners for tuning into our Inclusivity Included podcast. Until the next time, enjoy the rest of your day.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. 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.

Reed Smith partners Howard Womersley Smith and Bryan Tan with AI Verify community manager Harish Pillay discuss why transparency and explain-ability in AI solutions are essential, especially for clients who will not accept a “black box” explanation. Subscribers to AI models claiming to be “open source” may be disappointed to learn the model had proprietary material mixed in, which might cause issues. The session describes a growing effort to learn how to track and understand the inputs used in AI systems training. ----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.  Bryan: Welcome to Tech Law Talks and our new series on artificial intelligence. Over the coming months, we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. My name is Bryan Tan and I'm a partner at Reed Smith Singapore. Today we will focus on AI and open source software.  Howard: My name is Howard Womersley Smith. I'm a partner in the Emerging Technologies team of Reed Smith in London and New York. And I'm very pleased to be in this podcast today with Bryan and Harish.  Bryan: Great. And so today we have with us Mr. Harish Pillay. And before we start, I'm going to just ask Harish to tell us a little bit, well, not really a little bit, because he's done a lot about himself and how he got here.  Harish: Well, thanks, Bryan. Thanks, Howard. My name is Harish Pillay. I'm based here in Singapore, and I've been in the tech space for over 30 years. And I did a lot of things primarily in the open source world, both open source software, as well as in the hardware design and so on. So I've covered the spectrum. When I was way back in the graduate school, I did things in AI and chip design. That was in the late 1980s. And there was not much from an AI point of view that I could do then. It was the second winter for AI. But in the last few years, there was the resurgence in AI and the technologies and the opportunities that can happen with the newer ways of doing things with AI make a lot more sense. So now I'm part of an organization here in Singapore known as AI Verify Foundation. It is a non-profit open-source software foundation that was set up about a year ago to provide tools, software testing tools, to test AI solutions that people may be creating to understand whether those tools are fair, are unbiased, are transparent. There's about 11 criteria it tests against. So both traditional AI types of solutions as well as generative AI solutions. So these are the two open source projects that are globally available for anyone to participate in. So that's currently what I'm doing.  Bryan: Wow, that's really fascinating. Would you say, Harish, that kind of your experience over the, I guess, the three decades with the open source movement, with the whole Linux user groups, has that kind of culminated in this place where now there's an opportunity to kind of shape the development of AI in an open-source context?  Harish: I think we need to put some parameters around it as well. The AI that we talk about today could never have happened if it's not for open-source tools. That is plain and simple. So things like TensorFlow and all the tooling that goes around in trying to do the model building and so on and so forth could not have happened without open source tools and libraries, a Python library and a whole slew of other tools. If these were all dependent on non-open source solutions, we will still be talking about one fine day something is going to happen. So it's a given that that's the baseline. Now, what we need to do is to get this to the next level of understanding as to what does it mean when you say it's open source and artificial intelligence or open source AI, for that matter. Because now we have a different problem that we are trying to grapple with. The problem we're trying to grapple with is the definition of what is open-source AI. We understand open-source from a software point of view, from a hardware point of view. We understand that I have access to the code, I have access to the chip designs, and so on and so forth. No questions there. It's very clear to understand. But when you talk about generative AI as a specific instance of open-source AI, I can have access to the models. I can have access to the weights. I can do those kinds of stuff. But what was it that made those models become the models? Where were the data from? What's the data? What's the provenance of the data? Are these data openly available? Or are they hidden away somewhere? Understandably, we have a huge problem because in order to train the kind of models we're training today, it takes a significant amount of data and computing power to train the models. The average software developer does not have the resources to do that, like what we could do with a Linux environment or Apache or Firefox or anything like that. So there is this problem. So the question still comes back to is, what is open source AI? So the open source initiative, OSI, is now in the process of formulating what does it mean to have open source AI. The challenge we find today is that because of the success of open source in every sector of the industry, you find a lot of organizations now bending around and throwing around the label, our stuff is open source, our stuff is open source, when it is not. And they are conveniently using it as a means to gain attention and so on. No one is going to come and say, hey, do you have a proprietary tool? Adding that ship has sailed. It's not going to happen anymore. But the moment you say, oh, we have an open source fancy tool, oh, everybody wants to come and talk to you. But the way they craft that open source message is actually quite sadly disingenuous because they are putting restrictions on what you can actually do. It is contrary completely to what the open-source licensing says in open-source initiative. I'll pause there for a while because I threw a lot of stuff at you.  Bryan: No, no, no. That's a lot to unpack here, right? And there's a term I learned last week, and it's called AI washing. And that's where people try to bandy the terms, throw it together. It ends up representing something it's not. But that's fascinating. I think you talked a little bit about being able to see what's behind the AI. And I think that's kind of part of those 11 criteria that you talked about. I think auditability, transparency would be kind of one of those things. I think we're beginning to go into some of the challenges, kind of pitfalls that we need to look out for. But I'm going to just put a pause on that and I'm going to ask Howard to jump in with some questions on his phone. I think he's got some interesting questions for you also.  Howard: Yeah, thank you, Bryan. So, Harris, you spoke about the open source initiative, which we're very familiar with, and particularly the kind of guardrails that they're putting around what open source should be applied to AI systems. You've got a separate foundation. What's your view on where open source should feature in AI systems?  Harish: It's exactly the same as what OSI says. We are making no difference because the moment you make a distinction, then you bifurcate or you completely fragment the entire industry. You need to have a single perspective and a perspective that everybody buys into. It is a hard sell currently because not everybody agrees to the various components inside there, but there is good reasoning for some of the challenges. But at the same time, if that conversation doesn't happen, we have a problem. But from AI Verify Foundation perspective, it is our code that we make. Our code, interestingly, it's not an AI tool. It is a testing tool. It is written purely to test AI solutions. And it's on an Apache license. This is a no-brainer type of licensing perspective. It's not an AI solution in and of itself. It's just taking an input, run through the test, and spit out an output, and Mr. Developer, take that and do what you want with it.  Howard: Yeah, thank you for that. And what about your view on open source training data? I mean, that is really a bone of contention.  Harish: That is really where the problem comes in because I think we do have some open source trading data, like the Common Crawl data and a whole slew of different components there. So as long as you stick to those that have been publicly available and you then train your models based on that, or you take models that were trained based on that, I think we don't have any contention or any issue at the end of the day. You do whatever you want with it. The challenge happens when you mix the trading data, whether it was originally Common Crawl or any of the, you know, creative license content, and you mix it with non-licensed or licensed under proprietary stuff with no permission, and you mix it up, then we have a problem. And this is actually an issue that we have to collectively come to an agreement as to how to handle it. Now, should it be done on a two-tier basis? Should it be done with different nuances behind it? This is still a discussion that is ongoing, constantly ongoing. And OSI is taking the mother load of the weight to make this happen. And it's not an easy conversation to have because there's many perspectives.  Bryan: Yeah, thank you, for that. So, Harish, just coming back to some of the other challenges that we see, what kind of challenges do you foresee the continued development of open source with AI we'll see in the near future you've already said we've encountered some of them some of the the problems are really kind of in the sense a man-made because we're a lot of us rushing into it what kind of challenges do you see coming up the road soon.  Harish: I think the, part of the the challenge you know it's an ongoing thing part of the challenge is not enough people understand this black box called the foundational model. They don't know how that thing actually works. Now, there is a lot of effort that is going into that space. Now, this is a man-made artifact. This piece of software that you put in something and you get something out or get this model to go and look at a bunch of files and then fine-tune against those files. And then you query the model, and then you get your answer back, a rag for that matter. It is a great way of doing it. Now, the challenge, again, goes back to because people are finding it hard to understand, how does this black box do what it does? Now, let's step back and say, okay, has physics and chemistry and anything in science solved some of these problems before? We do have some solutions that we think that make sense to look at. One of them is known as, well, it's called Computational Fluid Dynamics, CFD. CFD is used, for example, if you want to do a fluid analysis or flow analysis over the wing of an aircraft to see where the turbulences are. This is all well understood, mathematically sound. You can model it. You can do all kinds of stuff with it. You can do the same thing with cloud formation. You can do the same thing with water flow and laminar flow and so on and so forth. There's a lot of work that's already been done over decades. So the thinking now is, can we now take those same ideas that has been around for a long time and we have understood them and try and see if we can apply this into what happens in a foundational model. And one of the ideas that's being worked on is something called PINN, which stands for Physics Informed Neural Networks. So using physics, standard physics, to figure out how does this model actually work. Now, once you have those things working, then it becomes a lot more clearer. And I would hazard a guess that within the next 18 to 24 months, we'll have a far clearer understanding of what is it inside that black box that we call the foundational model. With all these known ways of solving problems that, you know, who knew we could figure out how water flows or how, who knew we could figure out how, you know, the air turbulence happens over a wing of a plane. We figured it out. We have the math behind it. So that's where I feel that we are solving some of these problems step by step.  Bryan: And look, I take your point that we all need to try to understand this. And I think you're right. That is the biggest challenge that we all face. Again, when it's all coming thick and fast at you, that becomes a bigger challenge. Before I kind of go into my last question, Howard, any further questions for Harish?  Howard: I think what Harish just came up with in terms of the explanation of how the models actually operate is really the killer question that everybody is poised with the work the type of work that I do is on the procurement of technology for financial sector clients and when they want to understand when procuring AI what the model does it they often receive the answer that it is a black box and not explainable which kind of defies the logic of what their experience is in terms of deterministic software you know if this then that you know ] find it very difficult to get their head around the answer being a black box box methodology and often ask you know what why can't you just reverse engineer the logic and plot a point back from the answer as a breadcrumb trail to the input? Have you got any views on that sort of question from our clients?  Harish: Yeah, there's plenty of opportunities to do that kind of work. Not necessarily going back from a breadcrumb perspective, but using the example of the PINN, Physics Informed Neuro Networks. Not all of them can explain stuff today. We have to, no one, an organization and a CIO who is worth their weight in gold should ever agree to an AI solution that they cannot explain. If they cannot explain, you are asking for trouble. So that is a starting point. So don't go down the path just because your neighbor is doing that. That is being very silly from my perspective. So if we want to solve this problem, we have to collectively figure out what to do. So I give you another example of an organization called KWAAI.ai. They are a nonprofit based in California, and they are trying to build a personal AI solution. And it's all open source, 100%. And they are trying really, really hard to explain how is it that these things work. And so this is an open source project that people can participate in if they choose to and understand more and at some point some of these things will become available as model for any other solution to be tested against so so and then let me then come back to what the verify foundation does we have two sets of tools that we have created one is to create One is called AI Verified Toolkit. What it does is if you have your application you're developing that you claim is an AI solution, great. Now, what I want you to do is, Mr. Developer, put this as part of your tool chain, your CICD cycle. When you do that, what happens, you change some stuff in your code. Then you run this through this toolkit, and the toolkit will spit out a bunch of reports. Now, in the report, it will tell you whether it is biased, unbiased, is it fair, unfair, is it transparent, a whole bunch of things it spits out. Then you, Mr. Developer, make a call and say, oh, is that right or is that wrong? If it's wrong, we'll fix it before you actually deploy it. And so this is a cycle that has to go continuously. That is for traditional AI stuff. Now, you take the same idea in the traditional AI and you look at generative AI. So there's another project called Moonshot. That's the name of the project called Moonshot. It allows you to test large language models of your choosing with some inputs and what outputs come up with the models that you are testing against. Again, you do the same process. The important thing for people to understand and developers to understand, and especially businesses to understand is, as you rightly pointed out, Howard, the challenge we have, this is not deterministic outputs. These are all probabilistic outputs. So if I were to query a large language model, like AAM in London, by the time I ask the question at 10 a.m. in Singapore, it may give me a completely different answer. With the same prompt, exactly the same model, a different answer. Now, is the answer acceptable within your band of acceptance? If it is not acceptable, then you have a problem. That is one understanding. The other part of that understanding is, it suggests to me that I have to continuously test my output every single time for every single output throughout the life of the production of the system because it is probabilistic. And that's a problem. That's not easy.  Howard: Great. Thank you, Harish. Very well explained. But it's good to hear that people are trying to address the problem and we're not just living in an inexplicable world.  Harish: There's a lot of effort underway. There's a significant amount. MLCommons is another group of people. It's another open source project out of Europe who's doing that. AI Verified Foundation, that's what we are doing. We're working with them as well. And there's many other open source projects that are trying to address this real problem. Yeah so one of the outcomes hopefully that you know makes a lot of sense is at some point in time the tools that we have created maybe be multiple tools can be then used by some entity who is a certification authority so to speak takes the tool and says hey Mr. company a company b, we can test your ai solutions against these tools and once it is done you pass we give you a rubber stamp and say you have tested against it so that raises the confidence level from a consumer's perspective, oh, this organization has tested their tools against this toolkit and as more people start using it, the awareness of the tools being available becomes greater and greater. Then people can ask the question, oh, don't just provide me a solution to do X. Was this tested against this particular set of tools, a testing framework? If it's not, why not? That kind of stuff.  Howard: And that reminds me of the Black Duck software that tests for the prevalence of open source in traditional software.  Harish: Yeah, yeah. In some sense, that is a corollary to it, but it's slightly different. And the thing is, it is about how one is able to make sure that you... I mean, it's just like ISO 9000 certification. I can set up the standards. If I'm the standards entity, I cannot go and certify somebody else against my own standards. So somebody else must do it, right? Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. So likewise, from AI Verify Foundation perspective, we have created all these tools. Hopefully this becomes accepted as a standard and somebody else takes it and then goes and certifies people or whatever else that needs to be done from that point.  Howard: Yeah and and we we do see standards a lot you know in the form of iso standards recovering almost like software development and cyber security again that also makes me think about certification which we're is seeing appear in European regulation. We saw it in the GDPR, but it never came into production as something that you certify your compliance with the GDPR. We have now seen it appear in the EU AI Act. And because of our experience of not seeing it appear in the GDPR, we're all questioning, you know, whether it will come to fruition in the AI Act or whether we have learned about the advantages of certification, and it will be focused on when the AI Act comes into force on the 1st of August. I think we have many years to understand the impact of the AI Act before certification will start to even make a small appearance.  Harish: It's one thing to have legislative or regulated aspects of behavior. It's another one when you voluntarily do it on the basis of this makes sense. Because then there is less of hindrance or less of resistance to do it. It's just like ISO 9000, right? No one legislates it, but people still do it. Organizations still do it because it's their, oh yeah, we are an ISO 9035 organization, And so we have quality processes in place and so on and so forth, which is good for those that is important. That becomes a selling point. So likewise, I would love to see something that right now, ISO 42001, which is all the series of AI-related standards. I don't think any one of them has got anything that can be right now be certified yet. Doesn't mean it will never happen. So that could be another one, right? So again, the tools that AI Verified Foundation creates and Mel Korman creates and everybody feeds into it. Hopefully that makes sense. I'd rather see a voluntary take-up rather than a mandated regulatory one because things change. And it's much harder to change the rules than to do anything else.  Howard: Well, I think that's a question in itself, but probably it will take us way over our time whether the market forces us to drive standardization. And we could probably have our own session on that, but it's a fascinating subject. Thank you, Harish.  Bryan: Exactly I think standards and certifications are possibly the kind of the next thing to look out for for AI you know Harish you could be correct. But on that note last question from me Harish so, interestingly the term you use moonshot right and so personally for you what kind of moonshot wish would you have for open source and AI. Leave aside resources, yeah if you could choose what kind of development would you think would be the one that you would look out for, the one that excites you?  Harish: I would rather that, for me, we need to go all the way back to the start from an AI training perspective, right? So the data. We have to start from the data, the provenance of the data. We need to make sure that that data is actually okay to be used. Now, instead of everybody going and doing their own thing, Can we have a pool where, you know, I tap into the resources and then I create my models based on the pool of well-known, well-identified data to train on. Then at least the outcome from that arrangement is we know the provenance of the data. We know how it was trained. We can see the model. model, and hopefully in that process, we also begin to understand how the model actually works with whichever physics related understanding that we can throw at it. And then people can start benefiting and using it in a coherent manner. Instead of what we have today, I mean, in a way, what we have today is called a Cambrian explosion, right? There are a billion experiments happening right now. And majority, 99.9% of it will fail at some point. And 0.1% needs to succeed. And I think we are getting to that point where there's a lot more failures happening rather than successes. And so my sense is that we need to have data that we can prove that it's okay to get and okay to use, and it is being replenished as and when needed. And then you go through the cycle. That's really my, you know, Mojoc perspective.  Bryan: I think there's really a lot for us to unpack, to think about, but I think it's really been an interesting discussion from my perspective. I'm sure, Howard, you think the same. And I think with this, I want to thank you for coming online and joining us this afternoon in Singapore, this morning in Europe on this discussion. I think it's been really interesting from a perspective of somebody who's been in technology and interesting for the ReadSmith clients who are looking at this from a legal and technology perspective. And I just wanted to thank you for this. And I also wanted to thank the people who are tuning into this. Thank you for joining us on this podcast. Stay tuned to the other podcasts that the firm will be producing, and I do have a good day.  Harish: Thank you.  Howard: Thank you very much.  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.

Reed Smith and its lawyers have used machine-assisted case preparation tools for many years (and it launched the Gravity Stack subsidiary) to apply legal technology that cuts costs, saves labor and extracts serious questions faster for senior lawyers to review. Partners David Cohen, Anthony Diana and Therese Craparo discuss how generative AI is creating powerful new options for legal teams using machine-assisted legal processes in case preparation and e-discovery. They discuss how the field of e-discovery, with the help of emerging AI systems, is becoming more widely accepted as a cost and quality improvement. ----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.  David: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Tech Law Talks and our new series on AI. Over the the coming months, we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, we're going to focus on AI in eDiscovery. My name is David Cohen, and I'm pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Anthony, Diana, and Therese Craparo. I head up Reed Smith's Records & eDiscovery practice group, big practice group, 70 plus lawyers strong, and we're very excited to be moving into AI territory. And we've been using some AI tools and we're testing new ones. Therese, I'm going to turn it over to you to introduce yourself.  Therese: Sure. Thanks, Dave. Hi, my name is Therese Craparo. I am a partner in our Emerging Technologies Group here at Reed Smith. My practice focuses on eDiscovery, digital innovation, and data risk management. And And like all of us, seeing a significant uptick in the interest in using AI across industries and particularly in the legal industry. Anthony?  Anthony: Hello, this is Anthony Diana. I am a partner in the New York office, also part of the Emerging Technologies Group. And similarly, my practice focuses on digital transformation projects for large clients, particularly financial institutions. and also been dealing with e-discovery issues for more than 20 years, basically, as long as e-discovery has existed. I think all of us have on this call. So looking forward to talking about AI.  David: Thanks, Anthony. And my first question is, the field of e-discovery was one of the first to make practical use of AI in the form of predictive coding and document analytics. Predictive coding has now been around for more than two decades. So, Teresa and Anthony, how's that been working out?  Therese: You know, I think it's a dual answer, right? It's been working out incredibly well, and yet it's not used as much as it should be. I think that at this stage, the use of predictive coding and analytics in e-discovery is pretty standard, right? Right. As Dave, as you said, two decades ago, it was very controversial and there was a lot of debate and dispute about the appropriate use and the right controls and the like going on in the industry and a lot of discovery fights around that. But I think at this stage, we've really gotten to a point where this technology is, you know, well understood, used incredibly effectively to appropriately manage and streamline e-discovery and to improve on discovery processes and the like. I think it's far less controversial in terms of its use. And frankly, the e-discovery industry has done a really great job at promoting it and finding ways to use this advanced technology in litigation. I think that one of the challenges is that still is that while the lawyers who are using it are using it incredibly effectively, it's still not enough people that have adopted it. And I think there are still lawyers out there that haven't been using predictive coding or document analytics in ways that they could be using it to improve their own processes. I don't know, Anthony, what are your thoughts on that?  Anthony: Yeah, I mean, I think to reiterate this, I mean, the predictive coding that everyone's used to is it's machine learning, right? So it's AI, but it's machine learning. And I think it was particularly helpful just in terms of workflow and what we're trying to accomplish in eDiscovery when we're trying to produce relevant information. Information, machine learning made a lot of sense. And I think I was a big proponent of it. I think a lot of people are because it gave a lot of control. The big issue was it allowed, I would call, senior attorneys to have more control over what is relevant. So the whole idea is you would train the model with looking at relevant documents, and then you would have senior attorneys basically get involved and say, okay, what are the edge cases? It was the basic stuff was easy. You had the edge cases, you could have senior attorneys look at it, make that call, and then basically you would use the technology to use what I would say, whatever you're thinking in your brain, the senior attorney, that is now going to be used to help determine relevance. And you're not relying as much on the contract attorneys and the workflow. So it made a whole host of sense, frankly, from a risk perspective. I think one of the issues that we saw early on is everyone was saying it was going to save lots of money. Didn't really save a lot of money, right? Partly because the volumes went up too much, partly because, you know, the process, but from a risk perspective, I thought it was really good because I think you were getting better quality, which I think was one of the things that's most important, right? And I think this is going to be important as we start talking about AI generally is, and in terms of processes, it was a quality play, right? It was, this is better. It's a better process. It's better managing the risks than just having manual review. So that was the key to it, I think. As we talked about, there was lots of controversy about it. The controversy often stemmed from, I'll call it the validation. We had lots of attorneys saying, I want to see the validation set. They wanted to see how the model was trained. You have to give us all the documents and train. And I think generally that fell by the wayside. That really didn't really happen. One of the keys though, and I think this is also true for all AI, is the validation testing, which Teresa touched upon, that became critical. I think people realized that one of the things you had to do as you're training the model and you started seeing things, you would always do some sampling and do validation testing to see if the model was working correctly. And that validation testing was the defensibility that courts, I think, latched on on. And I think when we start talking about Gen AI, that's going to be one of the issues. People are comfortable with machine learning, understand the risks, understand, you know, one of the other big risks that we all saw as part of it was the data set would change, right? You have 10 custodians, you train the model, then you got another 10 custodians. Sometimes it didn't matter. Sometimes it really made a big difference and you had to retrain the model. So I think we're all comfortable with that. I think as Therese said, it's still not as prevalent as you would have imagined, given how effective it is, but it's partly because it's a lot of work, right? And often it's a lot of work by, I'll say, senior attorneys instead of developing it, when it's still a lot easier to say, let's just use search terms, negotiate it, and then throw a bunch of contract attorneys on it, and then do what you see. It works, but I think that's still one of the impediments of it actually being used as much as we thought.  Therese: And I think to pick up on what Anthony is saying, what I think is really important is we do have 20 years of experience using AI technology in the e-discovery industry. So much has been learned about how you use those models, the appropriate controls, how you get quality validation and the like. And I think that there's so much to use from that in the increasing use of AI in e-discovery, in the legal field in general, even across organizations. There's a lot of value to be had there of leveraging the lessons learned and applying them to the use of the emerging types of AI that we're seeing that I think we need to keep in mind and the legal field needs to keep in mind that we know how to use this and we know how to understand it. We know how to make it defensible. And I think as we move forward, those lessons are going to serve us really well in facilitating, you know, more advanced use of AI. So in thinking about how the changes may happen going forward, right, as we're looking forward, how do we think that generative AI based on large language models are going to change e-discovery in the future?  Anthony: I think there, in terms of how generative AI is going to work, I have my doubts, frankly, about how effective it's going to be. We all know that these large language models are basically based on billions, if not trillions of data points or whatever, but it's generic. It's all public information. That's how the model is based. One of the things that I want to see as people start using generative AI and seeing how it would work, is how is that going to play when we're talking about very, it's confidential information, like almost all of our clients that are dealing with e-discovery, all this stuff's confidential. It's not stuff that's public. So I understand the concept if you have a large language model that is billions and billions of data points or whatever is going to be exact, but it's a probability calculation, right? It's basically guessing what the next answer is going going to be, the next word is going to be based on this general population, not necessarily on some very esoteric area that you may be focused on for a particular case, right? So I think it remains to be seen of whether it's going to work. I think the other area where I have concerns, which I want to see, is the validation point. Like, how do we show it's defensible? If you're going in and telling a court, oh, I use Gen AI and ran the tool, here's the relevant stuff based on prompts, what does that mean? How are we going to validate that? I think that's going to be one of the keys is how do we come up with a validation methodology that will be defensible that people will be comfortable with? Again, I think intuitively machine learning was I'm training the model on what a person, a human being deemed is responsive. So that. Frankly, it's easier to argue to a court. It's easier to explain to a regulator. When you say, I came up with prompts based on the allegations of the complaint or whatever, it's a little bit more esoteric, and I think it's a little bit harder for someone to get their heads around. How do you know you're getting relevant information? So, I think there's some challenges there. I don't know how that's going to play out. I don't know, Dave, because I know you're testing a lot of these tools, what you're seeing in terms of how we think this is actually going to work in terms of using generative AI in these large language models and moving away from the machine learning.  David: Yeah, I agree with you on the to be determined part, but I think I come in a little bit more optimistic and part of it might be, you know, actually starting to use some of these tools. I think that predictive coding has really paved the way for these AI tools because what held up predictive coding to some extent was people weren't sure that courts were going to accept it. Until the first opinions came out, Judge Peck's decision and the Silvermore and subsequent case decisions, there was concern about that. But once that precedent came out, and it's important to emphasize that the precedent wasn't just approving predictive coding, it was approving technology-assisted review. And this generative AI is really just another form of technology-assisted review. And what it basically said is you have to show that it's valid. You have to do this validation testing. But the same validation testing that we've been doing to support predictive coding will work on the large language model generative AI-assisted coding. It's essentially you do the review and then you take a sample and you say, well, was this review done well? Did we hit a high accuracy level? The early testing we're doing is showing that we are hitting even better accuracy levels than with predictive coding alone. And I should say that it's even improved in the six months or so that we've been testing. The companies that are building the software are continuing to improve it. So I am optimistic in that sense. But many of these products are still in development. The pricing is still either high or to be announced in some cases. And it's not clear yet that it will be cost effective beyond current models of using human review and predictive coding and search terms. And they're not all mutually exclusive. I mean, I can see ultimately getting to a hybrid model where we still may start with search terms to cut down on volume and then may use some predictive coding and some human review and some generative AI. Ultimately, I think we'll get to the point where the price point comes down and it will make review better and cheaper. Right. But I also didn't want to mention, I see a couple other areas of application in eDiscovery as well. The generative AI is really good at summarizing single large documents or even groups of documents. It's also extremely helpful in more quickly identifying key documents. You can ask questions about a whole big document population and get answers. So I'm really excited to see this evolution. And I don't know when we're going to get there and what the price effectiveness point is going to be. But I would say that in the next year or two, we're going to start seeing it creep in and use more and more effectively, more and more cost effectively as we go forward.  Anthony: Yeah, that's fascinating. Yeah, I can see that even in terms of document review. If a human was looking at it, if AI is summarizing the document, you can make your relevance determination based on the summary. Again, we can all talk about whether it's appropriate or not, but that would probably help quite a bit. And I do think that's fascinating. I know another thing I hear is the privilege log stuff. And again, I think using AI, generative AI to draft privilege logs in concept sounds great because obviously it's a big costs factor and the like. But I think we've talked about this, Dave and Therese, like we already have, like there's already tools available, meaning you can negotiate metadata logs and some of these other things that cut the cost down. So I think it remains to be seen. Again, I think this is going to be like another arrow in your quiver, a tool to use, and you just have to figure out when you want to use it.  Therese: Yeah. And I think one of the things I think in not limiting ourselves to only thinking about, right, document review, where there's a lot of possibility with generative AI, right, witness kits, putting together witness outlines for depositions and the like, right? Not that we would ever just rely on that, but there's a huge opportunity there, I think, as a starting point, right? Just like if you're using it appropriately. And of course, today's point, the price point is reasonable, you can do initial research. There's a lot of things that I think that it can do in the discovery realm, even outside of just document review, that I think we should keep our minds open to because it's a way of giving us a quicker, getting to the base more quickly and more efficiently and frankly, more cost-effectively. And then you can take a look at that and the person and can augment that or build upon it to make sure it's accurate and it's appropriate for that particular litigation or that particular witness and the like. But I do think that Dave really hit the nail on the head. I don't think this is going to be, we're only going to be moving to generative AI and we're going to abandon other types of AI. There's reasons why there's different types of AI is because they do different things. And I think what we are most likely to see is a hybrid. Right. Right. Some tools being used for something, some tools being used for others. And I think eventually, as Dave already highlighted, the combination of the use of different types of AI in the e-discovery process and within the same tool to get to a better place. I think that's where we're most likely heading. And as Dave said, that's where a lot of the vendors are actually focusing is on adding into their workflow this additional AI to improve the process.  David: Yeah. And it's interesting that some of the early versions are not really replacing the human review. They are predicting where the human review is going to come out. So when the reviewer looks at the document, it already tells you what the software says. Is it relevant or not relevant? And it does go one step beyond. It's hard because it not only tells you the prediction of whether it's relevant or not, but it also gives you a reason. So it can accelerate the review and that can create great cost savings. But it's not just document review. Already, there's e-discovery tools out there that allow you to ask questions, query databases, but also build chronologies. And again, with that benefit, then referencing you to certain documents and in some cases having hyperlinks. So it'll tell you facts or it'll tell you answers to a question and it'll link back to the documents that support those answers. So I think there's great potential as this continues to grow and improve.  Anthony: Yeah. And I would say also, again, let's think about the whole EDRM model, right? Preservation. I mean, we'll see what enterprises do, but on the enterprise side, using AI bots and stuff like that for whether it's preservation, collection and stuff, it'll be very interesting to see if these tools can be used there to sort of automate some of the standard workflows before we get to the review and the like, but even on the enterprise side. The other thing that I think it will be interesting, and I think this is one of the areas where we still have not seen broad adoption, is on the privilege side. We know and we've done some analysis for clients where privilege or looking for highly sensitive documents and the like is still something that most lawyers aren't comfortable using. Using AI, don't know why I've done it and it worked effectively, but that is still an area where lawyers have been hesitant. And it'll be interesting to see if gender of AI and the tools there can help with privilege, right? Whether it's the privilege logs, whether it's identifying privilege documents. I think to your point, Dave, having the ability to say it's privileged and here's the reasons would be really helpful in doing privilege review. So it'll be interesting to see how AI works in that sphere as well, because it is an area where we haven't seen wide adoption of using predictive coding or TAR in terms of identifying privilege. And that's still a major cost for a lot of clients. All right, so then I guess where this all leads to is, and this is more future-oriented. Do we think we're at this stage now that we have generative AI that there's a paradigm shift, right? Do we think there's going to be a point where even, you know, we didn't see that paradigm shift bluntly with predictive coding, right? Predictive coding came out, everyone said, oh my God, discovery is going to change forever. We don't need contract attorneys anymore. You know, associates aren't going to have anything to do because you're just going to train the model, it goes out. And that's clearly hasn't happened. Now people are making similar predictions with the use of generative AI. We're now not going to need to do docker view, whatever. And I think there is concern, and this is concern just generally in the industry, is this an area, since we're already using AI, where AI can take over basically the discovery function, where we're not necessarily using lots of lawyers and we're relying almost exclusively on AI, whether it's a combination of machine learning or if it's just generative AI. And they're doing lots of work without any input or very little input from lawyers. So I'll start with Dave there. What are your thoughts in terms of where do we see in the next three to five years? Are we going to see some tipping point?  David: Yeah, it's interesting. Historically, there's no question that predictive coding did allow lawyers to get through big document populations faster and for predictions that it was going to replace all human review. And it really hasn't. But part of that has been the proliferation of electronic data. There's just more data than ever before, more sources of data. It's not just email now. It's Teams and texts and Slack and all these different collaboration tools. So that increase in volume is partially made up for the increase in efficiency, and we haven't seen any loss of attorneys. I do think that over the longer run that there is more potential for the Gen AI to replace replace attorneys who do e-discovery work and, frankly, to replace lawyers and other professionals and all other kinds of workers eventually. I mean, it's just going to get better and better. A lot of money is being invested in. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think that we may be looking at a whole paradigm shift in how disputes are resolved in the future. Right now, there's so much duplication of effort. If you're in litigation against an opposing party, You have your documents set that your people are analyzing at some expense. The other side has their documents set that their people are analyzing at some expense. You're all looking for those key documents, the needles in the haystack. There's a lot of duplicative efforts going on. Picture a world where you could just take all of the potentially relevant documents. Throw them into the pot of generative AI, and then have the generative AI predetermine what's possibly privileged and lawyers can confirm those decisions. But then let everyone, both sides of court, query that pot of documents to ask, what are the key questions? What are the key factual issues in the case? Please tell us the answers and the documents that go to those answers and cut through a lot of the document review and document production that's going on now that frankly uses up most of the cost of litigation. I think we're going to be able to resolve disputes more efficiently, less expensively, and a lot faster. And I don't know whether that's five years into the future or 10 years into the future, but I'll be very surprised if our dispute resolution procedure isn't greatly affected by these new capabilities. Pretty soon, I think, when I say pretty soon, I don't know if it's five years or 10 years, but I think judges are going to have their AI assistance helping them resolve cases and maybe even drafting first drafts of court opinions as well. And I don't think it's all that far off into the future that we're going to start to see them.  Therese: I think I'm a little bit more skeptical than Dave on some of this, which is probably not surprising to either Dave or to to Anthony on this one. Look, I think, I don't see AI as a general rule replacing lawyers. I think it will change what lawyers do. And it may replace some lawyers who don't keep pace with technology. Look, it's very simple. It's going to make us better, faster, more efficient, right? So that's a good thing. It's a good thing for our clients. It's a good thing for us. But the idea, I think, to me, that AI will replace the judgment and the decision-making or the results of AI is going to replace lawyers and I think is maybe way out there in the future when the robots take over the world. But I do think it may mean less lawyers or lawyers do different things. Lawyers that are well-versed in technology and can use that are going to be more effective and are going to be faster. I think that. You're going to see situations where it's expected to be used, right? If AI can draft an opinion or a brief in the first instance and save hours and hours of time, that's a great thing. And that's going to be expected. I don't see that being ever being the thing that gets sent out the door because you're going to still need lawyers who are looking at it and making sure that it is right and updating it and making sure that it's unique to the case and all the judgments that go into those things are appropriate. I do find it difficult to imagine a world having, you know, been a litigator for so many years where everyone's like, sure, throw all the documents in the same pod and we'll all query it together. Maybe we'll get to that point someday. I find it really difficult to imagine that'll happen. There's too much concern about the data and control over the data and sensitivity and privilege and all of those things. You know, we've seen pockets of making data available through secure channels so that you're not transferring them and the like, where it's the same pool of data that would otherwise be produced, so that maybe you're saving costs there. But I don't, again, I think it'll be a paradigm shift eventually in that, paradigm shift that's been a long time coming, though, I think, right? We started using technology to improve this process years ago. It's getting better. I think we will get to a point where everyone routinely more heavily relies on AI for discovery and that that is not the predictive coding or the tar for the people who know how to use it, but it is the standard that everybody uses. I do think, like I said, it will make us better and more efficient. I don't see it really replacing, like I said, entirely lawyers or that will be in a world where all the data just goes in and gets spit out and you need one lawyer to look at it and it's fine. But again, I do think it will change the way we practice law. And in that sense, I do think it'll be a paradigm shift.  Anthony: The final thought is, I think I tend to be, I'm sort of in the middle, but I would say generally we know lawyers have big egos, and they will never allow, they will never think that a computer, AI tool or whatever, is smarter than they are in terms of determining privilege or relevance, right? I mean, I think that's part of it is, there's, you know, you have two lawyers in a room, they're going to argue about whether something is relevant. You have two lawyers in a room, they're going to argue about something privileged. So it's not objective, right? There's subjectivity. And I think that's going to be one of the chances. And I think also, we've seen it already. Everyone thought. Every lawyer who's a litigator would have to be really well-versed in e-discovery and all the issues that we deal with. That has not happened. And I don't see that changing. So unless I'm less concerned about being a paradigm shift than all of us going out for those reasons.  David: Well, I think everyone needs to tune back in on July 11th, 2029 when we come back to get stuff to begin and see who we're going.  Anthony: Yes, absolutely. All right. Thanks, everybody.  David: Thank you.  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.

Can we keep up with AI? Paul Foster, CEO of the Esports Federation, dives into the legal implications of artificial intelligence. Gamers have a unique familiarity with artificial intel. Explore how AI is transforming game design, content creation, brand promotion and much more. Along with entertainment/media lawyer Bryan Tan of Reed Smith's Singapore office, Foster discusses the unique ways AI is enabling gamers to monetize their skills.  ----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.  Bryan: Welcome to Tech Law Talks and our new series on artificial intelligence. Over the coming months, we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities with the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, we will focus on AI in the interesting world of esports. And we have together with us today, Mr. Paul Foster, who is the CEO of the Global Esports Federation. Good morning, Paul.  Paul: Good evening, Bryan. It's nice to be with you, coming from California.  Bryan: And I'm coming to you from Singapore, but we are all connected in one world. Today, we are here to talk about AI and esports. But before we start, I wanted to talk about you and to share what you were doing before AI and how that has changed after AI has now become a big thing.  Paul: Thanks, Bryan. Yeah. So I come from originally from Sydney, Australia, and I was from my background is really 20 years in the Olympic movement. So I started at the Sydney 2000 Olympics. So I started about three years before the Olympics, worked for the Olympics for about 20 years, so traditional sports, and then moved to esports and opened or founded the Global Esports Federation in 2019. And of course, we all know what happened four months after that, Bryan, with COVID and the pandemic that really closed a lot of traditional sport. And so esports really took off. So it's definitely been a very, very exciting and accelerating journey these last couple of years.  Bryan: Great. So you've kind of gotten into esports after a background in sports. And it's interesting you mentioned 2019 because we also know that somewhere around 2022, the end of 2022, just as the pandemic was sorting itself out. Artificial intelligence, primarily generative artificial intelligence, then began to capture the imagination of people. And the question here, I guess, is maybe we're talking to converted, but esports is obviously one of the most technologically advanced and clued in online ecosystems, communities. How has artificial intelligence impacted esports and is that a positive or negative thing?  Paul: You're absolutely right, Bryan. I think one of the things that I like to say is that we're living in what I consider to be one of the most exciting times in the history of humanity. The reason I say that is because of the convergence of all these incredibly powerful technologies at exactly the same time, at the very early dawn of AI. AI and I think it's something that we should reflect on because I think many people talk about AI as if we're already in the middle of the cycle and I think my position is that we're at the very early dawn, maybe even the pre-dawn of AI. I did some postgraduate studies in machine learning and AI so it's a passion project of mine, something I'd love to think about and I was recently at the global summit on AI with the International Telecommunications Union in Geneva and had a chance to sit with the leaders group. There was 30,000 people attending, Bryan, which is a big number of people showing the interest from all over the world. But there was a leaders group convened to look at policymaking. And in a sense, there was this feeling that industry has been rapidly growing and expanding almost at a pace or a cadence that is hard to sort of register in a sense. And then policymakers and particularly governments and others are trying to sort of catch up in a sense and and try to get in front of that. As you know Bryan we're very strong partners with UNESCO, the United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization, as well as the international telecommunications union so we're also contributing to their thinking and bringing our community into the discussion one of the things that could be interesting for our listeners is that it's true what Bryan said is that our community, which is roughly in the range of 18 to 34-year-olds, are early adopters of technology. And one of the things that might be interesting is that gamers and people who play electronic sports and games have always been exposed to artificial intelligence in some form, even very, very early form. And so it's not a surprise to me that the adoption of of artificial intelligence and the interest in artificial intelligence in some ways has been really accepted by the esports community in the gaming community and as you also said Bryan you know this this demographic 18 to 34 is really the heart of what we call Gen Z or Gen and then now we're seeing Gen Alpha of course the next generation starting high school but what we also call this and some people widely call this generation is actually Gen T. Generation around around technologies and the early acceptance of that. And I can talk a little bit more about some of the applications for esports if that's interesting.  Bryan: No, I think that's interesting. And I think in particular, I think what will be interesting to hear is some of your own visions about what the future of AI and esports could be like. What does it promise to the esports community? What can they kind of look forward to? How do you see that going?  Paul: Yeah I think thanks for the question I think that it's um again I think there's the the possibilities are limitless and we're really at the beginning the early time about this and when I speak for example recently to colleagues and friends at companies such as open ai and others that I speak to every day there's a true interest around this particularly around the the creative economy and how we'll create games in the future and there's three things Bryan that I thought I'd mentioned, which is really the use of AI in terms of teams and players' preparation, the fact that we can have quicker and more efficient, I call it, you know, one of the great benefits, one of the things I've learned in my studies is that it needs to be human-focused and human-centric. And we're also, at the Global League Sports Federation, we support the UNESCO's position on the creation of ethical AI. And what that really talks about is human-focused because it's human-centered. And so one of the things I think is really interesting for our community is that they'll have quicker access to statistics, to analytics, to data. So they'll be able to, if you think about esports as a competitive sport or as a competitive event, any preparation that you can have to prepare you to have better results and better preparation will ultimately, should ultimately provide for a better outcome for you as a competitor, right? So that's number one. The second thing is that really what we can do for the creative economy, which is absolutely fascinating, Bryan, in esports, the whole economy around or the whole community around creators and content creators and people that really bring esports and bring it alive. Is that we'll be able to have automatically created clips and reels and analytics. So in real time, things like in pre-AI, we would have had to wait for editing, Bryan. We would have had to wait for editing. it might have taken hours or days and now that can happen in seconds so for and so that's fascinating and then the third thing so team preparation creative economy and then the third thing really talks around the economics of gaming and around sponsorship and value-based identity so that in the future our sponsors and our partners that are so important for the thriving nation and the the sustainability of gaming and esports will also be able to use AI to have greater analytics and greater awareness of their brand values, to actually understand the value of their brand. A very simple example is we can use AI to track how many times a certain brand was visible on a jersey or in an audience. We'll be able to use AI to actually track it in real time. Whereas again, Bryan, in the past, we would have had to look through video files and actually count it manually. And I remember doing that. I mean, another example I'll give you is I remember but not that long ago in my work at the Olympic Games, I literally remember installing what we used to call video walls. So walls of not even a video screen, but 12 video screens or 16, I think they were, 4x4 screens to be able to look at every venue at once. And when I think about that now, that seems like a long time ago, but it wasn't a long time ago. I mean, within the last 10 or 12 years, that was still our reality. And now we can use AI to capture that data, to give us the same results in real time across teams, across creators and across partners.  Bryan: Okay, thank you for that. I think three very concrete areas that we can look forward to as an esports community. Interestingly, you also mentioned the regulators, the governments trying to keep in touch with the development of AI. Yes. And it sounded as if it was a bit of a struggle for them. Do you think there are any big concerns about the deployment of AI esports that we should be kind of aware of and maybe try to avoid?  Paul: Yeah, I think it's really this notion about catching up, right? How do you catch up with something that's evolving every day and every hour of every day at a speed that's really difficult to contain? And also two schools of thought, really, which is one school of thought, which I remember, Bryan, I think Sam Altman from OpenAI recently said it. And he said, look, we're so busy and this is running so fast and so powerful, we'll come back and we'll get back to that later. Like we're off, you know, creating these incredibly strong and powerful platforms. We'll have to come back to those matters at a later stage. And it was interesting because when I was last couple of weeks ago in Geneva, you had policymakers, governments, ministers, etc., whose role was to make sure that the frameworks were established around implementing the framework on ethical AI. Were really struggling with this reality of being able to just, I mean, literally physically struggling with this reality of trying to get ahead of the knowledge, not only the knowledge, but also the policy work that needed to be put in place, the frameworks, the regulations, and then rolling that out across industry. At the same time, you have technology firms and particularly firms with specialization in AI, and you've seen the incredible value chain skyrocketing in recent months, really racing ahead. And yet you've got policymakers trying to get their hands around this and trying to even understand it. You've got the same challenges in academia, don't you, Bryan, with academia also trying to create curricula that by the time it's published, we may already be behind the eight ball in terms of where AI has taken us. So I think the thing that I would talk about is the concern I would have is the ethical side of AI because, you know, and keeping it human focused and in the best interest of humanity, meaning that really what the benefits are, the focus of benefits should be around making our lives more efficient, effective and more equitable. And there is a risk of course within AI that it can because of prejudice that is potentially built into the ai itself that it could continue to manifest that across the community and that's something that's difficult to get ahead of unless it's created with that lens at the very beginning.  Bryan: No i think that's that's absolutely correct it's uh it's a good reminder that this is technology we're dealing with, and technology can be something that's used for the good of humanity, but it can also be abused. And we have to keep in mind that the technology is there only for the benefit of mankind, like you said, and to keep that human centricity always in focus as AI is applied to esports. Okay, so last question, I promise you, Paul, as CEO of Global Esports Federation, what would you wish for the future of esports? And maybe just to make it interesting, on two spectrums, one, a more realistic expectation, and the second one, a moonshot. If your wish can be granted, what would your wish for esports be?  Paul: What a great question. Thanks, Bryan. I love that opportunity. Well, Well, the thing that's so interesting in esports and gaming is that anything that was a moonshot about two weeks ago is now already a reality. It moves so fast. So when you were mentioning a moonshot, I was thinking about the Olympics. And I'll talk about that in a moment because that would have been considered a moonshot just a few months ago, if not years ago. But what I think the future is, is the globalization of esports as a source of incredibly inclusive, powerful, evocative entertainment, right? So just as you have traditional sport and just as you have, for example, in the United States, you have the proliferation of leagues and professional sports. It's coming into view that you'll have very significant value and be able to really create a very sustainable living as an economic means through esports. Not only as a player winning significant prize money, but also as a content creator, as a game developer, as a marketeer, as an event organizer, as an academic. There's tons of opportunities. opportunities and in fact Bryan I was speaking with some friends of mine who are attorneys actually and it surprises me because traditionally I would talk to attorneys and then through conversation it comes out that they're really passionate about gaming and now maybe they specialize around being with illegal expertise in terms of intellectual property rights or different aspects of it and this also I wanted to share that with you Bryan because I thought that was interesting that even in a traditional professional, such as the practice of law. There's now a lot of interest in this field as well. What does that mean? That means that we get to manifest our lives how we wish them to be manifested. In the past, if I wanted to go into event management, I would have to do a certain angle. Now I can do that with inside esports. If I wanted to be in communications and global media, I might have had to do that in public relations, or in traditional luxury goods, for example, or consumer products. Now I can do it inside esports. So I think the future is extremely bright and relatively limitless in terms of being able to manifest my career, finding something I want to do in my profession, my skills, but be able to do it in something that I love doing. And that's a blessing, I think, Bryan, that very few of us, so you and I, that has happened in our lifetime, that we're able to actually have the life that we want, create professional professional conditions we want, earn a living of that by doing it in that field that we love. The moonshot which you've challenged me on, I was so proud having come from the Olympic movement in my hometown of Sydney and now seeing the reality of the Olympic eSports Games, which was just announced by the IOC a couple of weeks ago and then rapidly evolving. And how interesting is this? At the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, it seems that we'll see an announcement of the Olympic eSports Games itself, agreed by the IOC, confirmed by the IOC. And so one of the things i think is fascinating if you think about Olympic sport traditional sport, it took golf 121 years to come back onto the Olympic program and esports in global esports federation was as you said Bryan, founded in 2019 here we are just four years later not only is it inside the Olympic movement but there's actually a separate IP created called Olympic esports games. If we think about that for a moment, the IOC traditionally had their Olympic Games as their main IP. Yes, Winter Games. Yes, Youth Games. But now we have the Olympic Esports Games as a separate IP. And what's even interesting at the recent press release I read is that it said a whole new division, a whole new structure will be created at the IOC. Rather than trying to fit it into traditional models, a whole new structure will be created. it. So this was a moonshot. And I think that this will be fascinating in terms of how we see that evolve and how you see a traditional sports organization just a couple of years ago, really being a long way away from today. And in those very short years with the Global Esports Federation staging our Commonwealth Esports Championships, the European Esports Championships, the Pan American Esports Championships, and now seeing the evolution at the Olympic Esports Games, What an incredible opportunity that is for athletes, creators and community right around the world.  Bryan: Thank you for sharing that. And I think that's a great statement to make that what was yesterday's moonshot is today's reality in a fast-paced world that evolves because of technology. Thank you again for sharing with us your thoughts, Paul. I think it's been greatly exciting. We look forward to a great future in esports. And once again, thank you for joining us in this series.  Paul: Thank you, Bryan. Thanks very much, everyone.  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.

AI offers new tools to help competition enforcers detect market-distorting behavior that was impossible to see until now. Paris Managing Partner Natasha Tardif explains how AI tools are beginning to help prevent anticompetitive behaviors, such as collusion among competitors, abuse of dominance and merger control. ----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.  Natasha: Welcome to our new series on AI. Over the coming months, we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, our focus is going to be on AI and antitrust. AI is at the core of antitrust authorities' efforts and strategic thinking currently. It brings a number of very interesting challenges and great opportunities, really. In what ways? Well, let's have a look at how AI is envisaged from the perspective of each type of competition concept. I.e. anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, and merger control. Well, first of all, in relation to anti-competitive agreements. Several types of anti-competitive practices, such as collusion amongst competitors to align on market behavior or on prices, have been assessed by competition authorities. And when you look at those in relation to algorithms and AI, it's a very interesting area to focus on because a number of questions have been raised and some of them have answers, some others still don't have answers. The French competition authorities and the German Bundeskanzleramt issued a report sharing their thoughts in this regard in 2019. The French competition authority went as far as creating a specific department focusing on digital economy questions. At least, three different behaviors have been envisaged from an algorithm perspective. First of all, algorithms being used as a supporting tool of an anti-competitive agreement between market players. So the market players would use that technology to coordinate their behavior. This one is pretty easy to apprehend from a competition perspective because it is clearly a way of implementing an anti-competitive and illegal agreement. Another way of looking at algorithms and AI in the antitrust sector and specifically in relation to anti-competitive agreements is when one and the same algorithm is being sold to several market players by the same supplier, creating therefore involuntary parallel behaviors or enhanced transparency on the market. We all know how much the competition authorities hate enhanced transparency on the market, right? And a third way of looking at it would be several competing algorithms talking, quote-unquote, to each other and creating involuntary common decision-making on the market. Well, the latter two categories are more difficult to assess from a competition perspective because, obviously, we lack one essential element of an anti-competitive agreement, which is, well, the agreement. We lack the voluntary element of the qualification of an anti-competitive agreement. In a way, this could be said to be the perfect crime, really, as collusion is made without a formal agreement having been made between the competitors. Now, let's look at the way AI impacts competition law from an abuse of dominance perspective. In March 2024, the French Competition Authority issued its full decision against Google in the Publishers' Related Rights case, whereby it fined again Google for €250 million for failing to comply with some of its commitments that had been made binding by its decision of 21 June 2022. The FCA considered that Bard, the artificial intelligence service launched by Google in July 2023, raises several issues. One, it says that Google should have informed editors and press agencies of the use of their contents by its service Bard in application of the obligation of transparency, which it had committed to in the previous French Competition Authority decision. The FCA also considers that Google breached another commitment by linking the use of press agencies and publishers' content by its artificial intelligence service to the display of protected content and services such as search, discover, and use. Now, what is this telling us about how the competition authorities look at abuse of dominance from an AI perspective? Well, interestingly, what it's telling us is something it's been telling us for a while when it comes to abuse of dominance, and particularly in the digital world. These behaviors have even been so much at the core of the competition authorities', concerns that they've become part of the new digital markets app. And this DMA now imposes obligations regarding the use of data collected by gatekeepers with their different services, as well as interoperability obligations. So in the future, we probably won't have these Google decisions in application of abuse of dominance rules, but most probably in application of DMA rules, because really now this is the tool that's been given to competition authorities to regulate the digital market and particularly AI tools that are used in relation to the implementation of the various services offered by what we now call gatekeepers, big platforms on the internet. Now, thirdly, the last concept of competition law that I wanted to touch upon today is merger control. What impact does AI have on merger control? And how is merger control used by competition authorities to regulate, review, and make sure that the AI world and the digital world function properly from a competition perspective? Well, in this regard, the generative AI sector is attracting increasing interest from investors and from competition authorities, obviously, as evidenced by the discussions around the investments made by Microsoft in OpenAI and by Amazon and Google in Anthropic, which is a startup rival to OpenAI. So the European Commission considered that there was no ground investigating the $13 billion investment of Microsoft in OpenAI because it did not fall under the classic conception of merger control. But equally, the Commission is willing to ensure that it does not become a way for gatekeepers to bypass merger controls. forms. So interestingly, there is a concern that the new way of investing in these tools would not be considered as a merger under the strict definition of what a merger is in the merger control conception of things. But somehow, once a company has been investing so much money in another one, it is difficult to think that it won't have any form of control over its behavior in the future. Therefore, the authorities are thinking of different ways of apprehending those kind of investments. The French Competition Authority, for instance, announced that it will examine these types of investments in its advisory role, and if necessary, it will make recommendations to better address the potential harmful effects of those operations. A number of acquisitions of minority stakes in the digital sector are also under close scrutiny by several competition authorities. So, again, we're thinking of situations which would not give control in the sense of merger control rules currently, but that still will be considered as having an effect on the behavior and the structure of those companies on the market in the future. Interestingly, the DMA, the Digital Markets Act, also has a part to play in the regulation of AI-related transactions on the market. For instance, merger control of acquisitions by gatekeepers of tech companies is reinforced. There is a mandatory information of these operations, no matter the value or size of the acquired company. And we know that normally for an information to be given to the competition authorities, it would be the notification system that is only required where certain thresholds are met. So we are seeing increasing attempts by competition authorities to look at the digital sector, particularly AI, from different kinds of lenses, being innovative in the way they approach it because the companies themselves and the market are being innovative about this. And competition authorities want to make sure that they remain consistent with their consumptions and concepts of competition law while not missing out on what's really happening on the market. So what has the future really made us now? Well, the European Union is issuing its Artificial Intelligence Act, which is the first ever comprehensive risk-based legislative framework on AI worldwide. That will be applicable to the development, deployment and use of AI. It aims to address the risks to health, safety and fundamental rights posed by AI systems while promoting innovation and the outtake of trustworthy AI systems, including generative AI. The general idea on the market and from a regulatory perspective is that if you're looking at competition law or more generally as a society, when you're scrutinizing AI, even though there may be abusive behavior through AI, the reality of it is AI is a wonderful source of innovation, competition, excellence on the market, added value for consumers. So authorities and legislators should try to find the best way to encourage, develop, nurture it for the benefits of each and every one of us, for the benefits of the market and for the benefits of everybody's rights really. Therefore, any piece of legislation or case law or regulation that will be implemented in the AI sector must be really focusing on the positive impacts of what AI brings to the market. Thank you very much.  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.

Gregor Pryor of Reed Smith's Entertainment & Media Group in London describes why it's important for law firms to train their lawyers in how to use AI. Although AI-powered tools do not exceed living lawyers in all aspects of legal practice, their powers of calculation bring immense yields in efficiency and can be a powerful accelerator for law firms delivering services. ----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.  Gregor: Hi, everybody, and welcome to our new series on artificial intelligence. Over the coming months, we'll explore some of the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. And today we're going to focus on artificial intelligence within law firms and hopefully give a bit more context about how Reed Smith is deploying artificial intelligence in the delivery of its services to clients. The first thing I would say is that certainly in my day job as an entertainment lawyer, AI has been a very controversial subject, mostly as it pertains to training. And as we'll discover as I explain more about how Reed Smith is using AI, training and the ability for law firms to use data that it obtains, is highly contingent on clients agreeing to that training or being comfortable with the manner in which law firms are deploying the technology to improve and make their services more efficient. So the first thing I want to talk about is how we are using AI and what our future plans are. So there's a whole lot of buzz and hype, I think, about how AI is impacting the way that law firms are operating. There's been a number of surveys. phase, most of them say that AI will transform the business of law and having been in the business of law for 25 years. I've heard that for the whole 25 years, but now feels like the time when it actually is happening and the decisions that firms are making to adopt AI are having an impact on how they perform. Most of the global 200 firms have policies about how they use generative AI. There's a high level of governance and risk management concerning client data, as I mentioned. But not all of those firms have a policy concerning how they use AI. We've been working and have worked on ours for a number of years and continue to iterate as the technology improves and client perspectives on the use of AI change. We think that there's likely a gap between preparedness and managing risk and the implementation of AI and we've been being very careful as we prepare our infrastructure to integrate and use AI carefully. Obviously the bigger the law firm, the more they are able to leverage AI and invest, but not that many firms are working with clients on AI projects. We've just finished a trial of about seven different providers. We've used them on a beta basis through limited rollout. We're not putting all our eggs in one basket. We're trying to figure out which AI has proper utility, which machines generate real-time efficiencies and help us in the delivery of our service. I think it's fair to say that some of them are nowhere near as impressive as we'd hoped, but we are still continuing to invest. One of the things that we've been very careful about is organizing our data and making sure it's hygienic. That means not using client data for AI without permission and also making sure that we have organized ourselves so that our data doesn't get unnecessarily or incorrectly commingled. One of the other topics that comes up is how AI can improve efficiency and productivity. I think there's some really obvious ways, such as summarizing documents, helping translate things, creating text or drafting. It gets a bit more complex. I think decision tree software has been around for a long time, but that's evolved so that you have a much more of a chatbot style interaction with AI. Of course, how do we address ethical, security, confidentiality concerns? These are all going to be developed in conjunction with clients. We don't think that we have the right or privilege of dictating to our clients how we use technology. But we do want to be a first mover where we can be because that will give us an advantage over other providers, other firms. We think that training our lawyers how to use AI is almost as important as the technology itself. It's no use having these incredible tools, but not being able to have lawyers that are well-versed in using them. And indeed, that is a trend that we're seeing within our clients as well. So we've been delivering prompt training, use case training for lawyers, because unless lawyers themselves change the way they work and adopt the use of the machines, then the machines will be pretty useless. One of the things I often get asked is whether I perceive AI as a competitive advantage for law firms. I'm not sure that it's necessarily only AI. And I do think there are quite tight limits on the use of AI. One bit of feedback we had from a particular client was that they preferred their lawyers to understand how the law works. And just reading case summaries generated by AI was no substitute for human learning. And to a great extent, I agree with that. Although I do think that there are ways in which lawyers learn and the change in the way that we practice over the past 20 years has been huge. I remember, I'm making myself seem very old, but I remember going to photocopying rooms and delivering faxes and carrying around big bundles of documents. Things that seem very arcane to us now in the early 20s, but actually when I qualified 20 years ago they were real things that we had to do. We've seen some clients use AI in really interesting and clever ways. We're fortunate that many of the clients we represent, huge technology companies who already have very sophisticated artificial intelligence applications and utilities. So that gives us an insight into how they expect us to adapt and align with them. One of the challenges we face is that exact issue, given that many of our clients have their own thoughts, processes, ethics, rollout, timetables for AI, and we have to align our delivery with what they're doing. And then finally, I guess one of the things that I should talk about is the limitations of AI. What can it do and what can it not do? Where would we struggle to use it? I still think when it comes to advocacy and negotiation. Particularly live and in real time, there's still a very strong place for lawyers with talent, with a keen intellect, who are quick on their feet, and who can see through a client's objectives very capably. I don't see a computer doing that anytime soon. We can look at case predictors or outcome predictive models, certainly to try and streamline the transactional process or find a way to reduce litigation costs. But having lawyers that can think however powerful the AI is to human brains is typically much more powerful. And so long as we are able to leverage, educate ourselves, use the technology to our advantage, and leverage it for a better outcome for our clients, then I think AI can be an incredibly powerful accelerator for us in the delivery of our services at retail. Whether there are any particularly outlandish or wild predictions related to the use of AI in the next decade or so. I could see a couple of things. Firstly, I could see is for low-level legal services. The use of “robolawyers” or entirely automated services to conclude transactions or effectuate things that you want to do as a consumer or an SME, almost certainly that's going to happen we're already seeing it in the venture capital space we're already seeing it with some of the automated services you see coming out of silicon valley why would you pay hundreds of pounds of dollars or thousands for a lawyer when you can just have a machine that would give you an outcome that's if you know provided you're prepared to accept a little bit of risk I could see robolawyers being a standalone service that's one thing I could see happening. The other thing that I could see happening within the next decade is the abolition or at least firms operating with complete abandonment of an hourly rate. It's something that Reed Smith has been examining closely. We've got client value teams. We've got a bunch of alternative billing models. We give clients options and choices about how they might want to pay for what we're delivering. But for law firms, there's a real opportunity there. If we've invested in and can leverage technology to deliver something much more quickly or to a better standard than a competitor, it doesn't necessarily follow that we would charge less. It may be that we can deliver it for a lower cost and our margin would increase, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to price it. There's a race to the bottom on pricing. So I'm quite bullish on some of the opportunities that are afforded by AI if a firm can gain a competitive advantage. If everyone's using the same technology, then inevitably the prices will go down because clients will see, why would I pay more if you're all using the same thing? So the prize, if you like, will be for law firms who can figure out ways to create products or services more efficiently and to a higher standard, and then still be able to charge well for them and increase their margin. So law firms typically have a high margin, they're high margin businesses. We don't want to be greedy. We want to deliver great value to clients. But equally, if there are opportunities to make money through the use of AI, we'll pursue them. And I think one of the ways to do that is to really critically challenge and question the use of the hourly rate, which has a bunch of built-in inefficiency.  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.

Continuing our new series on artificial intelligence, Christian Simonds and Henry Birkbeck discuss what the use of AI in film and television. AI features in every stage of production – from pre-production, through production, to post-production – and reliance on AI will continue to increase as it evolves. The discussion centers around the legalities that management in the industry should be aware of, as well as the recurring questions and issues raised by clients in both the UK and U.S. ----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. Henry: Welcome to our new series on AI. Over the coming months, we will explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, we will focus on AI in film and TV. My name is Henry Birkbeck. I'm a senior associate in the London office at Reed Smith, and I'm speaking today with Christian Simonds, who is a partner in the New York office. Christian and I have previously written an article on AI in the film and TV space, and there's probably quite a lot to mention and not a huge amount of time to cover it. But I guess I'll start maybe Christian just by asking, you know, have you seen recurring themes coming up with clients asking about AI in the film and TV space so far? Christian: Yeah, I think in terms of, you know, the film and TV industry as a whole, it's kind of always been kind of at the forefront of technology, particularly in terms of how to properly utilize it. Just not only from a budgetary perspective, but also from a creative perspective, right? And obviously, you know, AI has been such a hot topic, particularly with respect to the guilds during the strikes of 2023. So there is a lot to kind of unpack in terms of how it's being integrated into film and TV production. You know, I think the general consensus is that about two thirds of every budget for a AV project in the kind of the film and TV space is kind of made up of labor. Right. And particularly now in relation to kind of the economy and where it is, there's been a heightened scrutiny of, of each line item in a, in a particular budget. And, and, and as a result, it's kind of driven the need or reliance on AI as a potential solution to mitigating certain costs, labor costs. And again, I know it's not ideal from an individual employment perspective, but from an overall budget perspective, it is something that I see the studios and production companies on the independent level embracing as it relates to trying to drive down costs of a particular budget it kind of, AI kind of plays into each stage of production on, it plays into development, pre-production, production, and post. And when you're navigating that as it relates to the legalities of how it's used, yeah, there are certain issues that come into play vis-a-vis what the guilds have agreed to kind of in their most recent ratification at the end of the strikes. And how to ensure that you're adhering to what those requirements are, at least aware of what they are. In addition to that, just from a copyright perspective and other considerations in terms of how AI is used in that kind of development stage. So there's kind of a lot to unpack within kind of the lifespan of a production as it relates to AI and how it's been used. And the reality is it's going to be used and it's going to continue to evolve and be, be relied on to a greater degree, particularly with respect to certain elements of the production process on the, on, on the VFX side in particular, obviously certainly in, in, in the development stage and, and, and the editing stage. And there's, there's certain things that, that it really has a, a, a tremendous value from a timing perspective, a cut down and production timing and, and, and, and other elements that I think will, will benefit the production as a whole. But yeah in terms of legalities yeah there's a lot to kind of unpack there I'm happy to touch on each of those in the time that we have. Henry: Well I think the first one which you did touch on obviously is that the guild strikes of 2023 and clients and and those those people in the industry in the US were probably a lot closer to it but for the benefit of those of us that weren't in the US do you do you want to give a very quick recap of kind of where where they ended up? Christian: Absolutely. Yeah. In terms of the Screen Actors Guild, SAG, there are really four main components to how they regulate artificial intelligence. So you've got your employment-based digital replica, which is basically a replication of a performer's employment or participation in the production. So it's literally taking the performer himself and portraying him in a scene that they didn't actually shoot or a performance that they didn't actually shoot. A good example is if you see in a movie someone talking to themselves. That second digital replication is employment-based digital replica. Right. What does that mean in terms of what you need to do vis-a-vis SAG? It means you need to get mandatory consent from the performers when you're going to do that. So it needs to be disclosed at the outset, either from the performer himself or if the performer is no longer around, you need to get consent from an authorized representative from his estate or the union itself. The contracts need to be reasonably specific as to the description of how it's going to be used. And if you're going to use it outside of the project, i.e. kind of that beyond a kind of one picture license, you're going to need additional consent to do that. And, you know, they need to be, the performers will need to be compensated, you know, for that digital creation as though it was themselves, right? So you need to take into consideration that residuals obviously Obviously, we'll need to be paid on whatever amounts are paid in connection with that. And then you've got independently created digital replica, which is basically using digital replicas created kind of using materials that the performer has provided in a scene that they didn't actually shoot. Right. So you're not actually using a previous performance in the movie itself, but you're like literally digitally replicating the performer in a scene that he didn't otherwise participate in. So again, you need to consent from the performer when you do that. You need to be reasonably specific in terms of how you're describing that use in the contract. Again, obviously, he's entitled to compensation for that use. And obviously, that compensation is entitled to payment of fringes. Henry: Has this kind of been met with or met positively, I guess, in the industry since? Because I know that in 2023, you know, there was a big kind of reputational issue around AI and there was a lot of speculation about whether these, you know, protecting the performer's rights, was this being overblown a little bit? Or do you think, you know, are people comfortable with where they landed? Christian: I think with respect to those two elements, I think yes, right? I think that the general consensus is they do adequately protect the actors when you're exploring those types of digital replica usages. I think the real wildcard here or the area of real concern is around generative AI, right? So basically, taking data, materials, prior performances, facial expressions, their image likeness, and actually creating new content from that material from an actor. I think that's really where we start to enter into an area where people aren't necessarily comfortable, particularly on the talent side. And again, the guild is clear that if you're going to do that, you need to get consent from the actor, right? So if you're going to use his image or likeness or prior performances to kind of feed a gen AI tool to create a new piece of content from those materials, you're going to need consent from that actor. You got to notify the union when you're going to do such a thing, you know, and the compensation around that usage is usually specifically negotiated with the talent themselves. And you basically need to continue to keep that talent informed how those materials are being used vis-a-vis the gen AI. So that really is a touchy area. I mean, I think a lot of people are familiar with what happened with Scarlett Johansson when she basically said that her voice was being utilized for purposes of chat GPT. Recently, they claimed that they had used an actress's voice that they had brought in that sounds similar to hers, but it wasn't her voice. I mean, so it just shows you the heightened sensitivity on the talent side in terms of of how their, you know, image like this voice is being used within the gen AI space. So yeah, there is, there's a lot of sensitivities around that usage. Henry: Okay. So it's interesting that there's an ongoing obligation as well, which I guess makes sense, but you know, it's a burden, I guess, on the production company. And the other question I had relating to guilds was, was the writers guild. And I think the other thing that seemed to make the headlines internationally was about how particularly large language models and generative AI tools can be used for screenwriting and at what point. There's always a question with AI and copyright and ownership. And I was wondering if you could speak a little bit on where they landed in terms of who, if anyone, can own a script that has been written by an AI tool. Christian: You know, within the US, the copyright law is clear in the sense of, you know, anything that's gen AI created is not copyrightable, right? And if you are utilizing elements of materials that were gen AI created in your copyrightable material, you have to disclose what those materials are, and those materials will not be protected within the overall piece of IP, right? So you could copyright the script, but if certain elements of it were pulled from gen AI sources, those elements of your script will not be protectable. So the copyright law is fairly clear on that. In terms of the WGA and how they're trying to protect their writers from being replaced by AI, it's saying, hey, obviously with respect to signatory companies, you have to be clear that... gen AI produced material will not be considered kind of literary material under the WGA, right? So what does that mean? So if you can't give an AI generated screenplay to a writer and say, hey, go rewrite this, and you potentially won't be entitled to separate rights because you're writing something that's based on underlying materials, WGA says absolutely not. We're basically going to exclude that gen AI-created screenplay or treatment or Bible from the kind of separated rights discussion and say, Hey, that writer that contributes those first writing services, you know, for purposes of taking that gen AI material and, you know, either polishing or rewriting it or, or, or developing further into the screenplay, that will be considered the first step of the writing process. And that writer will be the writer that will be entitled to the writing credits around the material moving forward. So yeah it's almost like it's fine for studios to to provide gen AI materials for purposes of writers developing a screenplay or or assisting them with their writing services and again if they're going to do that they need to fully disclose that to the writer when they're doing it but those materials will basically be excluded from kind of the chain right when the WGA is considering what makes up the overall literary material that's going to be considered for purposes of writing credits residuals before etc. And I think again you know it's it's a good place to land for writers it doesn't necessarily solve the AI issue as a whole because it's still going to be utilized for purposes of coming up with ideas potentially on the studio side because it's it's something that they can quickly do and and also it has added benefits in terms of saying, hey. It can analyze a screenplay or it can analyze an idea and say, hey, here's the likelihood of the success of this idea or screenplay based on, you know, historics of screenplays like it in the past. Or, hey, I think the second chapter of this story should be changed this way because it's going to be better received because of X, Y, or Z, right? I think that tool will be beneficial. So it's not totally carving out the usage of AI as it relates to the development of a literary material. And I think it could be utilized in a positive way, which is great. I just don't think it will ever be able to fully remove physical writers from the process. I think the WGA did a sufficient job ensuring that. Henry: Yeah. It's interesting because obviously we're talking mostly about the US here, but I think most other markets in the film and TV industry were watching very closely what happened in 2023. And certainly in the UK, there's kind of been largely a following suit. You know, we haven't had the same kind of high profile developments, but PACT, which is the Producers Alliance in the UK, has since issued guidance on AI and the use of AI in film and TV productions. And, you know, they don't. They kind of stop short of taking a hard stance on anything, but they do talk about being very mindful and aware of the protection of the rights of all the various people that might be involved and how to integrate AI into production. So I think, I think the US position is, is really the kind of the market leader for this. And, you know, there's, there's a slight nuance in the copyright law is slightly different in the US and the UK and, you know, how AI relates to that. And, and lots of other jurisdictions, of course, there's implications there. But I think so far, the UK market seems to be broadly following what's happening in the states. Christian: It's interesting, too, because the states here are starting to take a position on AI. And there's, at least in New York, there's a few bills that are being considered currently. There's three bills, one of which I think probably has a likelihood of getting passed, which deals with contracts around the creation of digital replicas. And it kind of tracks what SAG has already said. But basically, any contract between an individual and an entity or individual for performance of personal or professional services as it relates to a new performance by digital replication basically is contrary to public policy and will be deemed null and void unless it satisfies three conditions, one of which is the reasonably specific description of the intended use of the digital replica. But it adds like an interesting element, which is that the person who is on the other side, whose performance is potentially being digitally replicated, needs to have been represented by council or a member of a guild, which is interesting, right? So it kind of adds a little, an extra level of protection. And again, this is going to be state specific. So it'll be interesting how this kind of impacts other states or what other states are potentially considering. And then there's two other bills that are currently in place. One is on the advertising side, you know, in connection with disclosing synthetic media as it relates to advertising. But the other one that's interesting, just from a film financing perspective, is that they're taking a position that, you know, productions that spend money on AI digital replication or AI usage might not qualify for the New York tax rebate, which is very interesting. Henry: Oh, really? Wow. Christian: They think that that one won't necessarily pass. Certainly the first one will because it's kind of already in line with what SAG has said. But yeah, that second one, I think, will probably get shelved. But just an interesting one to consider. Henry: Yeah, and it's really kind of, I guess, both of them showing that there is this protection element being added in and trying to... It's almost like holding these AI devices slightly at a distance to stop them kind of... Becoming a source of, I don't want to say evil in the industry, but kind of going too far overstepping the mark. Christian: Absolutely. And it's interesting too, because it's almost like, obviously you've got your defined protections within SAG and copyright law, and now obviously what's being considered by legislation. But the reality is a lot of this is being driven just by public policy in terms of the public's rejection of AI to a degree, right? I think people are generally like scared of it right so the knee-jerk reaction is to say no let's continue to promote you know the employment of real people right? Henry: Yeah. Christian: I think you know and and I think this also plays into how AI is used you know in films and again you know i think it's going to evolve to a point where it'll be tough to distinguish between AI and real right but you know, a good example being Irishman or some other films that have used significant AI to basically de-age people, you know, and people see it and like, that looks ridiculous, right? Like, I think there's a general knee-jerk reaction to doing it, right? And whether that changes over time based on how the AI technology evolves. Particularly from a visual perspective is TBD. But but yeah I think a lot of it is driven by public perception of AI right. Henry: Yeah yeah and I think you know it is interesting what you were saying before and we've seen this in the UK as well is that initially it was like okay well how is this gonna affect producers and you know and there's kind of efficiencies there but actually we're seeing studios and commissioners really embrace it and and look for ways to cut the cost of production as well and and you know i think it's It's just going to, like you say, it's going to touch basically every aspect of film and TV production and streamline things. Christian: Yeah, I think there are, I mean, I think there are real positives in terms of how it can be integrated into the production process. I know we touched on a few, but, you know, also like dubbing, right, localization of content and, you know, basically extending the reach of a piece of AV IP, right? So if you can do it in a way where it looks natural, because I know there's always kind of been a visceral reaction to seeing something that is dubbed really poorly, but if it can evolve to a point where it's almost seamless, it may have a better impact in terms of the breach of content. Again, I think there are different schools there in terms of whether investing in that makes sense in certain places or if it's just easier just to dub it and release it and how much of an impact it's actually having. But I do think in certain jurisdictions or certain areas, a seamless localization could have value to the reach of a particular piece of AV IP. Henry: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And it could kind of move things geographically as well. I know, in the UK, we have this a lot where, you know, the cost of post production is a lot cheaper in countries close to the UK. And so as a result of that, you quite often see productions that will be, you know, 80% of it will be of the money will be spent in the UK. And actually, the final 20%, which, you know, often doesn't qualify for the tax credit over here anyway, gets outsourced to somewhere in Europe, where it is much cheaper to have the post production be carried out remotely, or even to Canada, or somewhere where there's a kind of better incentive package. And actually, if you could streamline that whole process, and you've got, you know, a company that or an AI tool that can, you know, do all the grading and all this kind of stuff that was cutting and these previously quite labor intensive activities, then there's no reason why you couldn't bring a lot of that production cost back on shore and reduce it. So it may kind of move where people are located in the market as well. Christian: Yeah, I think, you know, and it's not necessarily, you know, solely issue for, you know, scripted projects. You know, I think also in the US, it's even kind of led into the doc space, right? So I know, you know, the APA in the US, which is the Archival Producers Alliance, which basically is a document variance, you know, basically said as well, like, hey, just be careful how you use AI in this space, even though it's not, you know, governed by a auild necessarily, right? Like still, or how it's used in the non-scripted space, you know, it doesn't really have guild coverage depending on what it is. They're at least saying, hey, like, just be careful how you use it because, you know, what we're doing, particularly in terms of how we're depicting history or events, historical events or things that have happened, you know, AI, you don't want to, you don't want to change it to a point where you're basically changing the perception of history, right? Or generating things that are so AI oblivious to the realities of what actually happened, right? Like you might potentially, it might have a negative effect. And it's funny, it's more of like an ethical line that documentarians are trying just to be mindful of as it's kind of integrated into that space as well. Because look, when you don't have kind of primary source material to utilize for purposes of trying to depict something in a documentary, Yeah, it may be easy to duplicate it using AI, right? Generated by AI. But at the same time, that may have implications that you might not have thought about, which is, you know, how is this telling a story that might not actually be accurate to the underlying facts? Henry: I mean, I think that's a pretty good kind of starting point. Obviously, these are issues and discussion points that have a lot of depth to them and have been discussed a lot in the industry internationally already. And we're kind of in a point now where it's like, let's wait and see how this stuff shakes out in practice. And certainly, as we've discussed, the US has kind in a lot of areas that there is now a bit of a direction. So it'll be interesting to see how things unfold. And I know for the most part in the UK, the production industry sort of follows what's happening in the states. And in respect of international productions, they have to kind of be aligned to a degree. So it will be really interesting to see how this develops in the coming months and years. Christian: Yeah, for sure. And like Luke said in the beginning, there is no question that it is a part of the filmmaking process and will continue to be so at an ever-increasing degree. So it's kind of unavoidable. And I truly think it could be utilized in a way that's beneficial to filmmaking, both from a budgetary perspective, but also like, hey, if you can reallocate a bunch of the spend from what otherwise was labor-intensive, time-consuming elements of production, re-allocate that to talent or other things, elements of the process that can compensate certain individuals in a way that they weren't before. I think that can be beneficial as well. And I think, you know, there will be a point where, you know, it'll really help independent filmmaking in particular, right? Because that always is, budgetary constraints are always paramount in that space. And if you can do things that otherwise cost a ton of money previously for cents on the dollar using AI, moving forward to the extent it kind of evolves quality wise, I think you'll see an uptick in really quality, you know, independent filmmaking.. Again, there's never going to be a universe, in my opinion, that totally circumvents the utilization of real people, but AI can certainly be utilized in a beneficial way to help the process. Henry: Great. Thanks very much, Christian. And thanks everyone for listening. Tune in for the next episode on our series on AI. 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.

As part of our new series on artificial intelligence, in the coming months, we explore the key challenges and opportunities in this rapidly evolving landscape. In this episode, our labor and employment lawyers, Mark Goldstein and Carl de Cicco, discuss what employers need to know about the use of AI in the workplace and the key differences between and implications for the UK and the United States. ----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.  Mark: Hi, everyone. Welcome to Tech Law Talks podcast. We're starting a new series on artificial intelligence or AI, where the coming months we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, we will focus on AI in the U.S. and U.K. workplaces. My name is Mark Goldstein. I'm a partner in Reed Smith's Labor and Employment Group, resident in our New York office. And I'm here joined today by my colleague, Carl De Cicco from our London office. And we're going to talk today about some of the U.S. and U.K. Implications for AI as it relates to the workplace. So, Carl, let me kick it over to you. And if you can tell us, you know, from a high level, what do employers in the UK need to know when it comes to AI related issues in the workplace?  Carl: Thank you, Mark. So, yes, my name is Carl. I'm a partner here in the London Employment Group of Reed Smith. And essentially, I think the AI issues to be concerned about in the UK are twofold. The first is how it pertains to day to day activities. And the second is how it relates to kind of management side of things. So look on the type of day-to-day activities point that's hopefully the things that people are starting to see themselves in their own workplace starting to come in so use of particular generative AI programs or models to help generate content and that's obviously increasing the amount of output individuals can have and so on the one hand it's quite good on the other hand thinking about it there might be some issues to look at so for example are people being overly reliant on their AI are they simply putting the request in and whatever is churned out by the AI system is that being submitted as the work product and if so that could be quite concerning because, AI is obviously a very useful tool and is sure to continue improving as time goes on but where we stand right now AI is far from perfect and you can get what are known as hallucinations and this seems to be quite a nice term of art for effectively what are errors so things that are conclusions that are drawn on the basis of information that doesn't exist, or quotations of things that do not exist either. So really, the content that's produced by AI should be seen as something that's collaborative with the worker that's involved in the matter rather than something which AI should be totally responsible for. So see it as a first pass rather than the finished product. You should be checking the product that comes out, not just the things like making sure that sources stack up and the conclusions draw back to the data underneath, but to make sure also that you're not getting to a stage where there might be plagiarization. So AI takes what is available on the internet and that can lead to circumstances where actually somebody somebody's very good work is already out there is simply being reproduced if not word for word substantially that can obviously lead to issues not just for the person who's submitting the work but for the employer who might use that particular piece of generated work for something that they're doing. Other benefits could be things like work allocation so one of the issues that people look at in the DEI space is our opportunities for work being fairly and equally distributed, people getting enough of a looking at work, both in terms of amount and quality. And obviously, if you have a programme which is blind to who the work is going to, there's potential for that work to be more fairly distributed so that those who don't often get the opportunity to work on particular matters are actually finding themselves onto the kind of work they weren't previously dealing with and they would like to be able to get and experience of. Now, that's the positive side of it. The potential negative there is that there might be some bias in the AI that underpins that resourcing program. So, for example, it might not pick all the individuals who are less occupied than others in a way which a business might have in a view to what's coming up over the next week or two. It might not even pick up quite how the quality of work should be viewed through all particular lenses. It might have a particular skew on how quality of work is viewed. And that could lead perhaps to an individual being even more pigeonholed than before. So all of these things are potentially positive but need to be underpinned by essentially a second human checker so whilst there are many many positives it shouldn't be seen as a panacea. So well how's that holding up for what you're seeing in the states particularly new york?  Mark: I think that that's absolutely right Carl similar principles apply here in the US i think it's by way of background to go through kind of where I've seen AI kind of infiltrate the workplace, if you will. And I'll distinguish between AI, traditional AI, and then generative AI. So I've seen, you know, we've seen AI be used by employers in the U.S. and a whole host of fronts from headhunting, screening job applicants, running background checks, inducting job interviews coming up with a slate of questions. Also to things like performance management for employees and even selection criteria and deciding which employees to select for a reduction in force or mass layoff. I've also seen employers use AI in the context of simple administrative tasks like guiding employees to policy documents or benefits materials and then creating employee and workplace-related agreements and implementing document retention and creation policies and protocols. In terms of generative AI, which is more, as you noted, on the content creation front, I've certainly seen that by employees being used to translate messages or documents. And to perform certain other tasks, including creating responses from manager inquiries to more substantive documents. But as you rightly note, just as in the UK, there are a number of potential pitfalls in the US. The first is that there's a risk, as you noted, of AI plagiarizing or using a third party's intellectual property, especially if the generative AI is going to be used in a document that's going to be outward facing or external, you run substantial risk. So absolutely review and auditing any materials that are created by generative AI, among other things, to ensure that there's no plagiarism or copying, especially when, again, that material is going externally, is incredibly important. Simply reviewing the content as well, just beyond plagiarism, simply to ensure general accuracy. There was a story out of, you know, New York Federal Court last summer about an attorney who had ChatGPT help write a legal brief and asked ChatGPT to, you know, run some legal research and find some cases. And ultimately, the case sites that were provided were fictional, were not actual cases that had truly been decided. So a good reminder that, as Carl said, while generative AI can be useful, it is not, you know, an absolute panacea and needs to be reviewed and conducted, you know, reviewed thoroughly. And then, you know, similarly, you run a risk if employees are using certain generative AI platforms that the employee may be disclosing confidential company information or intellectual property on that third party platform. So we want to make sure that, you know, even when generative AI is used, that employees are doing so within the appropriate confines of company policy and their agreements, of course, things like confidential information and trade secrets and intellectual property. You know, so I think it's important that employers, you know, look to adopt some sort of AI and generative AI policy so that employees know what the expectations are in terms of, you know, what they can and equally, if not more importantly, what they cannot do in the workplace as it relates to AI and generative AI. And certainly we've been helping our clients put together those sorts of policies so employees can understand the expectations. Carl you know we talked we've talked so far kind of generally about you know implications for the workplace is there any specific legislation or regulations from the UK side of things that you all have been monitoring or that have come out?  Carl: The approach of the UK government to date has been to not legislate in this area in a in what I think is an attempt to achieve a balance between regulation and growth the plan I think so far has been to to at some point introduce a voluntary self-regulatory scheme, which bodies sign up to. But we're recording this in June 2024, less than one month away from a UK general election. So matters of AI regulation and legislation are currently on the back burner, not to be revived perhaps for at least another two to three months. But what we can, there is still, of course, a lot of interest in this area. And the UK TUC, which is a federation of trade unions in the UK, has published sort of a framework proposal for what the law might look like. This is far from being a legislation and obviously many hurdles to pass before this might even come before Parliament and whether or not if it is passed, put before Parliament, whether it's approved by all there. But this looks at things very similar to what the EU are looking at, that is to the risks-based approach to legislation in this area. And they draw a distinction between regular decision-making and what they call high-risk decision-making. And the high-risk decision-making is really shorthand for decisions which might affect the employment of an individual, whether that's recruitment. Whether it's a decision, disciplinary decisions, termination decision. Essentially all the major employment related decisions are to go through essentially a system of checking so you couldn't rely purely for example in the framework on a decision made purely by AI. It'd be required that an individual sits alongside that or at least only uses the AI tangentially to decision that they're making. Things like no emotion recognition software would be allowed so that's for example if you were to have a disciplinary hearing and that's to be recorded you could use software which is designed to pick up on things like inflection word pattern things that might infer a particular motive or meaning behind what's been said and what this framework proposal does is say that kind of material could have that kind of software or programming couldn't be used in that kind of setting. So what happens in the UK remains to be seen but i think you guys are a bit further ahead than us and actually have some law and statute. How are things working out for you?  Mark: We've seen a lot of government agencies, as well as state legislatures, put an emphasis on this issue in terms of potential regulatory guidance or proposed legislation. To date, there has not been a huge amount of legislation passed specifically relating to AI in the workplace. We're still at the phase where most jurisdictions are still considering legislation. That said, there was an extremely broad law passed by New York City a few years ago, which finally went into effect last July. And in a nutshell, we can have an entirely separate podcast just on the nuances of the New York City law. But essentially what the New York City law does is it stops employers or bars employers from using an automated employment decision tool or an AEDT to screen job candidates when making employment decisions unless three criteria have been satisfied. First, the tool has been subjected to an independent bias audit within the year prior to the use. A summary of the most recent bias audit results are posted on the employer's website, and the employer has provided prior written notice regarding use of the AEDT to any job applicants and employees who will be subject to screening by it. If any one or more of these three criteria aren't satisfied, then an employer's use of that AEDT with respect to any employment decisions would violate the New York City Human Rights Law, which is one of the most employee-friendly anti-discrimination statutes in America. And other jurisdictions have used the New York City law as somewhat of a model for potential of the legislation. We've also seen the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the EEOC weigh in and issue some guidance, though not binding necessarily strongly cautions employers with regards to the use of AI and the potential for disparate impact on certain protected classes of job applicants and employees, and generally cautioning and recommending that employers conduct periodic audits of their tools to ensure no bias occurs. Carl, do you have any final thoughts?  Carl: So whilst we're still a long way from legislation in the UK, there are things employers can be thinking about and doing now to prepare themselves for I think what will inevitably be coming down the road. So just a few suggestions on that front. Establish an AI committee. So take ownership of how AI is used in the business, whether that's in the performance of day-to-day tasks and content generation and such. As Mark said earlier on, setting up things like what can be done what checks should be carried out ensuring that there is a level of quality control and also in terms of decision making ensuring that there is a policy that employers can look to to make sure that they are not going to one fall foul of something in the act and also have something so that if any decisions are challenged in future not just can they look back on the measures they've taken but show that it's consistent with a policy that they've adopted and applied on an equal basis for all individuals going through any particular process may give rise to complaints. And they might also, for example, conduct a risk assessment and audit of their systems. I mean, one of the things that will be key is not just saying that I had AI and that was used in a particular process, but knowing how that AI actually worked and how it filtered or made decisions that it did. So, for example, if you want to be able to guard against an allegation of bias, it would be good to have a good understanding of how the AI system in question that gave rise to decision that's in dispute had made its determination as over one individual than the other that will help the employer to be able to demonstrate first of all that they are an equal opportunities employer in the event of real challenge the discrimination didn't occur, so look those kind of things are things employers can be thinking about and doing. Now what kind of things do you think people on your side of the pond might be thinking about?  Mark: Yeah so I think you know similar similar considerations for U.S. employers. I think among them, considering the pros and cons, if you're going to use an AI tool, building your own, which some employers have opted for versus purchasing from a third party. If purchasing from a third party, particularly given the EEOC and other agencies' stated interest in scrutinizing how tools potentially might create some sort of discriminatory impact, consider including an indemnification provision in any contracts that you're negotiating. And in jurisdictions like New York City, where you're required to conduct an annual audit, but even outside New York City, especially given that it's been recommended by the EEOC, consider periodic auditing of any employee and company AI use to ensure, for instance, that tools aren't skewing a paper of or against a particular protected class during the hiring process. And again, I strongly recommend developing and adopting some sort of workplace AI and generative AI policy. Thank you all for your time today. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Carl. And stay tuned for the next installment in this series.  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.

Que de folie en juin! Dans cet épisode, Laurent et moi faisons le post mortem du combat entre Marie-Pier Houle et Karla Ramos Zamora, nous discutons de la malchance de Leïla Beaudoin et de Mary Spencer, toutes deux laissées sans combat à la dernière minute, on met la table pour la défense de titre de Vanessa Lepage-Joanisse face à Claressa Shields, on parle des options d'Amanda Serrano et de Terri Harper, je vous raconte ma fin de semaine à la compétition féminine de Budo Canada à North York, on revient sur la belle victoire d'Emma Dolan sur Shannon Ryan, on jase de Tammara Thibeault qui quitte bientôt pour Paris, de la nouvelle recrue de Matchroom Stephanie Pineiro, et bien plus encore. Parce que si en boxe, on ne s'ennuie jamais, en boxe féminine, ça bouge encore plus vite! Si tu n'es pas encore abonné à mes réseaux sociaux et différentes plateformes, c'est par ici; linktr.ee/120secondes Bonne écoute, Marie-Eve

Host Raheel Ramzanali and ABC13 reporter Shannon Ryan are helping you learn about the stories everybody is talking about to start the week. The duo are breaking down why corruption charges were filed against a Midtown Redevelopment Authority official, how an inmate just walked away from a unit, why an HISD admin was taunting parents, why Mayor Whitmire is calling out the Houston Zoo, and more! Featured stories: The latest on the murder of Jocelyn Nungaray via ABC 13 Corruption charges filed against former MRA officials  Inmate walks away from trusty camp  Mayor Whitmire says the Houston Zoo is too expensive  Houston has a breakdancer competing in the Olympics!  HISD admin taunts parents at board meeting  Men save accident victim before tanker catches fire  Looking for more Houston news? Then sign up for our morning newsletter Hey Houston  Follow us on Instagram  @CityCastHouston Don't have social media? Then leave us a voicemail or text us at +1 713-489-6972 with your thoughts! Have feedback or a show idea? Let us know!  Interested in advertising with City Cast? Let's Talk! Learn more about the sponsors of this June 25th episode here: Downtown Houston+ CAMH Babbel Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Christian Castile, a trial attorney at Reed Smith, is joined by Reed Smith's Professional Development and Continuing Legal Education Manager, Joe Maguire, and Emily Chang, a former Reed Smith summer associate, to explore the evolution of LGBTQ+ inclusive language. This episode delves into the history and reclamation of the term "queer," examining its significance and the broader impacts of language on the LGBTQ+ community. Joe and Emily share their personal stories and insights, discussing how their experiences have shaped their understanding and use of LGBTQ+ terminology. They also touch on the intersectionality of language across different marginalized groups and the importance of person-centered language. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion on the power of words and the journey toward inclusivity. This episode includes a frank discussion of words used to describe the LGBTQ+ community, some of which could be triggering to some listeners. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith Podcast, Inclusivity Included: Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions, and challenges, past and present, all with the goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included.  Christian: Hello, and welcome to this month's episode of Reed Smith's podcast, Inclusivity Included. My name is Christian Castile, and I am the guest host of this month's episode. I am here joined today by Joe Maguire and Emily Chang, and we are going to be discussing the evolution of LGBTQ+ inclusive language, focusing on the term queer as a prime and driving example, but looking sort of across the board, a different language that we use. I'll get into a little bit of the history of that term and some other terms, but as we are getting started here I'm gonna toss it over to Emily and Joe to give us a little bit of introduction. So Emily, we'll go ahead and have you start. Can you just share a little bit about your background and what it is that inspired you to pursue a career in the legal industry?  Emily: Yeah, I'm Emily. I majored in undergrad in hospitality and graduated in 2020. So my job on cruise ships was no longer an option. And I took a semester off and then decided I wanted to go to law school. I had taken a hospitality law class and I had loved it. It was definitely the right move. And I am studying for the bar and joining the firm in Dallas soon.  Christian: That is so exciting. Are you doing anything interesting in between your law school graduation and starting at the firm?  Emily: I'm going to clerk for a bankruptcy judge in Dallas for a year.  Christian: That's incredible. Congratulations.  Emily: Thank you.  Christian: Joe, I'll pass it over to you. Sort of the same question, if you could just share a little bit about your background and how you came to get involved with Reed Smith and the legal industry more broadly.  Joe: Sure. So I was an English and philosophy major in undergrad, which was all incredibly useful if I wanted to go into publishing, which I did not. So I ended up going to law school, as many people do, as sort of a default. And I clerked for a couple of years, and then I practiced for a couple of years. And it was clear that it was just not something that I was... I love the law, and I love the learning, I love the words, but the actual practice just just didn't suit. And so I went a different path and worked in law schools and then eventually came to work at the firm. And actually, this week is my 25th anniversary at the firm on the 14th.  Christian: Congratulations. What a milestone.  Joe: Thank you. Yes, it's a milestone I don't think anyone ever really expects to hit. It sort of comes as a surprise. So yeah, and it's interesting because my law firm experience was very different from when I was a practitioner to when I was in a role that allowed me to work with lawyers was a different dynamic and one that suited me quite well.  Christian: Well, I know I speak for many of us here at the firm to say that we're happy to have you in the role that you're in. You do some great work for us, and I know I enjoy working with you. So I'm so pleased to be sitting here with you both today for this podcast episode. And I appreciate the insights that the different perspectives that you just both shared are going to provide for the discussion that we're having. So just really quickly, I thought for anybody who is maybe less familiar with sort of the history of what we're talking about today, we are looking at the word queer as a sort of focal point for the evolution of LGBTQ+ inclusive language. And the reason that we're focusing on that word is because historically queer has seen a lot of change, a lot of development over the way that it's been used, the way it's been perceived in this particular community, most notably sort of starting out as a derogatory term, and then over time being reclaimed as different generations of the the LGBTQ community have really focused on trying to recapture some of that language. So sort of with that in mind, this is a question for both of you again, as well. And we'll go, we'll take this in reverse order. So Joe, if you could open us up here, is there anything that you are comfortable sharing about your LGBTQ experiences, your experience as a member of the LGBTQ+ community? And specifically, what is the language that you use with respect back to your own identity?  Joe: So I was aware by the time I started school as a kid that I was different. And I had some awareness of what that was about. And I, as an elementary schooler, was mildly fluid from a gender perspective. And so consequently, I was effeminate enough to get the attention of my classmates. And that made me a target. There were other factors in my identity that sort of contributed to that sense of otherness that had nothing to do with sexuality or gender. Going through those experiences, I had a fair amount of confusion about exactly what was going on. And all that seemed to clarify once puberty hit. And it became very clear to me that my identity was male and gay. And that is how I identify now. And that's probably been since about sixth grade.  Emily: Yeah. And I use she/her pronouns. And I think came out to myself probably in middle school as a product of, I think I grew up in Texas and I think that different sexualities are not presented as an option to you until you learn about them yourself. And I grew up in a time when the internet was very available. And I think that was very useful and educational for me as a young person. And then I came out as so many do to my parents and greater community and when I left for college and could do that and everyone was very receptive, And so it's very nice to have a community here and in the larger, in everywhere I've gone.  Christian: Emily, it's interesting that you mentioned that, too. That could almost be its entire separate topic, right, of the advent of the Internet and how that has sort of impacted not only the way that, you know, our community has disseminated information and representation, but also how it's impacted the way that we use language. Language, getting sort of to the crux of this episode, I'm curious if either of you are willing to share specifically what the word queer means to you personally, and whether you've had any experiences with that term that sort of informed the way that you interact with it, the way that you perceive it, and your feelings around it.  Joe: It took me a long time to decide to respond to Christian about whether to do this, because I have, I feel conflicted. As a lover of words, I think queer is a great word. And I've always felt sad that it was hijacked in the way that it has been. And I mean, I went through a period of time where I wanted to be an etymologist. It's still an interest that I have. So despite the fact that I think it's a fabulous word, it's not a word I really ever use. And I certainly don't connect with it as part of my own identity. And while I love the idea of reclaiming words, anytime I've tried to use it, like the word has come out of my mouth, I have not felt comfortable. I'm not 100% positive about what the sort of official definition is in current usage. But, you know, I've heard it used as a an alternative to the sort of alphabet soup of LGBTQIA+, which is certainly a mouthful, and a lot. So I understand the desire to find a term that sort of captures all of that without literally needing to spell it out. But I've also heard it used as a general term for sort of intersection between sort of sexual and gender identities, which that can be a lot to communicate to someone. And so I can understand the need to want to kind of find an accessible term. I think about the term gay, which is sort of used as a catch-all for many sexual orientation identities, but it's a hijacked word and it's a little artificial. So because gay is an old term and it's one that I personally have come to identify with, I sort of try and remind myself on the use of the word queer that it's a little bit like gay and it's just a word that's been selected to try and capture something. But that's the purpose of words. They exist to capture the meaning of something, and it's never going to be quite exact.  Christian:  Yeah, absolutely. Especially, I think, within this community where there's so much nuance and sort of differences that we can all celebrate about each other. I think precision is definitely something that's difficult. Also hearing sort of from your response there, a little bit of, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like maybe some change over time in, you know, in one direction or another. Or maybe not necessarily directional change, but just some changes in the way that you've perceived that word over time and the way that you've sort of grappled with it. I'm curious if I'm reading that correctly, sort of what stages of your life, if any, that correspond with the way that you've your changes in that perception of that word have come about.  Joe: So you know obviously it was a common derogatory term in my youth so you know in that in that sense you know there's always going to be an element of trigger quick i mean it's a microsecond but it still exists that i probably you know will never fully lose and i think the evolution over time is to have it began to appear in different places from within the community. And I can't recall the precise time, but I can generally sort of recall when it started to pop up and I had a very negative reaction and I really had to sort of stop and examine that. But I think really my bigger transition was after marriage equality and sort of rights for gays and lesbians were sort of solidified in a variety of areas, legal areas, and societally. And then the sites turned to trans equality. And that just sort of opened up. Sort of before that, I didn't really know any trans people. And so being, knowing, and it's how we all learn and evolve is through our connections with other people. So by becoming connected with people who identified as trans and some of the other parts of the alphabet that I had never known before, I started to understand the challenge between precision, but also just being able to communicate in a general way. And that sort of pushed my evolution in how I see the word.  Christian: And Emily, I think for you, sort of same question, what does the term queer mean to you personally? And how has your understanding of the use of that word, whether it be for yourself personally or broader from the community perspective? What has that been like for you?  Emily: Yeah, I, again, did grow up kind of in this weird in-between time of very much when I learned the word as a young person, I knew it had been used in a derogatory way to large swaths of people to disenfranchise them and harm them. But that was never my personal experience. I had never heard the word used in a derogatory way to me or to any of my friends. There were certainly other words that got used, but queer was never one of them. And I do think I was growing up in a time of reclaiming the word. And I think there are lots of benefits to it. I like the idea that especially for kids, for people in middle school who are learning who they are to not have to. Niche down and label themselves when they're still learning who they are and to have this word that I perceive as an umbrella term for just the larger LGBTQ queer community to just be able to say I'm queer and I maybe don't know exactly what that means for me yet but it means that I'm something different than this societal standard I have found very helpful and I know a lot of my peers have found it very helpful and I think in a larger community sense I know several non-binary people who find it just easier than saying gay or lesbian when that doesn't quite identify with the intersection of their gender identity and their sexual identity. And so I know that the word has been harmful to people and have over time spoken to older people and have realized that and certainly don't use it to describe someone who I know is not comfortable with the word. But in my generation, I found it very helpful. And I think a lot of people my age find a comfort in it, almost a sense of security of just this big blanket term that also includes all of us and allows us to refer to the larger community as a whole, kind of as queer. And I think that's really nice. And I also grew up watching the word get used in mainstream media In 2018, when they revived Queer Eye, I know the original Queer Eye, I think, and I didn't watch it at the time, but the early 2000s one, I think that word was being used in an almost subversive way. And in 2018, when it came out, that was just what the show was called. And that's just what we all called it. And I don't know anyone who batted an eye at that, because it was just a very normal part of our vernacular.  Christian: Yeah, that's a really interesting point with the differences in reaction to pop culture. You know, I didn't even think about Queer Eye, but you're absolutely right. I have a similar, I think, sort of reaction to you when I think about, you know, when we were younger and that show was coming out for the first time versus now. That's a really interesting observation. Joe, I'm curious, do you have any reaction to that as somebody who, you know, maybe was paying more attention to the environment when shows like that were coming around originally?  Joe: Yeah, it's interesting. I'll just sort of move, start more current and work backwards. You know, so when they when they relaunched, you know, Queer Eye, I did not have any reaction at all to the word, I think, just because it was already like a brand in a way. But when it came out originally, I was I was suspicious of the show. It was it was a show where I avoided it, I think, in part because of the title and a lack of like, I just wasn't sure. Like i knew there were plenty of of gay people involved in the show but i just wasn't quite sure what their take was going to be was it going to be kind of a wink wink not not gay people are just so strange and funny and and so it took me a while to watch it and then i'm like okay i kind of see it so i i agree with emily that there was a lot of subversion going on in in the its original iteration that didn't really exist the second time around because it was sort of like no big deal.  Christian: Yeah, I think that goes directly to sort of this development of language piece that we're talking about today. It sounds like, you know, listening to the two of you sort of describe your experiences that you, you know, sort of all of us now as we sit here today are on a similar page with the way that we interact with this sort of language. But it's interesting hearing the perspectives coming from sort of two different and distinct places with different and distinct experiences sort of driving those thoughts. I'm curious to focus on, you know, as a community, as a group of folks who do have different identities and are trying to find a way to move forward that involves language that we all feel comfortable with and that describes us all, what are our thoughts on sort of the broader impacts of language, of the word queer, and how are those intersectional identities and things that we're thinking about factoring in. So sort of with that in mind, I'm curious if either of you have encountered in your experiences any challenges or any pushback from folks within the LGBTQ community to the word queer, either because they don't feel that it represents them or because, you know, any other concerns that you've been faced with?  Emily: I certainly have had interactions with people a little older than me who have a similar reaction to Joe in that the word when they grew up with it wasn't what it means to me now. And so it is a little bit more startling to them to hear on a first brush. And if the conversation continues and it's realized that that's a word that's not just a little new or startling, but is actually gently triggering in the way that it is for many people. It stops being used in that conversation and with that person if they're uncomfortable with it because as much as i like it and as much as i think it is inclusive for the whole community and even if the other person in the conversation thinks that it doesn't change the fact that they have an experience with that specific word that is harmful and and brings back negative associations And I do really like the trend toward inclusive words that don't make people pick niche labels at an early age. I do really like the freedom that broader terms give us. But I do also think there is room for growth or to find different words that across the community, across generations can be a little bit more kind to everyone that are new. We could invent a new word that is all-inclusive that no one has had bad interactions with. I don't know how we would or what that would be, but that's my ideal world for the future of language.  Joe: That is also my vision, would be to come up with a word that doesn't have baggage associated with it. And I also echo Emily, is that I would love a term, which is sort of how queer is tending to be used to be broad and inclusive, as opposed to the alphabet soup. The alphabet soup also, I think forces, I mean, Emily's coming at it from a person from the perspective of someone who perhaps is still trying to figure out who they are as they're, you know, forming their identity. But I'm also thinking about it in terms of like, just how specific does a person need to be? And I appreciate that, you know, some people have pretty complicated identities around orientation and gender that require not just a word, but maybe a sentence, a few sentences, and that gets very personal very quickly. Particularly because they may be things that the person that they're interacting with may not even be that familiar. They might use the word, and the person that they're speaking with may not even understand what that means. And so the fact that a person is often in the position of having to explain their identity to someone, that's just exhausting. And does someone need that much detail? So I think having an umbrella term that people kind of generally understand that you have an identity that is not 90, what is it, 94% of the population, whatever the current stats are.  Christian:Yeah, that's a very interesting piece. And I actually think it ties into something that Emily had just said specifically in that last answer that she gave about, I think you used the word freedom, Emily, when you were talking about words like queer and how they afford folks who use those identifiers a little bit more freedom. I'm curious, especially having just listened to what Joe said, if you could elaborate on that a little bit, sort of what you meant by that when you said freedom and, you know, how it ties into some of the things we're talking about today.  Emily: I definitely agree with Joe in that it gives freedom to not have to disclose parts of yourself that maybe you're not comfortable. Talking to other people about queer is just a very umbrella blanket term that implies that you are not the same as 94% of the population, but you don't have to go into specifically what you feel if you don't want to. I also think it gives freedom for exploration and change. And I think because being queer is not the norm in society, especially for younger people, can be difficult to figure out what that means for you specifically and how you feel and what your identity is. And so to have this umbrella word feels free and safe to me to not have to pick something and then feel nervous later about saying that specific word I chose doesn't fit anymore. And now I need to change what I'm telling people about myself and the stigma that comes with that. And I think the worry for some young people that comes from deviating from the norm already and the deviating from the deviation you decided. And so just saying I'm queer from the jump, it provides, I think, a sense of freedom to learn and grow and a sense of safety in that.  Christian: Right. And that's so important. And I think, you know, we have now nowadays we have studies suggesting, you know, having freedom as somebody who's growing up and discovering your identity, I think, is so important in, you know, long term success and happiness. I think a big piece of this too, and you both touched on this already, is whether it's queer or whether it's other language, so much of our community's success in speaking with each other is about this idea of person-centered language, which is not specific to the LGBTQ community. But when we are talking about it in that way, using the language that people are using to describe themselves and sort of being willing to go on that journey with folks to the extent that they are, you know, finding out new things about their identities, using new words, sort of being willing to take that linguistic journey with them, I suppose. Joe, earlier, you know, speaking of linguistic journeys, you mentioned that you had sort of a strong negative reaction to the word queer the first, you know, first time, first couple of times that you heard it. And you said that you had to examine that reaction. I'm curious if you'd be willing to to share for us sort of what that process was like for you and what was your impetus to maybe take a step back from the shock or the negative reaction that had you feeling like it was worth examining?  Joe:  Well, I think any time I have a strong negative reaction to something, I just feel like it's worth examining what's going on. Sometimes it's very obvious, but other times I'm like, hmm, I'm really surprised that I feel so strongly this way. And I think it's partly because I think I've always thought it's a cool word. I mean, just the sound and in a way that like faggot, for instance, not a cool word. It just doesn't sound cool. it doesn't have like there's it doesn't have any uniqueness to it it's very harsh and so you know as i dug deeper into it i realized this that it and i love the idea of reclaiming words but there are a couple things that that sort of went on for me one was it was a little bit shocking because it was a word that you're not supposed to say and then people are saying it and there are other or reclaimed words in other communities. I know African Americans who have a very strong negative reaction to the use of the N-word by anyone, whether they are part of the African American community or not. And then I think there's also this other piece that is a challenge in reclaimed words, which is why it would be lovely for, and I think we will eventually evolve to a term that doesn't have baggage, but the challenge is who can use the word, right? It's It's been reclaimed, but who, who's allowed to use it and when, and, um, I think anytime you have a word that people are unsure, they're unsure about what it means exactly and who is allowed to use it, that creates a barrier. It's no longer inclusive. It's really quite exclusive. And that's a danger that I, you know, that I see. And I have to kind of think about like, if I start using it, how do I feel if other people, say an ally or just a random person on the street, uses it? Yeah, I'm still not 100% sure about how I feel.  Christian: It's definitely a key topic to sort of conceptualize for sure. It's interesting, right, when you think about this discussion too in terms of other communities outside of the LGBTQ+ community, right? And so I'm thinking about the way that other marginalized groups have their own language issues that come up. I'm curious if either of you have ever found yourself in an experience where you were either more comfortable or more informed about using language, that is specific to a marginalized group because of your experiences with words like queer and sort of the dynamic nature of LGBTQ+ language. I think that Joe makes a really good point about who can use words and when and how that is concerning in a lot of ways. And I think that having a lot of friends in different marginalized communities, I don't necessarily use words that maybe they have reclaimed or that they would use for themselves. Because if I'm not part of those communities, it doesn't feel like my place to use them. But to me, the queer community is broader. And again, I think as someone who hasn't experienced that word being used in a derogatory way and who has only ever encountered the word in a generally pretty positive way, it makes me feel more comfortable. If that's how I describe myself openly and my friends from other marginalized communities use that word for me, I don't mind it as much, especially, I think, because I know that they have a history with words that impact them. And so I'm more likely to understand that their intent with that word is positive and to support me and the way that I use that word. And they don't ever mean it in a derogatory way because they understand the power that words have. And I think that that kind of intersectionality is important. And I also think that the queer umbrella is so broad and encompasses so many other marginalized communities that there is a lot of interplay between different communities and the words that we use.  Joe: I would say from my perspective, I'm very sensitive to words. So I try and really pay attention to the words that people are using for themselves and about their community. I just pay a lot of attention. I will occasionally do the bystander thing, not just for our people within the queer community who have an identity I don't identify with, but are perhaps a topic of conversation. But also for other communities and to just highlight, you know, in a low key way, why a particular language that's being used might be problematic. And I'm not talking about slurs. I'm thinking about having been in a conversation about for the Latin community and the use of Latinx versus Latino / Latina, and just being thoughtful about the words that are used. And the fact that communities are not monolithic, I mean, we, by definition, are very broad, but within other marginalized communities, there's a broad range of identities that people hold, and language reflects that. And one of the problems with language is it's kind of a general label that works well a lot of the time, but it's going to chafe a number of people who are part of that community and people who the label is applied to. And I use that labeling not in a negative way, but just it's a term that's used to refer to them.  Christian: Yeah, and I think that's critical, right? That point about, you know, communities not being a monolith. So there's always going to be a certain amount of struggle. But I think what I'm hearing from both of you is that, you know, sort of grappling with language in the way that you have as a member of the LGBTQ community has given you sort of insights and an ability to think critically about language in other settings and as used by other groups as well. In a way that is really empathy forward, which I think is really awesome and something that is important for us as we move forward in this D&I space. I think that puts us at right about time. Emily and Joe, it has been an absolute pleasure talking with you today. Thank you so much for sharing your insights. Thank you everybody so much for listening to this month's episode of Inclusivity Included. We at Reed Smith are always happy to have you as listeners. I hope you all had a good time today and learned a lot. Thank you.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. You can find our podcast 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.

Anthony Diana and Therese Craparo are joined by John Collins from Lighthouse to provide an overview of some of the challenges and strategies around data retention and eDiscovery with Microsoft's AI tool, Copilot. This episode explores Copilot's functionality within M365 applications and the complexities of preserving, collecting and producing Copilot data for legal purposes. The panelists cover practical tips on managing Copilot data, including considerations for a defensible legal hold process and the potential relevance of Copilot interactions in litigation. ----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.  Anthony: Hello, this is Anthony Diana, a partner in the Emerging Technologies Group at Reed Smith, and welcome to the latest Tech Law Talks podcast. As part of our ongoing podcast series with Lighthouse on Microsoft M365 Copilot and what legal departments should know about this generative AI tool in M365. Today, we'll be focused on data retention and e-discovery issues and risks with Copilot. I am joined today with Therese Craprro at Reed Smith and John Collins of Lighthouse. Welcome, guys. So, John, before we start, let's get some background on Copilot. We've done a few podcasts already introducing everyone to Copilot. So if you could just give a background on what is Copilot generally in M365.  John: Sure. So the Copilot we're talking about today is Copilot for Microsoft 365. It's the experience that's built into tools like Word, Excel. PowerPoint, Teams, Teams meetings. And basically what it is, is Microsoft's running a proprietary version of ChatGPT and they provide that to each one of their subscribers that gets Copilot. And then as the business people are using these different tools, they can use Copilot to help generate new content, summarize meetings, create PowerPoints. And it's generating a lot of information as we're going to be talking about.  Anthony: And I think one of the interesting things that we've emphasized in the other podcasts is that each M365 application is slightly different. So, you know, Copilot for Word is different from Copilot for Exchange, and they act differently, and you really have to understand the differences, which we talked about generally. So, okay, so let's just talk generally about the issue, which is retention and storage. So, John, why don't you give us a primer on where is the data generally stored when you're doing a prompt and response and getting information from Copilot?  John: So the kind of good news here is that the prompts and responses, so when you're asking Copilot to do something or if you're chatting with Copilot in one of the areas that you can chat with it, it's putting the back and forth into a hidden folder in the user's mailbox. So the user doesn't see it in their outlook. The prompts and responses are there, and that's where Microsoft is storing them. So there's also files that get referenced that are stored in OneDrive and SharePoint, which we may talk about further. But in terms of the back and forth, those are stored in the Exchange mailbox.  Anthony: That's helpful. So, Therese, I know we've been working with some clients on trying to figure this out and doing testing and validation, and we've come across some exceptions. You want to talk about that process, I'll say.  Therese: I think that's one of the most important things when we're talking about really any aspect of Copilot or frankly, new technology, right? It's constantly developing and changing. And so you need to be testing and validating and make sure you're understanding how it's working. So as you said, Anthony, you know, we found early on when Copilot, our clients first started using Copilot, that the prompts and the responses for Outlook were not being retained in that hidden folder, right? And then Microsoft has since continued to develop the product. And now, in most cases, at least we're seeing they are, you know, similarly, for those of you who are using transcriptionless Copilot, so it's Copilot that doesn't can give you meeting summaries and answer questions during the meeting, but doesn't retain the transcript, because people had some concerns about retaining transcripts, we're seeing that those Copilot artifacts, so the prompt and the response are now currently not being retained in the hidden folder. So a lot of this is you need to understand how Copilot is working, but understand that it's also a dynamic product that's constantly changing. So you need to test it to make sure you're understanding what's happening in your environment with your organization's use of Copilot.  Anthony: Yeah. And I think it's critical that it has to constantly be tested and validated. Like any technology, you have to constantly test it because the way it's happening now, maybe even if it's being retained now, could change, right? If they revise the product or whatever. And we've seen this with Microsoft before where they may not always, you know, they change where it's stored because for whatever reason, they decided to change the storage. So if you have an e-discovery process and like, you just have to be aware of it. Or if you're trying to retain things and you're trying to govern retention, you just have to make sure you understand where things are stored. Okay, so John, if you could explain presently sort of how retention works with Copilot data that's stored in the hidden folder of Exchange.  John: So what Microsoft has done so far is they've made it possible for the prompts and responses that we were talking about. So when you're in Word or Excel or PowerPoint, or if you're using the chat function inside of the Teams or in general, those are the subject to the same retention that you've set for your one-to-one in your group chats. So if you have a 30-day auto-delete policy for your one-to-one in group chats, that's going to be applied to these Copilot interactions. So I've heard, and I think you guys may have heard this as well, that Microsoft is going to split those off, but it's not on the roadmap that we've seen, but we've heard that they are going to make them two separate things. But right now they're the one in the same.  Therese: Yeah, and I think it's the good and the bad news, right, for people who are looking at Copilot and how do I best manage it. The good news is that you can control retention. You can set a retention on it that's within the organization's control and you can make the decision that's right for your organization. The bad news is that it has to be the same as whatever right now is for whatever you're setting for Teams chat, which may or may not be how long you would like to retain the Copilot data. So there are some features that are good, that gives you a little bit control to make decisions that are right for the organization. But right now, they're only partially controllable in that sense. So you have to make some decisions about, you know, how long do you need Teams chat? How long do you need Copilot? And where's the right place in the middle to meet business needs, right? And also to take into consideration how long this data should exist in your organization.  Anthony: Yeah. And John, we've heard the same thing and heard from Microsoft that they're working on it, but I haven't heard if there's a roadmap and when that's happening. But we have several clients who are monitoring this and are constantly in contact with Microsoft saying, when are we going to get that split? Because at least for a lot of our clients, they don't want the same retention. And I think, Therese, we could talk a little bit about it in terms of what people are thinking about, what to consider. Once we get to a place where we can actually apply a separate retention for Copilot, what are the factors to consider when you start thinking about what is the appropriate retention for this Copilot data?  John: And Therese, do you want them to be ephemeral where you could have a setting where they just go, they aren't captured anywhere? I'd be curious if you guys think that's something that you would want clients to consider as an option.  Therese: Well, look, I mean, the first thing all of our clients are looking at is business needs, right? Is this with anything, right? Do the artifacts from Copilot need to exist for a longer period of time for a business use? And in general, the answer has been no. There's no real reason to go back to that. There's no real reason to keep that data sitting in that folder. There's no use of it. The users don't go, like John, as you said, you can't see it. Users aren't going back to that data. So from a business perspective, you know, number one thing that we always consider, the answer has been no, we don't need to retain these Copilot artifacts for any business reason. The next thing we always look to is record retention, right? Is there a legal regulatory obligation to retain this Copilot artifacts that are coming out? And in most cases, when our clients look at it, the answer is no, it's not a record. It's not relied on for running the company. It doesn't currently fall under any of the regulations in terms of what a record is. It's convenience information or transitory information that may exist in the organization. So typically, again, that next component is records. And typically, at least with Copilot, we're seeing that the initial output from Copilot, the question and the response, are not considered records. And so once you get to that point, the question is, why do I need to keep it at all? Which is, John, to what you're alluding to, you know, today for all data types, whether it's Copilot or otherwise, right, over-retention presents risks. It presents privacy risks and security risks, all kinds of risks to the company. So the preference is to retain data only for as long as you need it. And if you don't need it, the question arises, do you need to keep it at all? Do you need it even for a day? Could you make it ephemeral so that it can just disappear when it's gone because it has served its useful life and there's no other reason to keep it? Now, we always have to consider legal holds whenever we have these conversations, because if you have a legal hold and you need to retain data going forward, you need to have a means of doing that. You need to be aware of how to retain that data, how to preserve that data for a legal hold purpose if you deem it to be relevant. of it. So that's always the caveat. But typically when we're seeing people look at this, when they actually sit down and think about it, there hasn't been to date really a business or records reason to retain that data in the ordinary course of business.  Anthony: And so it's a matter of how do you enforce that? And whether, John, I mean, when we talk about ephemeral, it is retained. So ephemeral would be probably like one day, right? So it would basically be kept for one day, which raises all kinds of issues because they're there for one day. And as we've seen with other, whether it's team chats or any type of instant messaging, once it's there, and we're gonna talk a little bit about preservation, it's there, right? So for one day it's there. So let's talk a little bit about sort of the e-discovery issues and particularly preservation, which I think is the issue that a lot of people are thinking about now as they're rolling this out is, can I preserve this? So John, how do you preserve Copilot data?  John: So that's pretty straightforward, at least in one respect, which is if you're preserving a user's Exchange Online mailbox, unless you put in some kind of condition explicitly to exclude the Copilot prompts and responses, et cetera, they're going to be preserved. So they will be part of what's being preserved along with email and chats and that type of thing. So the only The only question is, and if we're going to get into this, Anthony and Therese, but the reference files, the version shared and all that. But as far as the prompts and responses, those are part of the mailbox. They're going to be preserved.  Anthony: So you're talking about a potential gap here then. So let's just talk about that. When you're doing prompts and responses, oftentimes you're referencing a specific document, right? It could be a Word document. You're asking for a summary, for example, of a Word document. it's going to refer to that document in the prompt and response. So what is or isn't preserved when you preserve the mailbox in that situation?  John: Well, I know we were talking about this before, but there's really, the question is, do you have the version shared feature enabled? Because the Microsoft documentation says if you want referenced files to be preserved as part of your Copilot implementation, you have to enable version shared. But in our testing, we're seeing inconsistent results. So in one of our tenants, we have version shared, and that's exactly what it's doing is if you say, summarize this document or use this document to create a PowerPoint, it is treating it almost like a cloud attachment. And it's it, but that's not, but that's not for preservation purposes. That's at the collection stage. It goes back to the topic that I know you guys, we talk about this a lot is, well, do I have to preserve every SharePoint and OneDrive where something might live that somebody referenced, right? And that's kind of the question there with the reference files.  Anthony: Got it. So you're not preserving it necessarily because like a modern attachment, which we've talked about in the past, it's not preserving it. Although if they're looking at a document from their OneDrive and you have the OneDrive on hold, that document should be there. So when you go to collect it, you can. Assuming that there's this setting, you have to have the version shared. So it's actually linking that attachment to this Copilot data. So a lot to digest there, but it's complicated. And again, I think you point out, this is a work in progress you have to test, right? You cannot assume that based on what we're saying, it's actually going to work that way because we've seen the same thing. You have to test and it often changes because this is a work in progress and it's constantly being changed. But that's an interesting point to think through. And again, I think from a preservation standpoint, Therese, is it required to preserve it if you have Copilot data and they're referring to a document? Is it similar to like an e-comms where we say, generally in the e-comms front where we talk about a Team's message, we always said, well, you need it because it's the complete electronic communication. So therefore to get completeness, we generally say you should be producing it in the like Copilot data, do we think it's going to be any different?  Therese: Look, I mean, I think it depends is the answer. And if you look out there, even when we're talking about e-discovery, when you look at the cases that are out there talking about links, right, links to attachments or links to something that's in an email or in an e-comm, it's mixed, right? Right. The courts have not necessarily said in every case you have to preserve every single document for every single link. Right. You need to preserve what is relevant, even with production. Courts have said I'm not going to make them go back and find every single link necessarily. But if there's something that is deemed relevant and they need that link, you may have an obligation to go back and find it and make sure that you can find that document. So I don't think it's as clear cut as you must, you know, turn on version shared to make sure that you can, you are, quote, preserving every single referenced file and every single Copilot, you know, document. We certainly don't preserve every single document that's referenced in a memo, right? Or in a document that it refers to. There's a reference to it and maybe you have to go find that. So I think that it's not really clean cut. It's really a matter of looking at your Copilot setup. And making some strategic decisions about how you are going to approach it and what makes the most sense and making sure you're communicating that, right? That the structure and the setup of Copilot is coordinated with legal and the people who need to explain this to courts or to regulators and the like. And that you're educating your outside counsel so that they can make sure that they are representing it correctly when they're representing you in any particular case that says, this is how our Copilot works. These are the steps that we take to preserve. This is why. And this is how we handle that data. And I think really that's the most important thing. We're sort of, this is a new technology. It's, we're still figuring out what the best practices are and how it should be. I think the most important thing is to be thoughtful. Understand how it functions. Understand what steps you're taking and why. So that those can be adequately communicated. I think most of the time when we see these problems popping up, it's because someone hasn't thought about it or hasn't explained it correctly. Right? And that's the most important thing is understanding the technology and then understanding your approach to that technology from a litigation perspective.  Anthony: Yeah. And I think one of the challenges, right? And I think this is both a risk and a challenge. And we've heard this from a lot of litigation teams as this Copilot is being launched is it's not always accurate, right? Like it's, and I think you maybe make the argument that it's not relevant because if I'm a user and I'm asking a question, and it comes back, and it's just answering a question, and it's wrong, but you don't know that. I mean, it's Copilot. It's just giving you an answer. Is it really relevant? What makes it relevant? I may be asking the question of Copilot relating to the case. Let's assume that it's relating to the case in some way, underlying matter. You ask a question, you get a response back. Do you really need to preserve that? I've heard from litigators saying, well, if they go to Google, and they do a Google search on that topic, we're not preserving that necessarily. So what do we think that the arguments are that it's relevant or not relevant to a particular matter?  Therese: I mean, look, relevance is always relative, right, to the matter. And I think that it's difficult with any technology to say it's never relevant, right? Because relevance is a subject matter and a substantive determination. Just to say a particular technology is not relevant is a really hard, I think, position to take in any litigation, frankly. It's also very difficult to say, well, it's not reliable, so it's not relevant. Because I can tell you, I've seen a lot of emails that are not reliable, and they are nonetheless very relevant, right? The fact that somebody asked a certain type of prompt in certain litigations could be quite relevant in terms of what they were doing and how they were doing it. But I think it's also true that they're not always going to be relevant. And there's a reliability aspect that often comes in, I think, probably less so at the preservation stage and more so at the production stage. Right, in terms of how reliable is it, is this information? Again, this is about understanding the technology. Does your outside counsel know that if you are one, are you going to take the position that we're not going to produce it because it's not reliable, right? And be upfront about that and take that position and see if that's something that you can sustain in that particular case. Can you can explain that they would not be relevant here and it's not going to be reliable in any case, right? Are you going to take that position or not? Or at the very least, if you are going to produce it, that you understand that it is inherently unreliable, right? A computer gave an answer to a question that may or may not be right, and depends on a user reviewing that. You know, if the user used it and sent it out, you can review, that's when it becomes important or valuable. But understanding the value of the data, so you take appropriate positions in litigation, so that if for some reason Copilot artifacts are relevant, you can say, well, sure, that may be on a topic that is relevant to this case. But the substance of that is unreliable and meaningless, right, in this context. So I think, I mean, one of the funny things that I always think is, right, we say email is relevant, but not all email is relevant. We preserve all email because we don't have a way at the preservation stage to make a determination as to which email is relevant and which email is not, right? But I think that's true, right, with Copilot. I mean, at the end of the day, unless you are being upfront that I'm not preserving this, or you can say this type of data, there are cases where email is not relevant, right, at all for the case, unless you could take that position. You preserve that data because you don't know which of those Copilot interactions are on the topic that could matter or could be relevant. But you're thoughtful again down the road about your strategic positioning about whether or not it should be produced or whether or not it has any value in evidentiary value in that litigation given the nature of the data itself.  Anthony: And John, you talked a little bit about this. I know you're doing some testing. Everyone's doing some testing now on collecting and reviewing this data, this Copilot data. What can you tell us about? You got prompts and responses. Are they connected in any way? Is there a thread if you're doing a bunch of them? How does it all work based on what you're seeing so far?  John: Right. Well, like a lot of Microsoft, when it comes to e-discovery, some of it's going to depend on your licensing. So if you have premium eDiscovery, then for the most part, what we've been seeing in our testing is that when you collect the chats or when you collect the Copilot information, what it's going to do is if you select the threading option and the cloud attachment option, it's going to treat the Copilot back and forth largely like it's a Teams chat. So you'll see a conversation, it'll present as an HTML, it'll show you, it'll actually collect as cloud attachments, the files that are referenced, if you've got that set up. So to a large degree, in terms of determining if things are relevant and that type of thing, you can do keyword searches against them and all of that. So at this point, what we're seeing with our testing is that for the most part, it's treating the back and forth as these chat conversations similar to what you see with Teams.  Anthony: And I'm sure there'll be lots of testing and validation around that and disputes as we go forward. But that's good to know. Okay, well, I think that that covers everything. Obviously, a lot more to come on this. And I suspect we'll be learning a lot more about Copilot and retention and discovery over the next six months or so, as it becomes more and more prevalent, and then starts coming up in litigation. So thank you, John and Therese, and hopefully you all enjoyed this and certainly welcome back. We're going to have plenty more of these podcasts on this topic in the future. Thanks.  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.

Anthony Diana and Samantha Walsh are joined by Lighthouse's Chris Baird as part of our series on what legal teams need to know about Microsoft 365 AI-driven productivity tool, Copilot. This episode presents an overview of the risks relating to Copilot's access to and use of privileged and sensitive data and how businesses can mitigate these risks, including using Microsoft 365's access control tools and user training.  In particular, the episode provides in-depth information about Microsoft 365's sensitivity labels and how they can be used to refine a business's approach to managing risk associated with privileged and sensitive data stored in Microsoft 365. ----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.  Anthony: Hello, this is Anthony Diana, a partner here in Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies group, and welcome to Tech Law Talks and our podcast series on AI for legal departments with a focus on managing legal and regulatory risks with Microsoft Copilot that Reed Smith is presenting with Lighthouse. With me today are Sam Walsh from Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies Group and Chris Baird from Lighthouse. Welcome, guys. Just to level set, Copilot is sort of the AI tool that Microsoft has launched relatively recently to improve productivity within the Microsoft environment. There are a number of risks that we went through in a previous podcast that you have to consider, particularly legal departments, when you're launching Copilot within your organization. And let me just start to level set with Chris, if you could give a little bit of a technical background on how Copilot works.  Chris: Absolutely, Anthony. So thanks Thanks for having me. So I guess a couple of key points, because as we go through this conversation, things are going to come up around how Copilot is used. And you touched on it there. The key objective is to increase, improve data quality, increase productivity. So we want really good data in, want to maximize the data that we've got at our disposal and make the most of that data, make it available to Copilot. But we want to do so in a way that we're not oversharing data. We're not getting bad legacy data in, you know, stale data. And we're not getting data from departments that maybe we shouldn't have pulled it in, right? So that's one of the key things. We all know what Copilot does. In terms of its architecture, so think about it. You're in your Canvas, whatever your favorite Canvas is. It's Microsoft Word, it's Teams, it's PowerPoint. You're going to ask Copilot to give you some information to help you with a task, right? And the first piece of the architecture is you're going to make that request. Copilot's going to send a request into your Microsoft 365 tenant. Where is your data? It's going to use APIs. It's going to hit the Graph API. There's a whole semantic layer around that. And it's going to say, hey, I've got this guy, Chris. He wants to get access to this data. He's asking me this question. Have you got his data? And the first thing, really, there's this important term Microsoft use. They call it grounding. When you make your request into Copilot, whatever you request, you're going to get data back that's grounded to you. So you're not going to get data back from an open AI model, from Bing AI. You're only going to get data that's available to you. The issue with that is if you've got access to data you didn't know you had, you know, through poor governance. Maybe somebody shared a link with you two years ago. That data is going to be available to you as well. But what's going to happen, a few clever things happen from an architecture perspective. The graph gives a response. It says, hey, I've got Chris's data. It looks like this. That's going to go into the large language model. That's going to make it look beautiful and pass you all that data back in a way you can understand it. There's a final check that Copilot does at that point. It goes back to the graph and it says, I've got this response. I need to give it to the user. user, are there any compliance actions I need to perform on this response before I give it? And I think that's what we're going to focus on a lot today, Anthony, right? But the important thing is thinking about that grounding. And the one message I want to give to people listening is really, you know, don't be immediately scared and worried of Copilot. It respects a lot of the controls that are in there already. The challenge is if you have poor access control and governance, there are things that you need to work on.  Anthony: Yeah. And I think that's one of the challenges. I think a lot of legal departments don't know what access controls and what controls that the IT department has put in place into M365. And I think that's one of the things that you have to understand, right? I think that's one of the things we'll be talking about today is the importance of that. out. So Sam, just talking about what we're our focus today, which is on the risks associated with privileged information, highly confidential information, sensitive information. So can you just give a just a brief description of what those risks are?  Samantha: Sure. So I think one of the risks Chris just alluded to that Copilot is going to have access to information that you have access to, whether you know it or not. And so if you have privileged information that is sort of protected by just being in a spot maybe where people don't know it's there, but it's not necessarily controlled in terms of access, that could be coming up when people are using Copilot. I think another thing is Copilot returning information to people, you lose a bit of context for the information. And when you're talking about privilege and other types of sensitivity, sometimes you need some clues to alert you to the privilege or to the sensitive nature of the information. And if you're just getting a document sort of from the ether, and you don't know, you know, where it came from, and who put it there, you know, you're obscuring that sort of sensitive nature of the document potentially.  Anthony: Yeah. And then I guess the fear there is that you don't realize that it's privileged or highly confidential and you start sharing it, which causes all kinds of issues. And I think just generally for everyone is the regulators. And I think both on the privacy side, where there's a lot of concern about where you're using AI against personal information or highly sensitive personal information, as well as the SEC, which is very focused on material, not public information and how you're using AI against it. I think one of the things that people are going to be asking, the regulators are going to be saying, what controls do you have in place to make sure that it's not being used inappropriately? So again, I think that sets the groundwork for why we think this is important and you start setting things up. So one of the first things you do, let's talk about how you can manage the risk. I think one of the things you can do, right, which is pretty simple, is training, right? Like the users have to know how to do it. So Sam, what should they be thinking about in terms of training for this?  Samantha: I think you can sort of train users both on the inputs and maybe on what they're doing with the outputs from Copilot. I think there are certainly ways to prompt Copilot that maybe would reduce the risk that you're going to get just this information flooding in from parts unknown. known. And I think having clear rules about vetting of co-pilot responses or limitations on sort of just indiscriminately sharing co-pilot responses, you know, these are all kinds of things that you can train users in to try to sort of mitigate some of the data risk.  Anthony: Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think we're also seeing people just so in doing this and launching it, having user agreements that sort of say the same thing, right? What are the key risks? The user agreement says, make sure you're aware of these risks, including the risks that we've been talking about with sensitive information and how to use it. Okay, so now let's switch to more sort of from a technical perspective, some things you can do within the M365 environment to sort of protect this highly confidential information or sensitive information. Information so let's start with Chris sort of this concept of which i know is in there when you have a SharePoint online site or a team site that has a SharePoint online site i think one of the one of the things you can do is basically exclude those sites from co-pilot so if you give us a little a brief description of what that means and then a little bit about the pros and cons.  Chris: Yeah of course Anthony so that that control by the way that's that's nothing new. So for anybody that's administered SharePoint, you've always had the ability to control whether a site appears in search results or not. So it is that control, right? It's excluding sites from being available via search and via Copilot. You would do that at the SharePoint site level. So, you know, Microsoft makes that available. There's a couple of other controls, maybe one I'll mention in a second as well. These are kind of, I don't want to call it knee-jerk reaction, I guess I just did, but it's what are the quick things you can do if you want to get access to Copilot quickly and you're worried about some really sensitive information. And it is a knee-jerk, right? It's a sledgehammer to crack a door. You're going to turn off entire access to that whole site. But in reality, that site may have some real gems of data in that you want it to make accessible to Copilot. And you're going to miss that. The other quick win that's similar to that one, there's a product called Double Key Encryption. A lot of the products I'm going to talk about today are part of the Microsoft Purview stack. And as part of MIP, which is Microsoft Information Protection, we're definitely going to cover that, Anthony, shortly about labels. One thing you can do with the label is you can apply something called Double Key Encryption. And you would use your own encryption key. And that means Microsoft cannot see your data. So if you know you've got pockets of data that are really secret, really sensitive, but you want to activate Copilot quickly, you've got these options. You can disable a site from being available at search level. That's option one. The other option is at a data level. You can label it all as secret. That data is not going to be accessible at all to Copilot. But like I say, these are kind of really quick things that you can do that don't really fix the problem in the long term. don't help you get the best out of Copilot. The reason you're investing in Copilot is to get access to good quality data and hiding that data is a problem.  Anthony: Yeah. And I think one of the things that, and Microsoft has basically said, even though it's available, they've been pretty open about saying, this is not the way you should be managing the risks that we're talking about here. Because you do lose some functionality in that SharePoint site if you take it out of search. So it's an option if you're rushing. And that's basically why they said, If you frankly aren't comfortable and you haven't have all the controls in place and you really have certain data that you want excluded, it's an option. But I think, as you said, it's a sort of a knee-jerk short-term option if you really have to launch, but it's not a long-term solution. So, now let's focus a little bit on what they think is the right way to do it, which is, and first let's talk about the site level. I think you talked a little bit about this, is putting in this concept of a sensitivity label on a site. Now, before you do that, which we could talk about, is first you have to identify the site. So, Chris, why don't you talk a little bit about that, and then let's talk a little bit about the technical.  Chris: No, absolutely. So a couple of terminology things. When I talk about data classification, I'm talking about something different to applying a label. When I often say to a lot of my clients, data classification, they think, oh, that's confidential, highly confidential secret. What I mean when I talk about data classification is what is the data in its business context? What does it mean to the organization? Let's understand who the data owner is, what the risk of that data is if it falls into the wrong hands. What are the obligations around processing and handling and storing that data? How do we lifecycle it? So simple things would be, really simple things would be social security numbers, names, addresses, right? We're identifying data types. We can then build that up. We can move on from those simple things and we can do some really clever things to identify documents by their overall type, their shape, their structure. We can use machine learning models to train, to look for specific documents, case files, legal files, customer files, client files, right? We can train these machine learning classifiers. But the great thing is if you get a good handle on your classification, you will be able to discover and understand your data risk across your enterprise. So you'll see there are tools within Microsoft 365 Purview, Content Explorer, data classification. These tools will give you insights into SharePoint sites that you have in your organization that have high amounts of social security numbers, high amounts of case files, legal affairs documents, right? It's going to come back and tell you, these are the sites that have this type of information. And you can do that analysis. You don't have to go out and say, guys, you've got to put your hand up and tell us if you've got a SharePoint site with this information. The administrators, the guys that are running Purview, they can do that discovery and reach out to the business and go and discuss that SharePoint site. But Anthony, what you're talking about there is once you've identified that SharePoint site, you know, if we know we've got a SharePoint site that contains specific case files that are highly confidential, we can apply a highly confidential label to that site. And the label does a number of things. It visually marks the file, right? And what I mean by that, at a file level from a metadata perspective, anybody interacting with that file electronically will receive a pop-up dialogue on a ribbon or a pop-up. It's going to be front and center to say this file is labeled as highly confidential. I've also got options, which I'm sure we've all done before in the day-to-day work. You can mark the document itself across. You can put a watermark across the document to say it's highly confidential. You can put headers and footers on. So the label isn't just this little concept, but it takes it a step further even more. And this is where it really, really works with Copilot is you can define custom permissions at a label level. So we can say for highly confidential labels, we might have a label for a particular case, a particular project. And if it is a case label, then we could give permissions to only the people involved in that case. So only those people can open that file and that means only those people can talk about that file to copilot you know if you're not in that case Anthony if you're not part of that case and me and Sam are and i use that label you're going to ask copilot to give you all the information it can about that case you're not going to get any information back because you don't have the permissions that's on that source file so that's that's one of the first things that we can do is we can take that label and apply it to a sharepoint site and that's going to apply a default label across all the documents that are in that site. What we're really talking about here, by the way, when we talk about labels, is we're trying to plug a hole in access control and governance. So think about SharePoint management and hygiene. The issue is SharePoint has just grown exponentially for many organizations. You know, there's organic growth, you've got SharePoint migrations, but then you have this explosion of use once you're on SharePoint online. There's going to be public sites. There's going to be SharePoint sites that are public, that are available to everybody in your organization. There'll be poor JML processes, join and move and leave processes, where people who move departments, their access isn't revoked from a SharePoint site. The issue with Copilot is if the site access control isn't strict, if it's open and the file doesn't have permissions on the file, Copilot is going to be able to see that file. If it's public, it's going to be able to see that file, right? So with the label, where that differs to the permissions is it puts the access controls on the files that are in that SharePoint site directly. So if you lift those files from that site, if it is a public site and I take those files, I put it in another SharePoint site or I put it on my laptop, it carries the access control with it. And that's what's really important. That means that wherever that file goes, it's going to be hidden from Copilot if I don't have that access. That's the important thing. So, you know, sensitivity labels are a huge part of ensuring compliance for co-pilot, probably the biggest first step organizations can take, And I think you touch on the first step quite nicely, Anthony. A lot of our clients say, well, we're scared of labeling everything in the organization, going out immediately, doing all that discovery, labeling everything, right? Maybe just knock off the top SharePoint sites, the ones that you know contain the most sensitive data. Start there. Start applying those labels there.  Anthony: Yeah, and Sam, we've talked with some clients about using their provisioning process or attestation process, process lifecycle management to start gathering this information because it's a big project, right? If you have thousands of sites, the concept of figuring out which ones have that. Obviously, Chris talked about, so the technical way you could do it, which would be fantastic because that obviously, but there are other ways of low-tech ways of doing this.  Samantha: Right. Just kind of relying on your human resources to maybe take a little bit more of a manual approach to speaking up about what kind of sensitive data they have and where they're putting it.  Anthony: Which they may be doing already, right? I think that's one of the things that you have to track is like they may, an organization, you know, a specific business line may know where their data is. They just haven't told, they haven't told IT to do something with it. So I think it's just getting that information, gathering it through, you know, whether it's the provisioning process, you could do an attestation or survey or whatever, just to start. And then as Chris said, once you have an idea of what the highly confidential information sites are, then you start doing the work. And again, I think it's applying the labels. One of the things that I think, just to emphasize, and I want to make sure people understand this, is in the sensitivity labels, it's not an all or nothing. At least what I've seen, Chris, is that for each sensitivity label, right, and you could have different types of highly confidential information. Maybe it's sensitive personal information, maybe a material non-public information. Whatever it is, privileged information, you can have different settings. So, for example, you can have it where the site is in essence like a read-only, right, where nobody can touch it, nobody can transfer the data, you can't copy it. That's the most extreme. But then you can have others where it's a little bit more permissive. And as you said, you can tailor it so it could be, you know, certain people have it, certain groups or security groups or whatever, how you want to play. But there is some flexibility there. And I think that's where the legal departments have to get, you know, really talk to the IT folks and really look and figure out what are the options for just not just applying the sensitivity label, but what restrictions do we want to have in place for this?  Chris: Anthony as well like you know you you're touching on the really important thing there and I'm going to go back to what Sam had talked about earlier with training as well about culture but I guess you know the the important thing is finding the balance right so with a sensitivity label you are able as an administrator as an IT administrator you can define the permissions for that label so like I say you could have a high level and by the way you can have sub labels as well so let's go with a common scheme that we see, public, internal, confidential, highly confidential. We've got four labels. Highly confidential could be a parent label. And when we click on that, we get a number of sub labels and we could have sub labels for cases. We could have sub labels for departments. And at an administrative level, each of those labels can carry its own predefined permission. So the administrator defines those permissions. And exactly as you say, Anthony, you know, one of the great things about it, it's not just who can access it, it's what can they do with it. Do not forward, block reply to all. You can block screen share screen copy all of those kind of things save and edit it can block all of those things where i say you need to find a balance is that's going to become onerous for the administrator if every time there's a case you're going back for a new label for each case and you're going to end up with thousands of labels right so what microsoft gives you is an option to allow the users to define the permissions themselves and this is where it really works well for copilot but before i talk about what that option is i want to go back to what Sam said and talking about the training. One of the important things for me is really fostering a culture of data protection across the organization, making people realize the risk around their data, having frequent training, make that training fun, make it interactive if you can. At Lighthouse, our training is, it's kind of a Netflix style. There's some great coffee shop things where it's fun. We get to watch these little clips. But if you make people want to protect their data, when they realize data is going to be available to co-pilot now, they'll be invested in it, right? They'll want to work with you. So then when you come to do the training, Sam, you need to say, right, we're not going to use the administrative defined labels. It's too much burden on the admin. We're going to publish this label for highly confidential that allows the users to define the permissions themselves. And that's going to pop up in Word. If you're in your favorite canvas, you're in Word, you click highly confidential, it's going to pop up and say, what permissions do you want to set on this file? If you haven't trained, if you haven't fostered that culture of information protection amongst the user community, people are going to hate it, right? People aren't going to like that. So it's so important to start to engage and discuss and train and coach and just develop that culture. But when it's developed, people love it. People want to define the permissions. They want to be prescriptive. They want to make sure that information cannot be copied and extracted and so on. And anything you do at that level, again, it protects that data from being read in by Copilot. That's bringing that back to the whole purpose of it.  Anthony: And I would just say, again, that this all goes about prioritization because people are like, I have 50,000 people in my organization. There's no way I'm going to train everybody. You don't. I mean, obviously some, but there's only certain people who should have access to certain of this information, right? So you may want to train your HR people because they have a lot of the personal sensitive information, the benefits folks or whatever, because you have to break it down because I think a lot of people get caught up into, I'm never going to have 50,000 people do this, but you don't. Everyone has different things that come across their desk based on the business process that you're working on. So again, it's just thinking logically about this and prioritizing because I think people think training and, oh my God, I'm relying on the user and this is going to be too much. I think to your point is if you do it in chunks and say, okay, here's a business line that we think is really high risk, just train them on that. And like you said, it's part of their job, right? HR is not going to have like compensation. They're not throwing that everywhere in the organization. They shouldn't be right. But if they do, they know they're sensitive about it. And now you're just giving a tool, right? We know you want to protect this. Here's the tool to do it. So again, I think this is really important. Before we end I know, Chris, I think you had one more thing that you want to add, which was on the monitor monitoring side, which I had not heard of, but could you just talk a little bit about that?  Chris: You know, this is sort of really key information that you can think of going up to your leaders in your organization to say, look, we've got a roadmap for co-pilot adoption. It's X many months or however long it's going to take, but now we can implement some quick wins that really give us visibility. So there's a product, there's two products. Many of the listeners will probably know the second product that I'm about to talk about, but the first one might be new. There's a product called Communication Compliance. It's part of the Microsoft E5 or E5 Compliance or IP and Governance Suite. It's in Purview. Technically speaking, it's a digital surveillance product that looks at communications through Teams and throughout Look and through Viva. But what Microsoft has introduced, and this is a stroke of genius, it really is, they've introduced co-pilot monitoring. So the prompt and the responses for co-pilot can now be monitored by communication compliance. And what that means is we can create simple policies that say, if personal information, client information, case information. Is passed through a prompt or a response in Copilot. Let us know about it. We can take it a step further. If we get the sensitivity labels in, we can use the sensitivity labels as the condition on the policy as well. So now if we start to see highly confidential information spilling over in a Copilot response, we can get an alert on that as well. And that I think is just for many of the listeners, it's a quick win. You can go, cause you're going to be your CIO or, or, you know, your VP is going to be saying, we need Copilot. We want to use Copilot. that your CISO and your IT guys are saying, slow down. You can go to the CISOs and say, we've got some controls, guys. It's okay. Now, the other tool, which a lot of the listeners will know about is eDiscovery Premium. What you can do with communication compliance once you're alerted is you can raise a case in eDiscovery Premium to say, go and investigate that particular alert. And what that means is we can use the eDiscovery tools to do a search, a collection. We can export and download. We can look at a forensic level. What information came back in the response? And if it was data spillage, if that data came from a repository that we thought was secure, specific to some case or legal information, and now it's in the hands of a public-facing team in the organization, you can use the tools. You can use eDiscovery through the Graph API to go and delete that data, that newly created data. So two real quick wins there to think about is deploying communication compliance with eDiscovery.  Anthony: That's fantastic. Well, thanks, everybody. This was really helpful. We're going to have additional podcasts. We'll probably talk about e-discovery and retention alike in our next one. But thank you, Chris and Sam. This was highly informative. And thanks to our listeners. Welcome back. We hope you keep listening to our podcast. Thanks.  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. All rights reserved. Transcript is auto-generated.

In honor of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, we delve into the unique experiences of first-generation attorneys at BigLaw firms. Featuring a distinguished panel from Reed Smith's PAALS (Pacific and Asian American Lawyers and Staff) business inclusion group, Bareeq Barqawi is joined by Thuy Nguyen, Rizwan 'Rizzy' Qureshi, and Julia Peng. These exceptional attorneys share their inspiring journeys, the challenges they faced, the importance of mentorship, and how they balance their cultural identities within the legal profession. The group shares their invaluable insights and advice for aspiring first-generation law students and young attorneys. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith podcast, Inclusivity Included, Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions, and challenges, past and present, all with the goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included.  Bareeq: Welcome to Inclusivity Included, Reed Smith's podcast dedicated to exploring diversity, equity and inclusion within the legal profession and across sectors. I'm your host, Bareeq Barqawi, and in honor of May being Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, we have a special episode today highlighting first-generation attorneys at Big Law. I'm thrilled to be joined by three exceptional attorneys from our firm and part of today's panel, Thuy Nguyen, a partner in our real estate group, Rizwan ‘Rizzy' Qureshi, a partner in global Global Regulatory Enforcement Litigation, and Julia Peng, an associate attorney in Global Commercial Disputes. Each of them brings unique perspectives and experiences as first-generation attorneys of Asian and South Asian descent. Thank you all for joining us today.  Rizwan: Thanks for having us.  Bareeq: So to start, can each of you just share a little bit about your background and what inspired you to pursue a career in law? Let's begin with you, Thuy.  Thuy: Thanks, Bareeq. We have to go down memory lane a little bit, but I'll try to keep it concise. As a Vietnamese woman, my family and I immigrated to the United States in 1991. My dad served in the Vietnam War in opposition to the Communist Party. After he served in the war, he was put in what they refer to as re-education camps, which are essentially concentration camps. They put you to work, they tortured you. The idea was to kind of, re-educate you to think the way they thought. He spent a few years there and fortunately for us afterwards, we were able to gain refugee status and come to the U.S. and be protected by the United States government. So my two parents and six kids came to the United States in San Francisco with nothing but the clothes on our back. And we just, my parents set to do a variety of odd and end jobs to support our family. My dad did landscaping. My mom worked at the bakery. She worked at the flea market. She did everything she could get her hands on to feed the six of us. And we were on public assistance. I guess there's no way to really sugarcoat it. And we were, we received food stamps, we received housing assistance. And I remember as a young child, I was fortunate to be able to go to school and pick up English relatively quickly because I was still really young. And so kind of the responsibility I had in my household was taking my parents to the county of public assistance whenever they needed help getting getting food stamps or filling in paperwork for them when it came time for an inspection on our household. And I just remember being really, really terrified every time I had to go to any place of authority and just thinking like, we don't belong here. And I don't want to say anything wrong because I don't want them to reject us. And I just was looking for a profession where I could learn to advocate for myself and for my family, just so we can kind of take away a little bit of that fear and anxiety that I experience every time I go to a court or again, any place of public authority. So I thought a a career in law would be something that could help us overcome some of that anxiety and that fear. And, you know, eight years later, here I am.  Bareeq: Wow. I am actually blown away. What a powerful story, Thuy. Thank you so much for sharing. And I actually came to this country in ‘92, so I can totally relate to coming and having, it's pretty like intimidating experience to come and learn a whole new culture and language, especially what your parents face. So thank you for sharing that. Rizzy, how about you?  Rizwan: Sure. Thank you for having me. And it's funny because Thuy and I have very different backgrounds. My parents are immigrants from Pakistan. I'm a first-generation American, but our backgrounds are also very similar. My parents are immigrants my father grew up very poor he worked his way up and became a veterinarian his his true dream was to be a physician and you know i know that our efforts here on this podcast and there are affinity groups that are BIGs as we call them is always to, steer clear of and and push it against any stereotypes but I'm gonna I'm gonna. Doubled down on a stereotype. I was destined to be a physician, and I was a failure because I did not become a physician. And I mean failure in air quotes. Like my colleague, I was the one, because my parents' English was not their first language, who looked at their very first mortgage document, communicated with their lender to help them understand what kind of risk they were taking by borrowing money to purchase their first home, executing leases on behalf of my father and his family members. And that was my first exposure to, quote unquote, the law. But at the time, all I was was a 12-year-old kid who was trying to help his dad navigate what was otherwise a complex world and complex sort of legal obligations that he had for his various affairs for his family. Not only us, but our extended family. So how did I pursue a career in the law? When I decided to drop AP bio anatomy and physiology when I was in high school, and it literally requested, my father requested a sit down, not with the principal, but also with the superintendent, because it was going to impact the trajectory of my career. I knew that the social sciences, sort of the legal profession, advocacy, helping people was something that was really what made me tick. And sort of the rest is history. You know, I went on to get an undergraduate degree in political science and international relations, did some work at the United Nations on legal advocacy issues. And then felt that the next natural step for me was to go to law school. And I had the privilege to go to Howard University School of Law. And that's really what inspired me to pursue a career in the law. And I don't think it's any different than my colleague. It was my life experience and what I was called upon to do as a child of immigrants and realize that that's where I'm most effective. And, you know, breaking news, my parents are very proud of me and so is my father, but it was a life-changing sort of historic moment when I decided I wasn't going to pursue medical school.  Bareeq: Thank you so much for sharing, Rizzy. I always think it's interesting because as children of immigrants, all of us like end up being these these kid advocates and kid interpreters. And I can relate to you overcoming the obstacles of your culture because actually I always think it's a funny story. We laugh about it now, my dad and I, but my dad used to say, you know, why do you have to go to get your bachelor's degree? You're going to end up being like someone's wife and mother. And I'm like, okay. And that just made me want to prove him wrong. And then he cried at my college graduation. When I graduate top of my class, I always, I always like to remind him of that. Julia, what about you?  Julia: I have a similar story as my colleagues here. I immigrated to America with my parents in 1997. Both my parents were doctors in China, but my dad didn't really speak English at all when we came to America. And so it was an interesting family dynamic to have someone who was a doctor in China now taking on, you know, like dishwashing jobs or waitering jobs at Chinese restaurants, because that's all he could do with his limited English. And so I too was someone who was helping translate for the family and taking on that role. And I thought, I didn't understand the advocacy I was helping to do for my family at the time. And because my parents were doctors, they were very, very insistent that, you know, I would be a doctor and that that's the only career path that made sense for the paying family. And so I actually did make my transition transition to law until my senior year of college. I was pre-med all the way through. In fact, I have a biology degree because my parents are like, you're so close, just get the degree and then you can decide really if you want to be a lawyer or a doctor. So it wasn't until my junior year in college that summer where I went to Peru to intern for two months for my med school applications that I completely realized I'm not cut out to be a doctor. I love the advocacy aspect and I've always enjoyed that even as a child. And my roommate was planning on law school and she She invited me to check out, I guess, back then I went to UCSC and they had a couple of mock one hour classes that undergrads could attend and kind of get the experience of what it would be like to be a law student. And I totally fell in love and I was double majoring in poli sci anyways. And I was like, oh, this is this is a perfect fit for me. And this is exactly what I want to do. But I think like Rizzy, I had to really prove to my parents that this is the route for me and that it was a cause of strife within the family that I was now deviating from the master plan.  Bareeq: Thank you so much for sharing, Julia. And not to even knock the medical profession, because I think it's wonderful if you can do that. But I'm really happy you all ended up attorneys because you're so good at it. So let's talk a little bit about what I kind of referred to as almost like the immigrant identity crisis as you work to adapt and assimilate to culture in America. So balancing cultural identity with fitting into the workplace, it can be challenging. How do you manage this type of balance? And actually, Julia, I'm going to go ahead and start with you?  Julia: Sure. It's something that's still different. So within my family, it's much more like you study, you work hard, and you'll get noticed because of all the work that you have put in. And even now, my parents think the best way forward is always get your straight A's, check all the boxes, but keep your head down and eventually your hard work will pay off. And that's just not how the legal career works. I think that part is definitely a big aspect of it. But I think professionally, I have been encouraged at Reed Smith to get on podcasts like these or to share my opinions, to have these strong opinions that I can exchange and interact with so that it helps me improve as a person, but it also, I feel safe to have, you know, a different personality than what my, I think parents or my family would want to be, which is, oh, you know, you're easygoing and you're, you do your duties to your family and you're a good daughter. But at the end of the day, you're here for your family versus I think I have grown now to become more career-focused. And that's something that I'm also working through.  Bareeq: Thank you for sharing. And I love that aspect of feeling safe enough to bring that identity to the workplace too. Thuy, have you ever felt the need to conform to certain expectations in the workplace? How do you manage your cultural identity?  Thuy: That's definitely a challenge for me. When I was a summer associate going into first year associate, my class was fairly large for San Francisco at the time. There was six of us and I was the only immigrant, came from a diverse background. One thing that I quickly realized was it was very hard for me to network and connect with people, especially at the beginning. With my parents not speaking English, I didn't grow up watching TV or talking about politics at the dinner table, listening to music, having recreational activities like golf or going on vacation with my family. We didn't do or do any of that. And I didn't have those experiences so that I can talk to someone when we see them at the cooler or when we're going around the table and everyone's like, tell us something interesting about yourself. I was always very intimidated and afraid to take up air in the room because I felt like I didn't have anything valuable or interesting to add to the conversation. And I didn't want to talk about my experience or my background, because sometimes it can be very heavy and not really appropriate for like, tell us a fun fact about yourself. And over time, I just had to really push myself outside of my comfort zone and learn new things and just, you know, not be afraid to tell people what I did over the weekend, even if I thought it wasn't interesting, and just not be afraid to share. I feel like that's really kind of shaped my identity at work, just not being afraid to share and then sometimes having to talk about my background and not being afraid that it is who I am. And it's shaped me into the person, the individual, and the attorney that I am today.  Bareeq: I love that. Thank you for sharing. And Rizzy, what about you? How do you navigate your cultural identity in the workplace place?  Rizwan: You know, it's a hard question to answer because in a weird way, I would argue that it ebbs and flows. You know, I'm Rizzy. I am who I am. And I'm very outwardly, I mean, I know that I have a face for radio, which is why I'm on this podcast, but I have a, I look like a child of immigrants. I look like I'm of Pakistani descent. So it's outwardly evident to this homogenous law firm or big law or corporate culture that I'm sort of different. But like my colleagues, I think there's some truth to. You want to find a place in a professional environment where many are not like you. So how do you do that? I'm much farther along in my career. So I have a little bit more, I'll call it courage, admittedly, of being my authentic self. And I don't think I had that courage when I was a young person because I felt like I needed to assimilate to something that wasn't me. But then the other thing that plays an important role here, to give an example, I'm the partner chair of the Muslim Inclusion Committee at Reed Smith. And over the last year, like many people in our community of various religious backgrounds and cultural backgrounds, Muslims are hurting, particularly in light of the Middle East conflict. And what's interesting there is, as a result of that conflict, and this ebbs and flows again, it happened on 9/11 when I was a college student, when otherwise I was just a member of a fraternity who probably was partying too much and just happened to be a brown guy. But then when 9/11 happened, I felt a duty to be more authentically a child of Pakistani immigrants, Muslim American, who represents a group of people here who are not all like the horrible people who hijacked not only planes, but hijacked our peaceful faith and attacked America on 9/11. And I feel the same way in light of this crisis that's occurring in Gaza, which is, I'm a Muslim, and I believe in human rights, and I do believe fundamentally that there's a lot of well-intentioned Muslims who believe in peace and want peace in the region, and our voice needs to be heard. So that's a long way of saying, Barik, it depends on the day, it depends on the moment. Sometimes I feel like, am I not being truly myself all the time? But I'm just speaking for myself. And that's sort of how I've navigated it. And I'm in a different place in my career now where I have, like I said, more courage to be who I am.  Bareeq: I think you bring up such excellent points, which is I don't want to say the word strategic, but sometimes there's an appropriate time to kind of bring up your identity and to add your voice to that conversation. And then there's other times where you kind of just like go with the fold. And that speaks to, I think, being comfortable in the workplace environment, being more confident. And that takes time sometimes, like as you know yourself more than you bring yourself to the table in a really authentic way, given what that environment is or that situation is. So like situational analysis, so to speak. So thank you for sharing that really excellent, excellent examples. I'm going to actually go into a little bit more about, I'm going to go about mentorship. It's often crucial for career development. I would love to hear a little bit about how important mentorship has been in your careers and your journeys. And Rizzy, since we had you end, I'm going to have you start.  Rizwan: Sure. Interestingly, I just was part of a Law360 article on this issue, and it randomly came about, you know, mentorship has been critical to my success, whether as a young person from my father all the way up through aunts and uncles and older cousins and throughout my professional career, from law school through becoming an AUSA at the Department of Justice and back in private practice. is. I rely upon my mentors to this day, and mentors are what I owe a lot of my career to. I did put in a lot of hard work, but, Working with people and understanding from people how the, I won't say sausage, how the kebab is made in the law firm setting is so important to your success. And in that Law360 article, I talked about a seminal moment when I was a young summer associate coming into first year associate and a black partner, or actually he was a senior associate at the time, who recruited me from Howard University School of Law. Late on a Friday, right before a summer event, as you usually have with the Summer Associate Program, which we're in right now, had me do an assignment. And he randomly called me down to his office and asked me to close his door. And my heart dropped because I was like, something's up. And he basically sat me down and said, your work product is absolutely unacceptable. It will never fly in this law firm or any law firm. And if you continue to submit work like this, lazy work like this, you're never going to succeed here. So you might get an offer at the end of the summer, but you won't succeed. To me, I talked to my wife about it to this day. That was such a pivotal moment for me because he was a person I trusted. He's the person I probably got too comfortable with and sort of melded in thinking we needed to get on with our Friday evening activity of which he was going to join me. And I went back to the drawing board. I worked hard, Got him the assignment I needed. And that's been sort of a moment that I continue to cite back to whenever I'm digging deep to do something for clients or for my internal clients or my colleagues is that always, always, always try to work towards the utmost excellence and perfection that you can in your work. You're going to make mistakes. But I'm so thankful for that moment because that individual is now a client of mine, still a dear friend, a big client of the firm. And I think it's a testament to that moment where that mentor, who was of a minority background like me and knew that we had to go the extra mile in this environment because there's so few of us, really kept it real with me. And the fact that he kept it real is one moment to which I owe a lot of my success today. And far too often, in my opinion, whether it's on my white partners or my minority partners, I feel like we often walk on eggshells and don't give appropriate constructive criticism to our mentees. And in the end, the mentees pay for it because folks stop giving them work, they eventually get less busy, and before you know it, they've moved on to somewhere else and we haven't done enough to give them constructive feedback so that they can succeed.  Bareeq: I love that story. Thank you so much for sharing, Rizzy. And I love that it also, I think, probably modeled for you how a mentor should be, which is not just rainbows and, you know, pie in the sky. It's also, you know, keeping it real and making sure you're pushing that person to their success because you see it, right? Thuy, have you found your experience as a first-generation attorney, what have you found in terms of mentorship opportunities and mentorship in terms of your career development?  Thuy: I'm going to take it kind of at a slightly different angle, Bareeq. Going back to my first year as an associate here at Reed Smith, I realized about a month in that I wanted to do transactional work and I was slotted in the litigation group. I came from a law school that was heavily, heavily litigation focused. I did moot court for two or three years until I realized at Reed Smith, I wanted to do transactional work and looking around the office, we didn't have a ton of it. And one day I realized I can't keep doing this. I can't, I need to be billing eight to nine hours a day. And I can't just keep sitting around waiting for work to, to come onto my plate. So I started reaching out to other offices and I reached out to this one partner in Southern California who I won't name. And I said, Hey, I'm very very interested in your practice and transactional work. Is there anything I can help with? And he was hesitant. And looking back, I understand why he might have been hesitant. Someone you don't know who is a very junior associate who is just realizing that she wants to practice transactional law. It is hard to take on someone new under your wing and have to show them the ropes, have to show them how to run a bread line, have to teach them some very basic things. So it took him a while to eventually give me work. So finally, when it came, when the opportunity presented itself for me to help this partner with this assignment, it was my very first assignment with him. So I really wanted to make sure it was polished and it was my best foot forward because I knew that if it wasn't, I was never going to get more work from him and he was probably never going to take another chance on a junior associate again. So thankfully, I did a pretty good job and he still talks about that assignment. To this day, but he was impressed. And one assignment led to another, led to another. And next thing you knew it, I was working for him full time. And I remember during this time, I did many things to get his attention, including flying down to Southern California to see him and see other people that he worked with and called him and emailed him. And I guess all of this is It's just to say sometimes mentorship doesn't fall into your lap. Mentors don't show up on your doorstep. You have to seek them out. And sometimes you have to keep banging on the door to seek them out. But at the end of the day, it's totally worth it. He is now a mentor and a sponsor for me. And I credit all the success I've had at this firm with him taking me under his wing.  Bareeq: I think that's a great example for those that look at mentorship to say, you know, sometimes you have to be really proactive about it and pursue, you know, somebody saying like you have the experience I want to one day, you know, follow in your footsteps. And I love that story. That's fantastic. And Julia, what about you? What about your experience with mentorship in your career?  Julia: To that I think I have to quickly summarize my career, which did not start in big law. So I have been working or I've worked at three law firms. I started an IP boutique litigation firm. And then I realized that wasn't really for me. And then I did plaintiff side law for a little bit. And I love that. But I realized in the long run, that would also probably not be the perfect fit for me. before I made my way to read myth. And I think for every step of my career, I have had mentors and guidance from people within the firm, which I think is really important to rely upon. But I've also luckily had the support of the Asian American Bar Association up in the Bay Area. And for me, that is a really great source of mentorship because you meet people from, you know, all backgrounds, big laws, law, government, and they are such a great resource if you're thinking about, you know, what trajectory is your career going in. If you have some, anything you want to discuss us about your career that you might not necessarily feel as comfortable talking about within the firm. There's a resource for you outside the firm. And so I actually, I guess, want to talk about my experience seeking mentorship and getting help with the Bar Association. And that has been a really good experience for me.  Bareeq: Thank you so much for sharing, Julia. And I also love that you mentioned the Asian Bar Association, because I think that's a great resource. And even thinking outside the box, like what other organizations can I kind of look to to make those connections and relationships? I could definitely talk to you all all day because you have such eye opening experiences that I think so many of us can learn from. But as we wrap up, I guess my last question will be to all aspiring first-generation law students and other first-generation attorneys listening, especially those of diverse background, what advice would you give them? How can they navigate the pressures of feeling the need to go, quote-unquote, that extra mile? Rizzy, I'll start with you.  Rizwan: Yeah, thank you. I'll say going the extra mile, similar to what Thuy was saying, I completely agree, which is you not only go the extra mile in your day-to-day substantive legal work, but you have to think about the bigger picture, building your brand and building your practice. Because before you know it, you may be a summer associate or even a law student and a baby lawyer. And then you have to start building your brand and building your practice and going out there and getting work for your colleagues as well as yourself. self. So to me, it's really about tapping into the network. And I'm not saying your network, because our individual networks are limited. They are who we know, who we went to law school with. But it's so important what some of my colleagues have said. It's like, don't wait for that mentor to come knocking on your door to say, hey, I want to help you. You need to go out there and adopt your own mentors. And I did that and I continue to do that. I mean, young people today and young lawyers today in our world that we live in now have so many resources at their disposal where you can go up and look up a client or you can look up a law firm and you can pretty quickly determine how many degrees of separation you have with that one individual with whom you not only have a interest in their practice, but maybe you have a cultural affinity or connection to them. Leverage that. I never would have gotten my federal clerkship if I did not find out the judge that I wanted to clerk for had a former clerk who knew a buddy I went to law school with. So what did I do? I reached out to that buddy and I said, hey, I'm trying to clerk for Judge Johnson in the Eastern District of New York. Do you know this guy, Jason? He's like, oh yeah, he's my boy. My immediate response to my buddy was, well, he's my boy now. Can we do lunch with him? And the rest is history. And the same goes for my trajectory to the US Attorney's Office. So really take ownership of every facet of your life. We get so tied up as lawyers to be type A, and I have to get the best grades, which you do, and I have to do the best work, which you do. But you can't just be doing your best work and getting your best grades inside of a cave. You need to sort of take that out there and learn from others, leverage relationships so that you can continue to excel in whatever it is you want to do.  Bareeq: Fantastic. Thank you, Rizzy. Julia, what about you? What advice would you be giving to other first-generation attorneys or aspiring law students that are first-generation?  Julia: I think it's really important to keep an open mind and stay curious. So not only do you, I think, have to actively pursue what you want, but I think you still need to keep an open mind to figure out what you do want. Coming from a background where I think my parents just expected me to go excel in whatever career I wanted to do, they were not very understanding when at first I wasn't that excited about immediately going into middle. I wanted to have different experiences before I made my way into big law. And I think there's a lot of opportunities out there for lawyers who want to explore and learn a little bit more about the legal career, about themselves before they transition into big law. And I think that is perfectly acceptable. I know that a lot of Asian Americans just, they want to be the best and that's very commendable, but you can be the best in all sorts of different legal areas.  Bareeq: Yeah. And there's something to be said about being the best for yourself, like best version of you, because it's not good. The best is not going to be for the best for everybody. And really knowing yourself and what what you want to do. And last but not least, Thuy, what are your thoughts?  Thuy: Thanks, Bareeq. I'm going to echo what Rizzy said and just, again, hone in on the importance of going to events. And I don't want to call it networking. I hate that word of just connecting with people and getting to know people because you want to. I think as immigrants, the way we're taught by our parents is you just need to keep your head down, do your best work. And so it's very easy to be in a big law firm where there's a billable hours requirement to say, I'm not going to go to that happy hour. I'm not going to go to that alumni event because I should get this memo out or I should bill another two hours. But you know like Rizzy said one of the more important things is to get to know people it's for your career and this is your career you get what you put into it you know Casey Ryan our Global Managing Partner knows me by name but she doesn't know me because i do i draft a awesome real estate contract she knows me because i go to events when she's in town i go to see her When I'm seeing her, I'm seeing maybe other members of senior management, my own colleagues I grow up with, connecting with them, commiserating with them sometimes. Talking about our families and our dogs, what have you. Just having this community to lean onto to succeed together so that one day, if you need help or if they need help, they're there for you. It just makes this very big firm feel like a much smaller, comfortable home.  Bareeq: I love that. Thank you so much for all this wonderful advice. I know our listeners will really appreciate it. Thank you so much, Thuy, Rizzy, Julia, for sharing your incredible journeys and insights with us today. Your experiences and advice are invaluable to our listeners and to all those aspiring to make their mark in the legal field. Thank you to our listeners for tuning in to Inclusivity Included. Stay tuned for more episodes where we will continue to explore and celebrate diversity, equity, and inclusion. Until next time, have a great rest of the day.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. 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.

Bareeq Barqawi, DEI talent development analyst at Reed Smith, is joined by Sarah Hassaine, head of global diversity and inclusion at ResMed, to explore Sarah's remarkable journey and groundbreaking work in the field of diversity and inclusion advocacy. As April marks National Arab American Heritage Month, Sarah shares personal insights on how her cultural background has shaped her approach to fostering inclusion both personally and professionally. From championing health equity to addressing gender disparities and advocating for marginalized communities, Sarah offers practical strategies and invaluable advice for individuals and organizations seeking to drive positive change in their spheres of influence. Listen to this episode to gain valuable insights into the transformative power of inclusive leadership. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith podcast, Inclusivity Included: Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions and challenges, past and present, all with the goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included.  Bareeq: Welcome to Inclusivity Included, the Reed Smith DEI podcast. I'm your host Bareeq Barqawi today. In honor of April being Arab American Heritage Month, we have the privilege of speaking with Sarah Hassaine, the head of global diversity and inclusion at ResMed and a trailblazer in the realm of diversity and inclusion advocacy. Before we delve into our discussion, I'd like to introduce our esteemed guests to our listeners. Sarah has is a dynamic leader with a decade long track record in driving global diversity and inclusion initiatives. Currently leading a global team at ResMed, she consults, advises, and upskills leaders worldwide, designs and delivers in-house D&I trainings and evaluates policies to drive inclusion. Notable achievements include expanding Resmed's ERGs or employee resource groups from 4 to 17, increasing self ID percentages by 4% and spearheading initiatives to improve representation and advocate for accessibility. Sarah brings over 20 years of management experience with a focus on HR initiatives recognized as San Diego businesswoman of the year in 2022. She holds an MBA from Wharton Business School and outside of work, she enjoys traveling, speaking three languages and finds relaxation in sunny beach days with a good book. Today, she joins us to share her insights and experiences. Sarah, welcome to the podcast.  Sarah: Thank you. It's so good to be here. Thanks for having me.  Bareeq: Of course. I'm going to dive right in for the sake of time. Sarah as an Arab American, how has your cultural background influenced your approach to diversity and inclusion advocacy, both personally and professionally?  Sarah: Yeah, And I'm really excited and happy that we're talking about the Arab American identity. Growing up, you're, you were othered as Arab Americans. So it has helped me across my career because the beautiful thing about being an inclusion and diversity leader is that you're navigating a lot of conversations around people feeling othered, and it's any category, right? Whether it's a parent, a caregiver, a veteran, a reservist, a lot of us experience that and as an Arab American, our identity is not accounted for, right? We're, you know, we're in the Census in the US, we're accounted for as white, but we're not treated as white. Oftentimes, our names are misspelled. Uh We get a lot of questions, small microaggressions, A lot of stereotypes get cast. And as someone who grew up, you know, an American grew up in this country, uh it is very hard to constantly feel like, oh, well, you know, you guys do this or you're, you're being othered all the time. So that has definitely helped with empathy and helping me understand the communities I work with and being able to relate and show that kind of validation to, to everyone else.  Bareeq: Wonderful. As an Arab American myself, I can, I can only relate to it because I, I always say when people ask why we got into this line of work, I say, well, being excluded, majority of my life has, has uh made me want to have others avoid this feeling um and be as inclusive as we possibly can be. So, thank you for that. So can you share actually a specific moment or experience that was pivotal in your transition into the realm of inclusion and diversity advocacy?  Sarah: Yeah. So I was supporting a recruiting team uh in a past life at a, a large company. And what we started seeing organically, right was that we got less female applicants, we got less women engaging with us at conference booths and we really didn't have any women on the team. And it started kind of, you know, being this issue that the hiring managers, like we, you know, we're seeing other women going to other companies, but they're not coming here. And why is that? And we had to look inward and understand that our marketing material, the language, we, we were interviewing, we would, you know, candidates, but they would be meeting with six males and then they meet the team. And so then it wasn't actually feeling like an attractive, safe space or there was no representation. And that's when it hit me that you can be supporting business culture, you can be supporting a business, you know, in many different facets. But if the business doesn't have a culture where employees feel like they can belong, that to me was the crux of what I wanted to do. It just hit me. I'm like, this is what I wanna do. It started with women, but then it became about everybody else and everything else. Um So that was kind of my, my point and that was about 10+ years ago. Uh when I got to start working on commercials and advertisements and conference booths and really thinking about what is inclusive engagement look like. How do you attract talent so that they know that when they come in there's, they're going to have a sense of belonging?  Bareeq: I love that. That's so insightful. I think that's such a great, I guess segue into my next question because, you know, we talk about gender disparity and addressing gender disparities is a crucial aspect of advocacy work. And you often talk about encountering challenges in attracting entertaining women in the workplace. What strategies do you find most effective in addressing such challenges?  Sarah: Yeah, there's a lot of data around how women that are mentored, usually they actually stay, they're more loyal to their companies and they actually have more growth trajectory. I will say mentorship and intentional leadership development programs are really important. The second thing I would also talk about is succession planning. Companies need to really think about, okay, here's our workforce in this department. What are we doing to make sure there's an equitable opportunity for promotion for assessment uh of performance of assigning stretch assignments. And so it needs to be a level playing field for everyone. So in order to really develop, make sure that your female population is having the same access as all other genders, you wanna make sure that you have strong succession planning retention methods like learning and development and mentorship.  Bareeq: Wonderful. Thank you so much for those examples. Actually, in dedication to promoting health equity within ResMed's diversity and inclusion initiatives, can you elaborate on your efforts in this area and how you ensure that health care solutions and services provided by ResMed are accessible and inclusive for diverse communities, including those that are often actually um marginalized and underserved?  Sarah: Yeah, there are a couple of answers I want to dive into for this one. So the first one is really thinking about the diversity in our mask and sleep trials in order for us to really think about a product that, you know, we sell worldwide in over 150 countries. So we wanna make sure that we're designing a mask um that has a rep representation already. So there's been a lot of intentionality around marketing to different communities that they participate in your sleep trials and your mask trials. So it has to start at the base of your product and with your research. We also have an entire department dedicated to medical research. And they have done a great job in terms of looking at the disparities between different populations, whether it's um African American women or Hispanic, like we start looking at a location. Uh So we, we, we address health equity in different ways. So there's the research component, there's the product component and then there's, you know, the fact that our business model is different in every country to your point about underrepresented or underserved communities, really making sure that, you know, our, that providers are telling patients, hey, get sleep tested or have you thought about looking into, you know, maybe going to a storefront? Right. So it depends where we're selling. Uh, it varies. In the United States, we go through HMEs. And so we want to make sure that that our doctors are getting our patients either at home sleep tests or getting them come to come into sleep clinics.  Bareeq: That's great, especially that partnership between the doctors and your organization, um and bringing them into that conversation. Um So I know your work extends beyond the corporate realm into advocacy for marginalized communities. Um Can you share about your involvement with refugee communities, orphans and economic inclusion in the San Diego community specifically?  Sarah: Yeah, you know, the refugee space is something very dear to my heart. When I graduated college, I worked in refugee camps in Lebanon um for different communities, African, Iraqi, Palestinian, Lebanese at the time. And then I went back when the war in Syria was happening in 2016. And I worked for a couple of weeks teaching English. So the first time I did socio-economic assessments to understand what the needs were. The gaps I should say, then I went back and taught English. So the way I look at refugee assistance or assimilation is around empowerment. San Diego has one of the largest refugee communities in the United States. Um We have every community here possible; Burmese, Somali, Kurdish, Syrian, Iraqi, uh Bosnian. And growing up here, I saw the waves of communities come in. And so it was a lot around upskilling, trying to get jobs, trying to get the school, the kids to get, you know, um learn English, get mentors. So I partnered with Teach and Learn Literacy, which was actually an organization through the Arab American Anti Discrimination Committee and uh volunteered twice a week teaching a Syrian family of eight English and helping them get jobs. So I did that for a few years uh now from an economic inclusion lens as I grow in my career, I partner with different nonprofits. Um So there's like the United Women of South of East Africa, they have a community center, there's the Refugee Assistance Council. So there's, there are all these organizations that do that look for mentorships, they want internships for students. So there's a lot of opportunity for corporations like ResMed or others across San Diego. So we try to build bridges around access to information, access to jobs, to mentors. And that to me is really important to make sure that our talent in San Diego stays here, grows here, feels like the sense of belonging here. So that's uh that's kind of what I do outside of work.  Bareeq: No, I love that because it's, it's also a representative of the community within which you're you are working in and, and finding ways to actually include the community in, in the work that you're doing. And I think that's actually incredibly commendable. So thank you for sharing that. So I'm actually gonna just gonna dive into the next question, which actually has to do with this as well. And it combines a couple of things we already discussed, which is in promoting economic inclusion and pay equity, what are some practical steps organizations can take to achieve gender parity in the workplace? I know this is always, I guess like a hot topic when it comes to any really across all sectors. But I would love to hear your uh your insight on it.  Sarah: Yeah, you have to start with data, you have to start with an analysis. So my recommendation to those listening is to understand if your organization has done a pay equity analysis, um understand your your data breakdown, right within organizations, looking at the different gender breakdowns. Then you can start understanding whether you have a story or not, right? Oh, some companies will do that pay equity analysis and then they'll come back and realize, well, we've had, you know, we have this percentage of cases. It could be bad, it could be not bad, not as bad as you thought, right? But it's very, very important to start with data. So my recommendation is to understand your gender breakdowns within each business unit. And I don't necessarily, I'm not the biggest fan of setting exact goals like percentages like X percent. I think it's important to go to leaders and say, well, here's where you are right now and here's what the benchmark is in this organization. So if you're looking at a finance or you're looking at electrical engineering, the gender availability in the pool of talent is different to begin with. So you can't claim 50/50 when you don't even have 50% a female representation in electrical engineering, for example. So understanding what the benchmarks are, is really going to help you. And then you can kind of say Well, you know what, let's really try to build more of a robust pipeline. Let's be more intentional or let's sponsor this conference. So that's where you really need to start solution out. It's not a one size fits all for an entire company. You have to break down a company within the departments. And then you also need to think about the overall pay equity analysis and understanding what, where potential remunerations are and if you have to do any adjustments.  Bareeq: I really love that because you're also talking about kind of funneling it down to, to it's almost like a case by case basis, like looking at different departments or different for, let's say, let's say, for example, the legal industry, we look at different practice groups and what is the representation there to begin with before we kind of dive into what the data says. I think that's a really great point. So actually I had a question and this is going to be a little bit of a pivot. So we talk about the importance of stripping away assumptions and biases in this line of work. How can individuals and organizations actively to work toward this goal? I think it's something that I would say the word actively because it's a really a never ending process. Um But what are some, I guess tips and advice you have for people.  Sarah: You know, I see a lot of D&I leaders focusing on unconscious bias trainings and that's it's great, but they're not really proven to help or work. It is important to offer it and it's important to uh have frameworks in place. What I find more valuable is showing leaders framework so that they understand psychologically why we have built in biases. Biases are there. It's it's not good to shame anyone for having biases. So what I always do, my recommendation is to know how to navigate biases. So you need to look at each team and kind of think about, ok, talent acquisition, what are potential biases here? With resumes, here's what we could do to navigate this or with interviewing, here's what we can do to navigate biases. So kind of going back to the the gender equity, it's your solutions need to go, they are tailored to the part of the department or company that has built in biases, right? If we're talking in promotion season, uh what I've done at companies before where I am now and now is let's make sure you have that point, that person who's in the meetings to make sure that there are no biases in assessing talent. Let's make sure that you don't have any biases when you're discussing promotions. So that's, that's where it's really important is when you're having promotion conversations, a hiring conversations, development conversations. I will say, I think it's very important to repeat conversations around unconscious bias. I do this training at least twice a year globally and people show up and actually leaders ask for it. They're just like, can you come in and talk about it because biases show up even in the way we communicate. I mean, Bareeq, we started off this conversation talking about being Arab American. I can't tell you how many times people tell me, I don't look Arab like I don't even understand what that means. Right. So the biases are there. And I think the biggest thing we can also teach our employees is knowing how to navigate those conversations, in a safe way, right, as a coachable moment. You know, so that's where we don't want more microaggressions. We want safe conversations where people are learning from one another.  Bareeq: I couldn't agree with you more, especially about the repetition because I just learned in a change management workshop that something only sticks after it's been repeated to you seven times which, you know, and talking about bias, I agree. I've, I've always been of the mindset that I can't shame anyone for bias because I think bias is inherently human. Um And you can't, you know, human beings will have bias. It's really about providing, providing tool kits in order to create bias disruption. Um And that's something that I think is a, is a powerful tool to provide people and, and reminding them, you know, over the course of time like, hey, this is available and let's talk about it and kind of bring it to the forefront, especially in very pivotal moments in the company. So like when you talk about performance assessment or they're going into recruiting season or things like that, I think it's um it's always like an essential thing to keep it in mind. So I completely agree. Um So I had something about challenges that we, that we end up facing and overcoming. It's an inevitable part of this advocacy work. Can you share a challenging moment in your journey and how you overcame it?  Sarah: Only one?  Bareeq: I was about to say there's probably many but one that comes, yeah, whatever comes to mind.  Sarah: I mean, the biggest thing that comes to mind is, is budget, right? Resources. The biggest challenge I had was um being on D&I teams and not being funded, not given adequate support and being de prioritized. And I know um if there are any D&I leaders listening to this, I'm sure there are some heads nodding or uh it is the hardest thing because I don't believe that we are set up for successfully. Uh And so the, the, you know, the days I have very long days and the days where I end even more exhausted is because I felt like someone didn't show up to meeting or move me out again or delayed a solution. Uh that is hard. And the other hard part is when you know, you need support or you need head count or you need that, that money or you want to sponsor, it gets really hard when you want to sponsor something and you don't have money to do it. And so com companies need to be very committed if your company is saying that they're committed to D&I, well, you have to, you have to show up. Right. And so that's where I'll say the biggest challenges.  Bareeq: Yeah, I found that even, not just where I am currently but in other organizations I've worked for, it's, it's definitely a constant problem if either it's monetarily or like you said, having that support. And I found that kind of pivoting the conversation almost lately, especially like making it a business case brings some people to the table in a different way because they're like, oh, you know, I never thought of it this way. So it's almost like changing perspectives on people's approach to D&I. You, you sometimes hope it was, you know, people come into it like already being there, but to get people there, you kind of have to find different approaches I feel. And finally, as we wrap up, um so what advice would you give beyond what we've given, because this has been a wonderful key conversation, what would you give advice to individuals or organizations looking to become more active in promoting inclusion diversity within their spheres of influence?  Sarah: Just to make sure it's uh for companies, right?  Bareeq: Advice for, for companies, for individuals, you know, people that are working to become more influential in the organization.  Sarah: So for internal advocates or internal stakeholders and D&I leaders, there is the opportunity you there's to really understand the power of influence and persistence and no one can really succeed in D&I without that strategic business lens. Like you need to understand your business and by understanding the business, then you can adapt a conversation around. What does inclusion mean at this business? What does it mean? Whether for my products, for my people, for our policies? Uh So that's my biggest one for internal and then for companies, I will say it's very important that if your values call out inclusion, diversity, belonging, acceptance, accessibility, then you have to embed that across all your work streams. You have to really think about. It's not just a people practice, it's an every leader, every person practice.  Bareeq: Thank you so much. I love that because it's almost like building in the expectation in anything that you kind of approach within the company. I love that. Thank you so much, Sarah for sharing your valuable insights and experience with us today. It's been an honor having you on the podcast and we really, I think have taken away some wonderful, wonderful key tips and advice that we will definitely be using hopefully.  Sarah: This is a joy. Thank you so much, Bareeq for the opportunity.  Bareeq: Thank you. And that's all for today's episode of Inclusivity Included. Join us next time as we continue our exploration of diversity, equity and inclusion. Thank you for listening.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. You can find our podcast 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.

Anthony Diana and Karim Alhassan are joined by Lighthouse's John Collins to discuss Microsoft's AI-driven productivity tool, Copilot. This episode presents an overview of Copilot and its various use cases, the technical nuances and details differentiating it from other generative AI tools, the identified compliance gaps and challenges currently seen in production, and the various risks legal departments should be aware of and accounting for. This episode also provides a high-level overview of best practices that legal and business teams should consider as they continue to explore, pilot and roll out Copilot, including enhanced access controls, testing and user-training, which our speakers will further expand upon in future episodes. ----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.  Anthony: Hello, this is Anthony Diana, a partner here in the Emerging Technologies Group at Reed Smith. Welcome to Tech Law Talks. Today will be the first part of a series with Lighthouse focusing on what legal departments need to know about Copilot, Microsoft's new artificial intelligence tool. With me today are John Collins from Lighthouse and Karim Alhassan from Reed Smith. Thanks guys for joining. So today, we really just want to give legal departments sort of at a very high level what they need to know about Copilot. As we know Copilot was just introduced, I guess like last fall, maybe November of last year by Microsoft. It has been in preview and the like and then a lot of a lot of organizations are at least contemplating the use of Copilot or some of them, I've, I've heard have already launched Copilot without the legal departments knowing which is an issue in of itself. So today, we just want to give a high level view of what Copilot is, what it does at a really high level. And then what are the things that legal department should be thinking about in terms of risks that they have to manage when launching Copilot? This will be of a high level of additional series, which will be a little bit more practical in terms of what legal department should actually be doing. So today is just sort of highlighting what the risks are and what you should be thinking about. So with that John, I'll start with you. Can you just give a very high level preview of what, what is Copilot that's being launched?  John: Sure, thanks Anthony for having me. So Copilot for M365 which is what we're talking about is Microsoft's flagship Generative AI product. And the best way to think about it is it's Microsoft which has a partnership with open AI is taken the ubiquitous ChatGPT and they've brought it into the Microsoft ecosystem. They've integrated it with all the different Microsoft applications that business people use like Word Excel, powerpoint and teams. And you can ask Copilot to draft a document for you to summarize a document for you. So again, the best way, think about it is that it's taking that generative AI technology that everyone is familiar with, with ChatGPT and bringing it into the Microsoft ecosystem and leveraging a number of other Microsoft technologies within the Microsoft environment to make this kind of a platform available to the business people.  Anthony: Yeah. And I think, you know, I think from at least from what Microsoft is saying and I think a lot of our clients are saying that this is, this is groundbreaking, this is going to be and frankly, it's probably going to be the largest and most influential AI tool Enterprise has because Microsoft is ubiquitous, right? Like all your data is flowing through there. So using AI in this way, should provide tons of productivity. Obviously, that's the big sell. But it is obviously everyone, if they get licenses for everybody, this is something that's going to impact I think most organizations pretty highly just because it is, you know, if you're using Microsoft M365 you're going to be dealing with AI and you know, sort of on a personal level, large scale and the like, and I think that's one of the challenges we'll see. So Karim could you just give a little bit? I mean, John gave a very nice overview just in terms of a few things that he said in terms of we've got this ChatGPT, what is it that's unique about Microsoft in terms of how it works from a from a technology perspective because I know a lot of people are saying I don't want people using ChatGPT for work.  Karim: Sure, thanks Anthony. You know, as opposed to kind of these publicly web based ChatGPT tools, the I think the big sell and what makes Copilot unique is that it's grounded in, you know, your enterprise data, right? And so essentially it integrates with the Microsoft graph, you know, so which allows, you know, users within the enterprise to leverage their M365 data, which adds context. And so rather than just going to, you know, GPT-4, which is, you know, as everyone knows, trained on publicly available data and has its own issues, you know, hallucinations and whatnot. You know, having this unique enterprise specific data kind of adding context to inputs and outputs, you know, leads to more efficiency. You know, another big thing and, and a big issue that legal departments are, you know, obviously thinking about is that having this data input into the tool, you know, one of the problems is that you're worried that it can, you know, train the underlying models. With Copilot, you know, that's not happening, you know, the instance of the LLM in which the tool is relying on is within your surface boundary. And so, you know, that kind of gives protections that you wouldn't necessarily have when you know, people are kind of just using these publicly available tools and So, you know, that's, I think that the big differentiating factor with Copilot as opposed to, you know, GPT-4,  ChatGPT and, you know, kind of these other public tools.  Anthony: And I think that's critical and John, obviously I'll let you sort of expand on that too, but I do think that's a critical piece because I know a lot of people are uncomfortable using these large language models, like you said, they're public. The way Microsoft built this product is you get your, in essence your own version. So if you get a license, you're getting your own version of it and it's inside your tenant. So it doesn't go outside sort of your firewalls, not technically a firewall, but it's in your tenant. Um And I think that's critical and I think that gives a lot of people comfort. Um And at least that's what Microsoft is saying.  John: Yeah, just a, just a couple of things to point out is some folks might be familiar with or heard about that their Microsoft has this responsible AI framework where if you are using Azure Open AI tools and you're building your own custom uh ChatGPT but using the Microsoft or the Azure Open AI version of ChatGPT, this responsible AI framework. There is, Microsoft is actually retaining prompts and responses and a human being is monitoring those prompts and responses. But that's in the context of a custom development that an organization might do. Copilot for M365 actually opted out of that. And so to Karim and Anthony's point, Microsoft's not retaining the prompts for Copilot, the responses, they're not using the data to retrain the model. So there's that whole thing. The second thing I just want to point out is that you do have the ability with Copilot from 365 to have plugins and one of the plugins is that when you're chatting in Microsoft teams using the chat application, you have the option to actually send prompts out to the internet to further ground. Karim talked about grounding information in your organization's data. So there are some considerations around configuration. Do you want to allow that to happen? You know, there's still data protection there. But those are a couple of things that come to mind on this topic.  Anthony: Yeah, and look, and I think this is critical and I, I agree with you. I think that's one of the, there is a lot of, I don't say dangers, but there's a lot of risks associated with Copilot. And I think as you said, you really have to go through the settings to make sure that is one that I think we've been advising clients at least to turn off for now just because, and, and just to give, we give clarity here, I think we, we're talking about prompts and responses. A prompt is in essence, a, a question, right? It could be summarized the document or you can type in, you know, give me a recipe for blueberry muffins, right? You can type anything. It's a question through Copilot. So it's an app, you make that question. When we talk about grounding, right? I think this is an important concept for people to understand when you're grounding on a document. So for example, if you want to summarize a a document, right? We have a or a transcript of a meeting, right? Like OK, I want to summarize it. My understanding of the way it works is when you press summarize a document, what you're really doing is telling the tool to look at the document, use the language in that document to create, I'll call it a better prompt or question that has more context. Then that goes to the large language model which is again inside the tenant and then that will basically give you an answer. But it's really just saying the answer is this is the likely next word is the best way to describe it. It's about probability and the like so it doesn't know anything. It is just when you're grounding it in a document or your own enterprise data, all you're doing is basically asking better questions of this large language model. That's my understanding of it. I know people have different types of descriptions, but that's the way I think the best way to think about it. Um And then and again, this is where we start talking about confidentiality. Like why people are a little concerned about it going public, you know, to the public part is that those questions, right are gonna take potentially confidential information, whatever and send it to this outside model if it wasn't Copilot, be out there. And this is true with a lot of a a tools and you may not have control like John that of who's looking at it. Are they storing it there? How long? And they're storing it? You know, is it, is it secure all that stuff? That's the type of stuff that we normally worry about. However, here, because the way Copilot is, you know, built, some of those concerns are are less. Although as you pointed out John, there are features that you can go to the internet which could cause those same concerns any other flavor, Karim or John that you want to give again. That's my description of how it works.  John: But yeah, no, the thing I was gonna say, no, I think you gave a great description of the grounding. Um Karim had brought up the the graph. So the graph is something which is underlies your Microsoft 365 tenant. And Karim alluded to this earlier and essentially when the business people in your organization are communicating back and forth, sharing documents as links, they're chatting in Microsoft teams sending emails. This graph is a database that essentially collects all of that activity, you know, it, it knows that you're sharing documents with. So and so and that becomes one of the ways that Microsoft surfaces information for the grounding that Anthony alluded to. So how does it, how does Copilot know to look at a particular document or know that a document exists on a particular topic about blueberry muffins or whatever, you know, in part that's based on the graph and that's something that can scare a lot of people because it it tends to show that documents are being overshared or people are sharing information in a way that they shouldn't be. So that's another issue. I think Anthony, Karim that we're seeing people talk about.  Anthony: Yeah. And that is that is a key point. I mean, the way that Microsoft explains it is copilot is very individualistic, I'll say so if it's it's based and when you're talking about all the information could be grounded and it's based on the information that someone has access to. And this is, and I think John, this is the point you were saying as we start going through these risk, one of the big challenges, I think a lot of organizations are now seeing is Copilot's exposing, as you noted, bad access controls is the best way to describe it, right? Like in a lot of people M365 there's not a focus on it. So because people may have more access than they need when you're using Copilot it really does expose that. I think that's probably one of the biggest risks that we're seeing and big, the biggest challenges um that we're talking to our clients about because, because it, it is limited to the access that the person has. There's a presumption that that person only has access to what they should have. And I think we all know now that's not the case. Um And I think that's one of the big dangers and we'll talk about this and she episodes about how do you deal with that specific risk. Um But again, I think as we talked about it, that is one of the big risks that legal departments have to think about is, you know, you should be talking to your IT folks and saying what access controls do we have in place. And the like, because that is one of the big issues that um people have so to give you, you know, highlight it, you have highly confidential information within your organization. You know, if people are using Copilot, that could be a bad thing because suddenly they can ask questions and get answers based on highly confidential information that they shouldn't be getting. So it, it is one of the, the big challenge that we have. One thing I want to talk about, Karim, before we get into a little bit more on the risks is sort of the product level differences. And we talk about copilot as if it's one product, but I think as we've heard and seen there's sort of different flavors, I guess of Copilot.  Karim: Sure. Uh Yeah, so as Anthony noted, um, you know, Copilot is an embedded tool within the, you know, 365 suite. And so, you know, you're gonna have Copilot for word Copilot for Powerpoint. And so there are different, you know, tools and, and there's different functionality within, you know, whatever product you're working within. And that of course, is going to affect, you know, one the artifacts that are created uh some of the prompts that you're able to use and leverage. And so it's not as simple as just thinking as Copilot as this unified, you know, product because there are going to be different configurations. And I'm sure Anthony will, will speak to this, you know, we've kind of noted that even some of the configurations around where these things are stored, you know, there are certain gaps depending on whether you're using Outlook for example. And so, you know, you really have to dig into these product specific configurations because it, you know, the risks do vary. And just to, to kind of add and uh John kind of point to this, there is, you know, one version of Copilot, which is 365 Chat I believe is what it's called. And that is the probably the most efficient uh from a product perspective because it can leverage data across the user um you know, personal graph. And so again, bigger risks may be there than if you were looking at just kind of Excel. So, you know, definitely product specific functionalities change. And so food for thought on that point.  Anthony: And John, I don't know if you've done lighthouse has done testing on each of these different applications, but what we've seen our clients do is actually test each application, you know, so we have Copilot for word Copilot for Excel. Copilot for teams and stuff because as Karim said, we have seen issues with each, I don't know if you've seen anything specific that you want to raise.  John: Yeah, well, I think you guys bring up some really good points. I think um the like for example, Outlook, the prompts actually don't get captured as, as an artifact versus in Word and Excel and Powerpoint. But then we're also seeing some interesting things in our testing. So we're, we're ongoing, we're doing ongoing testing. But when it comes to meeting summaries and the difference between recapping a meeting that only has a transcript versus a meeting that has a full recording and the artifacts that get generated between the different types of meeting summaries, whether it's a recap or a full what they call AI notes. So that we're seeing some, some, some the meeting recaps aren't being captured 100% verbatim. So there's a lot of variability there. I think the key thing is that you pointed out, Anthony is you got to do testing, you've got to test, you've got to get comfortable that, you know, what artifacts are being generated and, and where they stored and whether you can preserve, collect all of those things.  Anthony: Yeah. And, and I think one of the things that um I'm gonna talk a little bit about this generally and John, I'm sure you're saying the same thing is prompts and responses, or at least Microsoft is saying prompts and responses are generally stored in all these applications in a hidden folder in your um in a person's outlook, right? So their their mailbox, as we noted and Karim noted for whatever reason, outlooks prompts and responses aren't being saved there. Although I'm told that that fix is coming in may have been even this week so that there was a gap, obviously, it came out in November. So there's still gaps and I think, you know, as is true, everyone's doing testing, John's doing like Lighthouse is doing testing. I'm sure you're talking to Microsoft note these gaps, they're filling in the gaps. So it is a new product. So that's one of the risks that everyone has to deal with is if anybody telling you this is the way it works may not be absolutely correct because you have to test and certainly you can't really rely on the the documentation that Microsoft has because they're improving the product probably faster than their updating their documentation. So that's another challenge that we've seen. So, test, test test is really important. Um So I just think some things to think about. Okay, we're almost out of time. So we're getting too much in the risk. But I think we've already talked about at a high level, some of the risks as we've talked about, there's the confidentiality and access issues that you should be thinking about retention and over retention we'll get into later. But there is obviously a risk. A lot of litigation teams are saying I don't want to keep this around. People are asking these questions, getting responses, they not be accurate. From a litigation perspective, they don't want it around. There's not business case for it, business use for it. Um because usually when you're doing this and like, you know, you're asking to help draft an email or whatever, you're probably doing something with that data, even meeting transcripts. If you get, you know, a recap, some people are copying and pasting it somewhere just to keep it. But generally the idea is the the output of Copilot is usually sort of short term. So that's generally been the approach I think most people are taking um and to get rid of it, but it's not easy to do because it's Microsoft. And so that's, that's one of the risks. And I think as we talked about, there's going to be the discovery risks, John, right? Like we're talking about, can we preserve it. There may be instances you can or can't. And that's where the outlook thing becomes an issue. As I think Karim noted hallucinations or accuracy is a huge risk. It should be better. Right. As I think Karim said, because it's grounded in your data, it should be better than just sort of general. Um, but there's still risks, right and there's a reputational risk associated with it if, if someone's relying on a summary of a meeting and they don't look at it carefully, that's obviously gonna be a risk, particularly if they circulate that this was said. So a lot of things to think about. At a high level, you know, Karim and John, let, let's conclude, what are one of the risks that you're seeing that? Do you think legal department should be thinking about other than what I just said?  John: Yeah. Well, I think that um one of the things that legal departments seem to be struggling with, I'm sure you guys are hearing this, is that what about the content itself being tagged or labeled as created by generative AI? There, there's actually some areas in M365 like meeting summaries will say generated by AI. But then there's other areas like a word document was completely, you know, the person creates a document. They do, they do a very light touch review of it. The documents essentially 99% generative AI, you know, a lot of companies are asking, well, can we get metadata or some kind of way to mark something is having been created by? So that's one of the things that in addition to all the issues that you highlighted Anthony that we're hearing companies bring up.  Anthony: Yeah, Karim, anything anything else from, from your perspective?  Karim: Sure. Yeah, I think one big issue that, you know, and I'm sure we'll talk about this in future uh episodes is, you know, with this kind of emergence of, you know, this AI functionality, there's a tendency on behalf of users, you know, to, to heavily rely on the outputs. And I know a lot of people kind of talk about human in the loop. And so, you know, I heard somebody say, uh you know, these are called Copilots for a reason and not autopilot. And so the training aspect, you know, really needs to be ingrained because when people do sit and rely on these outputs as if they're, you know, foolproof, you know, you can run into operational reputational, um you know, risks. And so I think that's, that's one thing we're seeing that, you know, the training is going to, you know, be integral.  Anthony: Yeah, and I think the other thing that I'll finalize this just to think about and this is really important for legal departments, think about privilege, right? If you're using Copilot for and it's using privileged information, I know I've heard a number of GCs say my biggest concern is waiver of privilege because you may not know that you're using Copilot against privileged information. That's summarizing an answer which is basically privilege, but you don't know it and then it circulated broadly and stuff. So again, there's a lot to consider, I think as we've talked about, it's really about training and access controls and really understanding the issues. And like I said, in future episodes, uh with Lighthouse, we'll be talking about some of the risks more specifically and then what can you do to mitigate those risks? Because I think that's really what this is gonna be about is mitigating risks and understand the issues. So well thanks to John and Karim. I hope this was helpful. Like I said, we'll have future podcasts, but thanks everyone for joining and hopefully we'll listen soon.  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 podcast 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.

Names from the boxing world hitting the headlines today include: Katie Taylor, Amanda Serrano, Mike Tyson, Jake Paul, Deontay Wilder, Zhilei Zhang, Joseph Parker, Artur Beterbiev, Dmity Bivol, Tyson Fury, Oleksandr Usyk, Daniel Dubois, Filip Hrgovic, Austin 'Ammo' Williams, Hamzah Sheeraz, Raymond Ford, Nick Ball, Craig Richards, Willy Hutchinson, Shannon Ryan, Emma Dolan, Yuga Ozaki, Devin Haney and Ryan Garcia, as well as Eddie Hearn and Bob Arum. #talkinfight #boxingnews #boxingchampion #boxingbelts #saudiarabiaboxing #matchroom #toprank #mvpboxing

Why is disability inclusion a business imperative? How can organizations harness allyship to dispel misconceptions and lay the foundation for meaningful representation? In this podcast, we consider the business case for investing in disability inclusion – an often forgotten strand in corporate DEI efforts – and the importance of changing mindsets in order to ensure progress.  Our presenters delve into how organizations can pursue their business goals while investing in DEI by acting in a truly responsible manner and making effective use of the tools at their disposal.  Our host David Boutcher is joined by Vaibhav Adlakha, Joanne Christopher, and Carole Mehigan. ----more---- Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith podcast Inclusivity Included: Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions and challenges, past and present, all with the goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included.  David: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to Inclusivity Included. My name's David Boutcher. I'm a partner in the Reed Smith Global Corporate Group based in London. The title of this podcast is Diversity, equity and inclusion: Disability, a key focus for organizations. I've been involved with uh LEADRS, Reed Smith's Disability Group, since it began. And we thought it would be important to uh have a podcast as to why we think it's important to focus on, on disability, disability events, uh disability initiatives. Uh I'm joined by colleagues, Vaibhav Adlakha, Joanne Christopher, and Carole Mehigan. As they join the podcast, I will ask them to say a little bit about, about uh who they are as well. So I think um I'd like to kick off with talking about some of the specific events that we've had over recent years and the reasoning behind them and why we think they're really important and uh Vaibhav perhaps you'd like to kick us off on that. Vaibhav: Thanks David. So as David mentioned, my name is Vaibhav Adlakha. I am an associate in our competition team here in London, but I also have an interest specifically in the diversity inclusion issues. I also have a physical disability and use a wheelchair. Now, I wanna begin with a personal, little personal thing. Before I joined Reed Smith and I thought about what my identity was going to be, I thought I only wanted to be a lawyer, but as I joined and began my journey here at Reed Smith, I realized that we have a platform to make the change what we want to see in the profession and be a leader in what we want, how we want people to see view the profession. As David often says, we are the best of a bad bunch. But I guess my goal was to try and create uh something where it is beyond my own success. It is a legacy that we can continue. Just to spotlight on one of on some of our events, we started in doing our Disability Inclusion Summits in 2020. Um Necessity is the mother of invention. So uh during the pandemic, we wanted to celebrate International Day of Persons with Disabilities. And we, thought, what better way to do that when by discussing issues and creating an environment not only for our ourselves, but also for our clients and anyone who wishes to participate, to be honest, uh whether no matter how far you are in your disability journey, whether you have reservations, whether you're further ahead, whether you're converted. So that's the Disability Summits explored different topics. How it is to work in the pandemic. What is the myths of uh disability inclusion? How can you embrace the journey? What are some of the things that different clients have done in their journey to disability? So long story short, the the Disability Summits were done as a platform to of discussion no matter how, how far you are in that journey. And we believe that it's an important, important aspect to understanding what we can do better, how we can invest in education and especially disability education and how we can cut down boundaries. If I can touch upon briefly on some of our other events uh that we have done, which is the allyship event on the importance of carers, allies and support groups. Uh This was basically done for the purpose of understanding the mindset of those who support vulnerable people, whether that's people with disabilities, uh parents, children. Because if you understand the mindset of those individuals who do it, regardless of the challenges, then you can be part of that super group, you can become part of being an ally. So that was the reason we did that as an event. And uh the importance of a career fair. Um Carole who will, who you will hear from did a specific career for fair for people with disabilities. And we wanted to do that simply because we are keen to uh cut down the barriers uh that people with disabilities face in education, in schools so that uh they, they can understand the aspirations that it you can have. And finally, we do uh understand the importance of learning and constantly improving, and that's why disability training sessions are not only important from a policy perspective as it is the right thing to do, but also so that it, it transfers down from people who work with you every day so that they understand what it is to work with people with disabilities. And we understand as well as people with disabilities, how we can, how we need to adapt to fit within the environment. Um So with that, I'll just hand over back to David to and David, I wanted to ask you about why from a Reed Smith perspective, because I've given the reason for the idea is that we had, but why from a Reed Smith perspective, it's important as a firm that we invest in disability inclusion? David: Thanks Vaibhav. Yeah, I mean, I think um it's really important for so many reasons if you like both internal and external as far as uh the firm is concerned. uh Reed Smith is very proud of its culture and its core values. And I think to have these events and initiatives on issues and highlighting the challenges of people with disabilities really shows uh that culture and those core values uh in action. And also I think it helps uh educate our own people with regard to the challenges faced by people with disabilities. I think so often people feel as though they haven't come across people with disabilities and are actually unsure as to how to deal with those people. So I think most employers actually face a key challenge to, to address that issue. And I think professional services organizations like Reed Smith are particularly well placed. It's a bit of a cliché, but we often say we're a, we're a people business, which we are. And I think that means that we have a responsibility to talk to all of our people. But also the people with whom we interact, particularly clients about the challenges faced by people with disabilities. A as it's often said, when talking about diversity, equity and inclusion, the one area of diversity which is often at the bottom of the list, and I'm, I'm afraid to say sometimes not even mentioned is the, the challenges in the area of people, people with disabilities. It is changing, it's not changing fast enough. Um So I think it's really important that we, that we, we focus on it uh as an organization. And I think also it's important in terms of training and education at multiple levels and, and, and I know, Vaibhav, you've had uh experience when you were training as to what you might be training for and what might be available to you uh as a person with a disability. And I think again, we have a responsibility as employer to demonstrate how people with disabilities can be included, work with colleagues and most importantly, be treated equally. And I think that is often the challenge that people are not sure how to accommodate people with disabilities. And it is often a fine balance between uh treating people equally. Uh But they're not treating them equally because they, if you like focusing on their disabilities and and unfairly making that um stand out and we only improve that by uh talking about these issues. And in terms of uh you know, having a platform where we can help change the mindset around people with disabilities as with any mindset. Actually, it's not something you're gonna change overnight. So I think it's important that we have a continuing program of initiatives uh and events where we talk about the many challenges faced by um people with disabilities. And of course, the whole area of disability itself is, is, is very complex, there are physical disabilities, there are mental hidden disabilities. And again, I just think historically, it's just not something that people have talked about and I think people want to hear other people's views, they want to be here uh about the experiences that people with disabilities have had. And the other really important thing is we want to make the most of people's talents and so many people with disabilities have unique talents. I, I've often said often somebody with a disability has had huge challenges in their lives, which they've met, you know, with gusto, they, it's given them great confidence and that actually gives the individual the kind of qualities that most employers would really want to have. So there are all sorts of positives to look at uh as well. But most importantly, unless we address this, we've almost got a whole lost sector of our population where we're not actually uh making the most of that uh of that talent. And I think it's really important to address it on so many levels. So as Vaibhav has said, we've had many different events and most recently we've been talking about support groups and allyship and representation. Vaibhav: David I just wanted to make before you hand over to Carole, is you talked about how from a disability point of view, we we as firms, we need to understand what, during my training for instance, you said, what are you working towards? I think from a disability person perspective, it's also fundamental for, for us to understand how, how to work with an organization because in the end organizations or businesses. So it's more of a collaborative effort. And I think by doing these events uh or being on the inside, right, you can not only kind of make the profession of the firm or what you're aspiring towards. Uh you can mold that together as a, as a partnership, but also uh the wider perspective. Also, I was hoping we could talk about why clients think it's important to in that respect. So we can, we can discuss that at some point. David: Yeah, absolutely. Well, I mean, clients, uh as I mentioned earlier, I think it, it, it's, that's why again, it's important for the firm because I think that we need to share those experiences with clients and and ultimately, of course, it helps strengthen the relationship with clients. And again, where I welcome uh Carole's comments, you know, that often comes down to other parties, support groups, uh allyship representation, which was of course the focus of the last disability event that we held. So Carole, perhaps you'd like to say a few words about that. Carole: Thank you, David. Thank you Vaibhav. Thank you for having me on this podcast today. Um Delighted to be speaking with my wonderful colleagues. So my name's Carole Mehigan. I am the responsible business manager for our Europe Middle East and Asian offices. I am based in the London office. Um and I concentrate mainly on the London and our Leeds office where I host a multitude of events and um projects um across the area. So, concentrating on, on disability, really. I do a lot of student programs across the different age range. Um And during my time in doing my role at Reed Smith, I realized that, you know, disability is still slightly taboo amongst our students. I know young people, they don't actually realize that, you know, we're breaking those barriers down for them and that we're trying to ensure that they feel inclusive to, you know, going into a law firm and the legal sector uh has changed over the years. So working with schools who uh who predominantly work with students with disabilities and universities, who also focus a lot on a lot of students who have disabilities has been fantastic for us as a law firm because they were actually hitting that talent that seems to still be hidden away. And one of the reasons why I was so keen to do the disability career fair, um which we did um last year was because I wanted to really shine a light on those students and young people who don't feel that they are getting the focus enough or don't still feel like they would be welcomed into the legal industry. So actually focusing on them and giving them the opportunity to come into a place like where we work and to really speak to people from a diverse background, but also people with disabilities, myself being one. I was diagnosed in 2020 with neurodiversity and disabilities. So for me being an advocate in that respect as well, um and also supporting from, from the representation within Reed Smith, I thought was a very keen focus for me to make sure that students understood that we were a disability friendly organization. And David and Vaibhav have both touched upon the client engagement on the, at the disability fair. We did invite some clients who again are disability friendly. They wanted to promote that and show uh students what opportunities you can find within their organizations. So it really gave us a chance for us to talk about what we do, what we do in that space, what sort of opportunities there are for students with, with or without disabilities, but obviously focus a lot on on on disability side and also to encourage students and young people to feel like they can talk about their disability. They can actually bring that into the conversation and not be scared to hide, hide it in the background because they're worried that if they do say anything about their disability, then it will be frowned upon or they will be seen as a lesser candidate for any particular role within the business. So for me doing work uh with schools and with universities on the back of the disability fair, I'm now working with a school which exclusively has students. Every student has a disability. I'm now working with them to provide some of their students with work experience. So it's that continue of working with, you know, students and young people. So they understand that there are loads of opportunities, loads of great ways of them having an insight into our firm and, and hopefully that's going to continue. So that's what we're doing really on from the UK and the sort of Europe, Middle East and Asia side. I'm gonna hand over to Joanne who is one of our colleagues in the US for her to kind of give a little bit of more about what we're doing in the US with regards to disability. Joanne: Thank you, Carole. Uh My name is Joanne Christopher. I'm the senior human resources manager in our Pittsburgh office. I'm also the HR liaison to our LEADRS disability employee resource group in the US. Of course, we do participate with our college in Europe in the Middle East and also in Asia um on our disability program. Um as as David mentioned, people with disabilities have amazing abilities by not including them or missing out on a vast talent pole. It's very important to have diversity of thought, uh diversity of culture, and people disabilities are part of that diversity that Reed Smith values. I know that a lot of employers uh when they hear about employing folks with disability, they immediately talk about the cost of accommodations. It's widely known that most accommodations cost less than $500 and some cost nothing at all. So there's no reason not to include these colleagues. Uh People with disabilities want to work and they have a lot to offer us. Here in the United States, uh we are very proud that we have received the National Organization on Disabilities uh Leading Disability Employer Recognition. We also are part of NOD's Leadership Council and we've received 100% on the disability equality index through Disability: IN. And so, um it, it's not just a lot of talking words. Reed Smith really is putting into action a lot of initiatives to help our colleagues with disabilities because we value the gifts that they have to offer us. Some of the resources for our employers that we've developed, we've created this disability etiquette guide to help those people who aren't used to working with people with disabilities to be a little more comfortable to know how to approach a situation. We have institute of project ability where we work with clients on including a person with disability on each side of our client teams and the disability is only disclosed if the person wants to disclose that. So, you know, you could not know who the disabled person is on a particular project. We've created an accommodations resource to help other folks feel comfortable coming forward to request accommodations. It's a sample of a lot of the accommodations that we have across the firm. We also host weekly coffees and in those weekly coffees uh which again are available throughout our global platform, we get to know our colleagues. We offer support if someone is struggling or, you know, we just get to know each other if there is an oppressing issue that someone wants to bring forward. We have established subcommittees on accessibility, neurodiversity, peer support, recruiting, retention, and promotion and events and speakers here in the US, particularly in Pittsburgh, we partner with St. Anthony's School at Duquesne University to provide vocational training opportunities for college age students who uh have down syndrome autism or other intellectual disability by hosting them here in an internship program where they're learning a lot of job skills, uh how to dress for the world of work. Uh Some of those, those non uh visible types of things that you need to bring to a job, like being on time, how to get to and from work and those kinds of things. But more than that our employees just love when, when the students are here and it gives them an opportunity to work side by side with people with disabilities. Um We've also partnered with Special Olympics to host bocce tournaments. We have different awareness days and um again, we have a process to uh support all of our employees, those with disabilities and those without. So, so that's a little bit of what we're doing here in the US.  Vaibhav: From a student perspective. You, you really, and this is me speaking not being a Reed Smith employee, you really don't understand how important those kind of events are working with your working with the schools and doing a career for solely for people with disabilities because what happens is they don't know what they can be. Uh, if me coming from India, living in the Netherlands, I didn't even realize I could be a lawyer because I didn't know what professions were open to me. And so from a student perspective, if, if you have uh an environment or uh have clients who are willing to say, you know, these are the career paths that you can have. They, not everybody is probably gonna be a lawyer, not everybody is going to be uh someone in the legal profession or a partner or something like that. But at least they have aspirations to, to know who they can be. And for someone with a disability who, who, who can, who sometimes is not allowed to see beyond just what, what he, she can't do that. That is invaluable. I think before we close, I, I wanted to ask David one thing about how, because a lot of organizations talk about these are our business goals, these are our diversity goals. And if we invest too much in diversity, especially in our legal profession because they, they charge every minute unfortunately, but uh and every second that you're actually working, how, how do you deal with the fact that someone with a disability may take longer may not be as efficient? And how do you then figure out that, that your business goals and your diversity goals can be one? David: Well, I think it, and thanks Vaibhav, I think it even goes wider than that. I mean, as uh Joanne was talking, I was thinking about uh ESG environmental social governance, which we advise a lot of our, our clients on. And I think in terms of when it comes to goals uh related to the accommodation of people with disabilities which Vaibhav has just touched on, they really have to be integrated fully into all of our business goals. And this is the mistake. I think that so many organizations often make that uh they just focus on if you like their corporate and social responsibility actions rather than integrating these issues throughout their business. So uh I think as Joanne mentioned, we have this uh project ability initiative where we have, you know, uh somebody with a disability working on, on, on, on each matter, we have uh initiatives working with clients uh where we're discussing and championing the causes of people with disabilities. And I think also we're educating one another on uh as I touched on early treating people with disabilities equally because again, answering Vaibhav's point about uh how we uh accommodate the challenges of people with disabilities within our own business goals. It's as we accommodate all people within our business goals because no one is perfect and uh all people have strengths and weaknesses. It just so happens that we're where you come to a person with a disability, their weakness is often focused on that disability. But other people's weaknesses may be focused on the fact that they don't have the greatest talent in certain areas, but they've got a much stronger talent in other areas. And as we would say, it's horses for courses and it, when it comes to people with disability, it's not saying, well, they're actually a completely different animal separately and we must kind of somehow have a separate initiative for them. Well, no, they're just, they're part of all of our people. Uh And the way we accommodate them is the way we accommodate everybody and everybody needs some kind of accommodation because as they say, nobody is perfect. And, and I think that one thing I've learned from working with a number of people with disabilities is that that's kind of the number one thing that they really want is to be treated equally and, and on parity with, with, with everybody else. And I think we're moving in that direction when I say we, I mean, society generally, and I think that's why the whole ESG initiative now is great because that is all about how businesses can not only operate themselves independently in doing the right thing, but how they impact all their stakeholders and the wider society and community at large. And I think work in uh helping and highlighting the challenges of people with disabilities fits into that so well, because there are so many issues to be addressed. And as Vaibhav has alluded to so many ways in which we can, uh we can influence wider society um for the better. Vaibhav: So it's all about adapting and adapting the way, seeing the ability in others and adapting your working practices about adapting your mindset. And my one final question, because this is something I'm really passionate on is, Carole and Joanne, I think I, I think I wanted to understand because having every organization has a, has a CSR Corporate Social Responsibility or, or responsible business. These are, these are tools that every organization kind of has. And for me, I, I always think that if you can focus on a cause and use the tools you already possess as an organization, you can make a difference. How do you think uh in terms of what we are trying to achieve from a responsible business perspective, helps prepare society and businesses to embrace diversity, inclusion and become better allies. Carole: I, I don't mind starting first. So I think, you know, we, we as a firm, we see responsible business is a way of life. It's a way of us showing our culture and of a firm and how we want to provide support for, for each other. So we see it that, you know, we are a business that wants to be responsible for the wider community and that includes uh young people and students, et cetera um in the disability arena. We want to, we don't want anyone to feel excluded. You know, for, like I said, for a long time, especially students and young people who do have disabilities have been afraid to say it. They've been afraid to say on an application form or when they're being interviewed. And the, the, the problem then you have is how can you support somebody if you don't know that they need that support. So as a responsible business, as you know, we have to ensure that people understand that, you know, bring your true self to the workplace. You know, when you are applying somewhere, if you feel that you can't be completely honest and open about what you know yourself and if you have a disability, it may be not the right place for you and with working with other organizations such as clients, for example, who are also thinking in the same way that we are, you know, makes that uh collaboration with our clients, not just from a client service perspective, but also from the fact that we're organizations all trying to meet the needs of a particular demographic of people who feel like they're still outsiders. So I think being responsible for the wider community in whatever way you can bring in our community internally, to meet the external community is really important. And it also allows us as a community internally to show that we already have lots and lots of people with disabilities of all sorts, whether it's visible, invisible neurodiversity, whatever it may be and how, you know, how much they have made a success of their careers, you know, shining that light out there, letting other people know you could follow in the same footprints you could follow down the same career path is really, really important. So it's not just a case of talking the talk, you need to walk the walk, you need to do that by showing how you're going to do that. And the only way you can do that is like doing events like we've done already uh finding ways to get into the community and show what you can provide them and what they can provide to us. Because you know, even with having a disability of any sort, you bring a unique talent to the table, you know, we all bring something to the table and having disability is already a challenge for you as a person.  So when you can bring that to the table and be successful in your career, choice of career, I think just shows that, you know, you have resilience, you, you can champion yourself and you can really go, you know, help other people to feel that they can do the same thing. I'll hand over to Joanne at this point. Joanne: The one thing I would say is a professional services firm, we are in the people business. So we need to take care of our people so that they can do the best work that they can do. Disability cuts across all corners of our lives. It's socio-economic, it's diverse groups. It's every ethnic background. There are people with disabilities in every corner and these people have a lot of gifts to offer and we need to support them.  Vaibhav: As a final comment for me, this working on disability is not a silo. Every aspect of your organization can work on it whether you have pro bono uh projects that focus on disability, responsible business projects or simply come up with a legal initiative and do something like training for your employees so that they can better understand. But it's a two sided training. We, we as people with disabilities need to understand how it is to work in an organization and how it is to adapt. Whereas the organization has tools that are already there for them to focus on the ability of people. And that's something organizations do anyway, because they, they focus on who the person can be and what tools they can provide. So through this podcast, I hope that a lot of organizations who or people who are listening gain the confidence that you have the tools within your organization within yourselves to actually make a difference to anyone, let alone people with a disability and, and work and adapt to make professions better than when we found them, when we enter that each of us uh from our experience. So with that, I thank everybody for listening to our Inclusivity Included podcast. You will find a whole range of podcasts on Inclusivity Included, our podcast channel discussing a wide variety of issues to do with disability, and diversity, equity and inclusion. And I, I have enjoyed working uh talking discussing about this with my colleagues. So thank you very much and thank you for listening. Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. You can find our podcast 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.

We delve into the transformative initiatives undertaken by LexisNexis to shape the landscape of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in the legal industry. Our guest, Adonica Black, director of global talent development and inclusion at LexisNexis, shares insights into the organization's commitment to fostering a culture of inclusion, supporting law firms in their DEI efforts and making a significant impact through innovative programs like the LexisNexis African Ancestry Network and LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation Fellowship. Join our host, Bareeq Barqawi, for a thought-provoking conversation on the current state and future trends of DEI in the legal sphere. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to the Reed Smith podcast, Inclusivity Included: Powerful Personal Stories. In each episode of this podcast, our guests will share their personal stories, passions and challenges, past and present, all with the goal of bringing people together and learning more about others. You might be surprised by what we all have in common, inclusivity included. Bareeq: Welcome to Inclusivity Included our DEI podcast at Reed Smith. I'm your host, Bareeq Barqawi. And today we have the honor of hosting Adonica Black, the Director of Global Diversity and Inclusion for LexisNexis Legal and Professional. Adonica's journey is an inspiring blend of legal expertise, commitment to diversity and inclusion and a passion for justice. Welcome, Adonica. Adonica: Thank you so much, Bareeq. Very happy to join you. Bareeq: Thank you. Um So let's kick things off by discussing your role as the director of Global Diversity and Inclusion at LexisNexis. How is your personal and professional journey influenced your approach to fostering a culture of inclusion within organizations? Adonica: Yes. So my background is a bit unique because I have a legal background. Um I formerly was in litigation before joining LexisNexis. So I have the perspective of both um a practitioner as well as from the business perspective and the value of diversity, equity and inclusion in both arenas. So when transitioning into the business of the law through LexisNexis, um I started actually working with our largest clients. I'm based in the Washington, D.C. area and started working um on very straightforward kind of business development with our clients. And in those conversations and experiences had the opportunity to connect with so many different attorneys in different practice areas and discuss their, you know, the value system that they bring to their practice. And in those conversations uncovered this emerging more explicit value. I think it's the value has always existed but more explicitly stated value around a culture of inclusion in the practice of law and a want to achieve justice. And that really led me on my professional journey towards where I am currently as the global Director of Inclusion and Diversity for LexisNexis as an opportunity arose within the organization to really exemplify those values that have existed in, in myself and in the profession through this specific role. Bareeq: That's amazing, especially because having that knowledge and background, I think makes you even more equipped to understand different perspectives that come into DEI especially in the legal industry. So LexisNexis has demonstrated a really strong commitment to diversity and inclusion. Can you highlight one or two key initiatives or actions that LexisNexis has undertaken recently to promote that culture within the organization? Adonica: Yeah, so as a business, we think about our culture of inclusion um through four pillars, what we call um our foundational pillar of making sure that our vision of our culture is strong and our leadership's commitment and accountability to our culture of inclusion is also strong. And then we have focus on external making sure that our external participation with our customers and the external community supports our culture of inclusion. So as a business, our mission is to advance the rule of law. And we like to say we're creating a more just world. And so that ties very well with our commitment and our value system of a culture of inclusion. And then the third pillar is internally, we're really focused on attracting retaining and developing all talent that supports diverse inclusive business processes and our and our business overalls representation of our talent. So that means anyone that is willing to make sure that they're an inclusive leader or a contributor is important to us. And we really focus on our processes to support achieving and attracting that great talent. And then our final pillar is around continuous improvement and assessment because we are very aware that as other fields evolve. D&I also needs to evolve because it needs to reflect the evolution of equity and inclusion as we move forward as a culture. So those four pillows just kind of over arch all of the programming, all of the initiatives and all of the actions that we take within our DEI work. And so two programs that I could share that I'm really proud of um include our work around developing our talent um into senior leadership. So we've just had completed a program this past year, around, and we will continue, around developing women who have displayed high potential talent in our organization and partnering them with men who are already senior leaders as sponsors and allies to help them grow in their careers. We call that our lead program. We received a gold award um from Brandon Hall, which is a very well respected human capital initiative organization throughout the business world. And in the program itself, like I said, we've paired women with male leaders and we've seen these women go through developmental opportunities to help them grow in their own talent, help make seed in their professional performance and development. And then also we've also developed our male leaders who also have grown more inclusive and more equitable in their leadership. So we've seen great progress and great results from this program because we've been able to help both sides of the perspective in terms of the program develop their skills as a leader and as a contributor. Another program I'd love to highlight is our partnership with our Enabled employee resource group, which is our employee resource group focused on different differing abilities within our talent force. Our Enabled employee resource group has really led our business to be more inclusive in how we produce our product. So they've actually partnered with our product and technology teams to help make sure that our actual product or actual technology and reason sources that are available to our customer community are accessible and in a couple key ways, um making sure that they're visually accessible and then also making sure that they are accessible for differing needs for different attorneys. And that has been amazing because it really has solidified what we like to call the business case for diversity equity and inclusion because we're able to reach a broader customer base and a broader audience and serve their needs. But also having that varied perspective has allowed us to evolve as a business to make sure that we're building in these inclusive features throughout our product. Bareeq: Wow, that's incredible work. Um I'm honestly just, it's just delightful to hear that there's uh organizations working on these kind of things, especially when it comes to gender equity and inclusive leadership and digital accessibility, which we actually uh highlighted in another episode on our podcast. So, so given your expertise, what notable trends are emerging in the legal industry regarding diversity and inclusion um especially considering recent challenges and attacks on DEI following that Supreme Court decision on Harvard and UNC. Adonica: It's interesting where we are as a, I like to say, as a function within diversity equity inclusion. And then of course, where we are as a nation. Um I live in the United States, where we are in the world um globally, all of those perspectives and how these recent Supreme Court decisions have contributed to this. Um from my perspective, the recent Supreme Court decisions very clearly and obviously affect higher education, right? And business in the business world relies upon higher education to produce the available talent to us. And it's disheartening to see the ways in which the Supreme Court has changed what we can expect from higher education without providing any kind of real guidance around how to move forward. So I do see in higher education, um leaders are struggling with how to deal with this and how to continue to espouse their values of diversity and inclusion while being legally compliant. That of course bleeds over into the business world because it, it's persuasive authority in a way and for people who may have wanted to roll back DEI practices to now refer to this decision as a reason to do the same in the business world. And I do think it's very clear just in the way in which the courts and the cases are evolving that this will be addressed in the courts at some point. What I think this has done though is it's created this like forced maturity and DEI work that I think was already evolving and um iterating. But at with this decision, it has really created this point where it's become necessary um to evolve our processes to be inclusive across the board and really strengthen DEI work. And so I've seen from our business, our values remain our commitment to our culture of inclusion remains and it has allowed us to open our aperture and think about structurally making sure all of our processes are inclusive and that benefits everybody that doesn't just benefit people that you may think of as typically diverse talent. I like to think that everyone has diverse characteristics and different dimensions of diversity. So everyone is benefiting from these more strong inclusive processes. So just to kind of ground that in a in a very tangible way, as a business, we are evolving our recruiting processes to make sure that we are instituting structured interviewing across the board for all roles, for all segments in our business and structured interviewing essentially means that everyone who is applying for a specific role has the same interview experience. So we're making sure that we ask the same question. We have the same kind of cadence of conversations and we have the same objective measurements to measure all of our candidates. So that makes the process better for everybody in my opinion, at least for us to achieve greater outcomes because we'll get the objectively best candidate. And it allows for the elimination of biases that may have crept into the process when it was more subjective. So the changes in the law has really precipitated the need for strengthening our processes and DEI work. And I think that will actually lead to greater outcomes. But there's a lot of growing pains as well. I'm sure, you know, happening right now in, in this area. Bareeq: Absolutely. It is, you know, it's a great way. It's a great perspective. And I think it's a really optimistic perspective that you brought forth, which is that I know you mentioned like force maturity, which I, I love the way you put that. But essentially it, it forced us all to audit our own DEI programs to see what is effective, what is impactful and to reassess making sure things are aligned with our values because the need is still there. It's just finding out, you know, how can we remain inclusive, remain true to our goals and missions. And then like you said, strengthen that foundation. So let's shift gears a little bit to the LexisNexis African Ancestry Network and LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation Fellowship, uh which I had the great privilege of uh going to the retreat and getting to see it firsthand. Can you delve into the impact of the fellowship program and perhaps even share a success story or two from the recent cohorts? Adonica: Absolutely. And I'm so excited that you joined us for our, what we call our Innovation Retreat. I'll just give a little background on the program itself. Sure, the LexisNexis African Ancestry Network and LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation Fellowship is an extension of our commitment to eliminate systemic racism in the legal system and build a culture of inclusion and diversity within our own organization. So, the initiative was launched in 2021 in partnership with the Historically Black Colleges and Law School Consortium and it includes all six law schools within that consortium and the National Bar Association, which is the largest professional association of Legal Practitioners um of Black or African descent globally. And the program is focused on developing solutions to address those systemic inequities that exist within our legal system. And so we've had the privilege of working with Reed Smith as one of our foundational partners to support this program. And as you mentioned, we host an Innovation retreat usually in the spring where our fellows meet at our Raleigh Tech Center and meet with our technology and product teams and engineers and really deep dive into LexisNexis, technology and resources and learn how to utilize those resources to address the issue that they're focused on within their fellowship program. We also get the bilateral benefit of our fellows also providing a diverse perspective on the utilization of our tools and technology to our talent and our teams that are able to then like I said, make, build stronger products, representing um our diverse customer base. So the fellows are organized um into five key areas that I like to call kind of cradle to grave systemic legal issues that uh address address challenges in our legal system, starting with our Gavel League team, which our, our team is focused on developing an app that provides early childhood legal education to the community overall. Because we've done research um empirically and subjectively that has determined that some of the lack of representation in the legal system with regard to diverse attorneys in in the profession, stems from childhood experiences and kind of a lack of awareness or even a diversion to the practice of law. And so that mobile application that they're building is designed to increase literacy and comprehension of the rule of law and critical legal concepts that children encounter. And that also may assist their parents and guardians with their rights and representation as well. The second project is I, Too, Sing America and that project is focused on uncovering untold us history through the law and creating more culturally competent attorneys. So this is for once you've reached the stage of being in law school and you're getting your legal education. Our fellows, there are focused on creating an accessible repository of inclusive curriculum resources including racially diverse case law that will help increase their awareness of cultural differences and nuances in the law itself and build that more culturally competent lawyer across the board, benefiting all attorneys and future attorneys in law school. Our third project team is called the Pathways to Practice Pipeline and they're focused on building bridges for HBCU students to legal fields that lack diversity in their representation. So this is the stage where you are, you know, out of law school and you're now in the profession and you're thinking about ascending to leadership levels in the profession, how do you increase the diversity of the professionals that are in practice? Um And they're focused on partnerships with corporate law, the judiciary, um and judicial clerkship opportunities and then large law opportunities as well. So thinking about where do we lack representation and how do we build those pipelines to strengthen the, the talent that is coming into these into the profession itself. Fourth project, technology solutions to alleviate racial bias in jury selection. This team um is doing really exciting work leveraging artificial intelligence, um machine learning and data analytics to analyze representative juries by jurisdiction and provide data analytics tools to practitioners to help them achieve a representative jury and that constitutional right for their client. So they're analyzing currently, they've analyzed um North Carolina, California, Louisiana and New York. And we're planning to build that that out to other jurisdictions to look at what is a representative jury look like based on your jurisdiction and provide practitioners with a resource to then be able to advocate on behalf of their client um at that level of trial proceedings. And then our final group is focused on legal clinic, support tools to combat systemic racism in the legal system So we started with kind of cradle and this ends it at grave level where we're thinking about how do we um provide legal clinics with resources to enhance their pro bono work that may contribute to estate planning, um intellectual property, appraisal biases, court proceedings and some other areas, key areas that we're looking at in terms of access to justice and how many people are able to access justice, which is usually through a legal clinic or a low cost clinic to help them achieve um legal representation. So we've got a full spectrum of projects and a really robust team of both fellows and mentors from within LexisNexis building and working on these projects as, as a overall fellowship program. Bareeq: Thank you so much um for sharing that and for thoroughly describing it, I uh I got to go myself just to, I got a taste of it when I went to the retreat and it was um a really eye opening experience. I mean, we already know that we, we operate unfortunately in a system of, of systemic racism and, and uh and oppression. But to see the ways that the projects in the fellowship were, were based on deliverables and based on um that mentorship piece and being able to uh see what the future could look like and working toward it. I thought it was just uh really great to see um and really impactful. Adonica: Thank you so much for joining us. It was wonderful to have your perspective and your overall firm support to really help us ground the work that we're doing in practical application. Bareeq: Yes, absolutely. And actually based on, on that topic, on your, based on your experience, what advice would you give to law firms aiming to enhance their diversity and inclusion efforts? Are there like specific strategies or some best practices that you believe could make a substantial impact? Adonica: Oh, that's such a large endeavor. I think there's quite a few things that law firms can do and things that I've seen work really well within law firms that I think should just grow in practice. Um So I would start with assessment and goal setting. I think that having very clear assessment indicators around how law firms are performing with regard to their DEI efforts is important. So demographic data, I know law firms do a lot of survey surveys um and capture that kind of data but also deeper dive into things like who's working on what kind of substantive projects who, who has partner support or mentorship sponsorship and trying to quantify those sometimes intangible development opportunities, I think provides a strong assessment of current performance and areas to highlight and focus upon. And I know law firms are doing really great work on evolving how they're looking at developing their diverse talent from just capturing high level demographic data to actually going a line below and looking at substantive um opportunities that has come about for the different demographics and then also what mentoring opportunities. Um And the like that I mentioned, I think of course continuing with inclusive recruitment practices, I've seen Reed Smith, for example, do that very well in reaching out to a diverse set of law schools, not just from typical, diverse standpoints, but also geographically. Um maybe even quote unquote tier wise, so that you're reaching all levels of talent that could bring great perspective to the practice in the firm. I mentioned mentorship and sponsorship. I think having formal mentorship and sponsorship programs and formalizing those opportunities are important because without that, they tend to slip into maybe some biased practices where some achieve mentorship and sponsorship and some don't. So I think kind of codifying those programs and making them inclusively accessible is very key to developing all law firm talent. And then I think thinking about the culture within the law firm is very important because law firms are interesting because there's kind of maybe two segments of firm employee, right? There's what you have, what you may call the timekeepers and people who are practicing law, and then you have people who are running the business of the law firm and there may be separations in that culture, but creating that kind of one team approach and inclusive environment really strengthens the overall law firm performance. Um So I think those are some really great things law firms can do to support their culture of DEI, I also think flexibility. I know the the practice of law and the profession gets a bad rep for not being um super cutting edge. But I actually think that the practice of law law firms in the legal profession has done very well with extraordinary circumstances in the past few years and adapting to those circumstances. So I'd love to see the continual adaptation and kind of evolution there with regard to flexibility. I don't think we should go back to a previous version of practicing law. I think the flexibility helps grow the practice. And I think it shows in the numbers I law firms are doing well in terms of financial performance and they're growing. So that flexibility, I think is key to that as well. Bareeq: You know, I was just talking to somebody about this because uh sometimes at law firms, I find it more um blatant to see, but there is sometimes an um a way to approach work that there creates some sort of a generational divide. Um And I think especially since in the last few years, the younger generations are working toward more of a work life balance and flexible model. Um But people that didn't grow up in that struggle to fully understand that because it is not what they knew. So um finding a way to kind of bring people in and create that sense of belonging within the culture, I think is a challenge law firms are facing. But like you said, I think it's something they're addressing and, and kind of working uh forward with and evolving because I don't think things can unfortunately stay the same. Things are, you know, going to have to hopefully improve for the better. And that being said, my, my last question today is uh we talked about it a little bit earlier about the business case. So diversity and inclusion are often touted as beneficial for business. And from your perspective, why are these principles good for business and what tangible advantages can organizations gain by fostering those diverse and inclusive cultures? Adonica: Yeah, I absolutely believe in the business case for diversity equity and inclusion. There have been so many empirical analysis and studies around how the increase of diversity equity and inclusion that are measured by those indicators we talked about has also correlated with the increase of financial performance, employee engagement, employee retention, um innovation, all of those things that lead to stronger, a stronger business. I also think about just from a practical standpoint where we are in the world, where we are as a kind of a global culture. One of the recent data points that I've heard that really has stuck with me is the wealth transfer that we're facing as at least as a nation. Um and I think likely globally within the next decade as that and and it will be the largest wealth transfer in our in history, right? So as baby boomers transfer their wealth to kind of the millennial generation, that huge transfer of finances will lead to different people having stronger purchasing power. And I do think younger generations absolutely make decisions based on values in addition to finances. And so for a business to be able to succeed into that next generation, businesses need to think strongly about their value system and demonstrate those values because those younger generations are very much evaluating based on performance and action, not just on words. So I think that it's very clear when you think about does a business survive into the next decade into the next millennium, that diversity equity and inclusion will remain a a value system through which people evaluate whether they're gonna be a customer. So to be a successful business, those values need to be authentic and practice and grow. Bareeq: Well said, I love that especially the the tying the wealth transfer in the generations to come to DEI. Fantastic. Thank you, Adonica for sharing your valuable insights today. It's been such an enlightening conversation on diversity and inclusion and the impactful work you and LexisNexis are doing. And to our listeners, thank you so much for joining us on Inclusivity Included. Stay tuned for more inspiring conversations with leaders shaping the future until next time. Adonica: Thank you so much.  Outro: Inclusivity Included is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. 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.

Why are there so many delays in moving residents out of the cancer cluster in 5th Ward? Plus, why are new developments still being allowed in such a toxic part of the city? ABC 13 reporter Shannon Ryan joins host Raheel Ramzanali to unpack all of the latest updates regarding the cancer cluster in 5th Ward.  Read Shannon Ryan's stories on the cancer cluster in 5th Ward.  Looking for more Houston news? Then sign up for our morning newsletter Hey Houston  Follow us on Instagram  @CityCastHouston Don't have social media? Then leave us a voicemail or text us at +1 713-489-6972 with your thoughts! Have feedback or a show idea? Let us know!  Interested in advertising with City Cast? Let's Talk! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's Lara vs Wood 2 Fight Week in Manchester. Jamie and Scott recap Taylor vs Cameron from Dublin with the Undisputed 140lbs Champ Chantelle Cameron and trainer Nigel Travis who are on separately. Also on the show, Dalton Smith and Sam Maxwell discuss July 1's headliner in Sheffield, Steve Bunce takes on the Alias Apron challenge and talks the World Title triple header and Shannon Ryan is under the spotlight ahead of her Matchroom debut on June 10.

For the third time Brewery Travels takes a look at a beer scene in New York, this time honing in on the capital Albany and surrounding area. Joining Joel are Shannon & Ryan Taylor, brewery travelers themselves who live in the area. They discuss a variety of topics such as Albany's history as a brewing hub, the growth of Fidens Brewing, the Capital Craft Beverage Trail, and much more! From Portland, Maine to San Diego, California. Austin, Texas to Duluth, Minnesota. The bright lights of New York City to the farmland of rural Iowa. Brewery Travels plans to run the gauntlet of locations, providing in-depth information on as many places as possible. With episodes coming out weekly on Tuesdays, Brewery Travels is where you can get your fix if you enjoy a craft beer or traveling. Cheers! DRINK LOCAL EVERYWHERE! Follow Joel's travels on social media: Twitter: @brewerytravels Instagram: @brewery_travels Website: www.thebrewerytravels.com Episode 79: Great Albany, NY - Feat. Shannon & Ryan Taylor

A somewhat different podcast this week... After a few last minute pull outs, Jamie and Scott find themselves tucked away at the Joshua vs Franklin fight hotel to salvage a podcast this week. The duo speak with new signing, IBF World Flyweight Champion Sunny Edwards and John Hedges whilst Eddie Hearn welcomes Shannon Ryan and Jack Catterall to the team ahead of Saturday's big show in The Capital.

Thank You all for Listening. We appreciate all 91 of you.....SUBSCRIBE

Kyle Bornheimer recently joined host Elias in the cave! If you're a fan of Kyle Bornheimer, then you'll love this interview! We talk about Kyle's new show on Amazon Freevee "High School," and "Avenue 5." It's a great chat with one of Hollywood's most talented actors, and I hope you enjoy it! Kyle is an actor and comedian who also happens to be married to Disney president Shannon Ryan. Kyle returns to HBO with Avenue 5 as the husband in space hell with his wife who he loves/hates played by long-time friend Jessica St Clair. He also plays the caring and clueless dad of the 90s in the Tegan and Sara-inspired show High School on Amazon's Freeevee. Kyle shows the nuance of someone who doesn't fully understand the identity crisis the ladies are going through but portrays as a stepfather who wants to learn because he cares You can watch this interview on YouTube https://youtu.be/92NBGIAoFDY Have a question? Email us  themccpodcast@gmail.com Follow us on Social Media for the latest show updates  www.twitter.com/themccpodcast www.instagram.com/themccpodcast www.facebook.com/themancavechroniclespodcast www.themccpodcast.com  www.youtube.com/c/TheManCaveChronicleswElias  

Andy Scott is joined by Liam Smith and Shannon Ryan to discuss the fallout from Conor Benn's failed drug test, Shields v Marshall and Fury v Chisora 3.

This week, Joey and Eddie are back! Part one consists of the weekly 'Review' segment. This week's special guest is the undefeated Female Super-Flyweight prospect, Shannon Ryan. Shannon talks all about her career thus far and her upcoming fight set for September 10th at the O2 Arena. Shannon also discusses Ebanie Bridges, reveals who her favourite female fighter is and explains what it's like to be managed by Anthony Joshua. The show then ends with the weekly 'Preview' segment, along with the latest boxing news. All this and more on the BoxHard Podcast! Stay tuned!

7 - 7-2022 Unstoppable Protective Gear - Taylor And Shannon Ryan by Tommy G

In this episode guest host Shannon Ryan is joined by Sandra Byrne, senior manager for Lush Cosmetics, a bath, body, skin and hair care company devoted to creating fresh, low-waste and cruelty-free products. Sandra has worked for Lush for nearly 18 years and is the store manager of the world's largest Lush shop in Liverpool, UK. In this episode we hear Sandra's journey of how she transformed her High Street location into a community hub where the brand's story shines bright. If you enjoyed this episode, please let us know by subscribing to our channel and giving us a 5 star rating us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. - - - - - - Hosted by Shannon Ryan Produced by Gabriella Bock Edited by Chase Atherton

@unc_basketball let's beat @peacocksmbb today and meet up in #nawlins with @dukembb and send #coachk into retirement.  @umichhockey playing @qu_mih for a shot in the #frozenfour tonight. @naz_hillmon Shannon Ryan of @theathletichq wrote a great article on her Mom #nasheemaanderson who was #missohio #basketball and was state's @gatorade player of the year. Went to @vandywbb where she was an All #secbasketball player and was drafted by the #abl that folded during her first season.  Just like that, her basketball career was over.  The @wnba was one year old. And still the women have to go overseas to make a decent wage.  Things haven't changed that much.  Good luck vs @uoflwbb and #goblue tomorrow.  @creightonwbb good luck against @gamecockwbb but I won't bet against #dawnstaley . #kyrieirving good luck in your first home game.  You've been through so much.  How does @kuhoops #remymartin not have an #nil deal?

A workplace is wherever people are working. Therefore, a laboratory is as much of a workplace as any office, and keeping people as a focus when designing is just as important for employee success, retention, and attraction. When gene therapy development company Forge Biologics began the process to renovate their facility—a combination of laboratories, offices, collaboration spaces, and more—the design team kept this principle central to their process. Our guests are Jaysson Eicholtz, Co-Founder and COO of Forge; Shannon Ryan, BHDP Senior Interior Designer on the project; and Daniel Lessing, BHDP Client Leader with experience in the cell and gene therapy sector.

A female fighter, Shannon Ryan, and bantamweight Andres Campos - and their respective stories as they rise toward a title shot - lead off the show today, which is followed by a result from the Detroit Brawl, then a few upcoming tilts in Scotland, England, Canada, Panama and the USA are discussed before we conclude with a signing announcement courtesy of Hard Hitting Promotions. https://talkinfight.com/todays-boxing-news-headlines-ep125-boxing-news-today-talkin-fight/ Watch live on TalkinFight.com and more episodes on YouTube.com/c/TalkinFight  ​ #TalkinFight #Boxen247 #BoxingNews

Sammy & Don sit down with Women's Boxing Cup Champion, Alliance Boxing Champion, and London Championships silver medalist Shannon Ryan  to talk about her her journey to glory.In This  Episode* Coming From A Fighting Family *Shannon's Transition From Kickboxing To Professional Boxing* Is Boxing Safer Than MMA (Mixed Martial Arts)?Leave a 5* rating & comment if you enjoyed the showCreditsTheme Song: by Annodomination Sound effects obtained from https://www.zapsplat.com Contact Instagram: @thefamilypodcast @don.speaks @shanryanxxTwitter: @thefamilypod Website: https://www.thefamilypodcast.co.uk

Dig deeper into the TVNZ smash with Celebrity Treasure Island with contestant Kim Crossman and a host of special guests. This week, Kim is joined by Celebrity Treasure Island contestant Edna and Season 1 contestant Shannon Ryan! Warning - Explicit Content Listen now! Every Wednesday Kim dissects the episodes and gives you the gossip of what really went on behind the scenes. Listen on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wow what a fantastic season this has been. We have had nothing but amazing guests on to talk about all things equestrian and give their honest perspectives about topics so important to all of us in the sport. I appreciate each and every one of you for participating, listening and providing me with feedback. I can't wait for what's in store this next season! Thank- you to our guests: Chris Delia Sarah Johnstone Holly Evans Justin Ridgewell Scott Cieslar Robin Williamson Katie Shkut, Allie Schmidt, Amy Noonan, Shannon Ryan, Diana Dionisio Peter Gisborn Ian Roberts Lauren Hayes Christian Lowe Christine Reupke Beth Underhill Carly Campbell-Cooper Maddie Corrigan, Julien Moreau Maya Markowski Nicole Walker --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/springeneq/message

Welcome to the Retail Rundown, your go-to weekly podcast where RETHINK Retail teams up with industry experts to discuss the news and trends defining the world of retail. In this episode, you'll enjoy a sneak preview of the insights guests Jenny Oh and Shannon Ryan will share during Valtech's annual Innova event, held Oct. 7-8. Jenny Oh is the general manager of tech venturing and innovation at PepsiCo Labs where she leads PEP Labs to drive innovation through partnerships with leading cutting-edge startups, focusing on solving critical business needs for PepsiCo Shannon Ryan is the executive vice president of North America for Valtech, where he helps leadership teams map, understand and execute digital strategy, mostly in the world of retail, CPG, and B2B. If you enjoyed this episode, please let us know by subscribing to our channel and giving us a 5 star rating us on Apple Podcasts. - - - - - - Hosted by Julia Raymond Hare Written and produced by Gabriella Bock Edited by Trenton Waller

This has to be one of my favourite episodes to date! Today on the podcast I spoke with Allie Schmidt, Katie Shkut, Amy Noonan, Shannon Ryan and Diana Dionisio about what their experience has been like thus far coming up in the industry as professionals in different disciplines. We covered a myriad of discussion points including training and developing horses, confidence, competition, the student-teacher relationship plus some "taboo" topics. These ladies gave such amazing advice and wisdom when reflecting on their journeys in the horse world and I can't wait for you guys to hear it! We had such a great time recording this episode and covered just a small amount of questions that I would love to do another. If you have any further inquiries for these trainers please submit them for a new podcast episode to springenequestrian@gmail.com. Allie Schmidt - Allie Schmidt Dressage Katie Shkut - Graestone Equestrian Amy Noonan - Amy Noonan Equestrian Shannon Ryan - Simmons Sporthorses Diana Dionisio - Anne Auty Equestrian Equine Omega Complete: use the discount code "podcast21" for 15% off of your order of EOC at www.southernequinedistributing.com MadBarn: use the discount code "SPRINGENEQ" for 5% off of your order of MadBarn Equine Supplements at www.madbarn.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/springeneq/message

The consumer mindset has changed, yet we intuitively know that consumers have a desire to get back to something that feels normal. That's why in this series of episodes, we're looking at The Future Buying Journey. In this episode we talk to Shannon Ryan, EVP Valtech North America, about how the pandemic has changed B2C customer behaviour and the trends that are going to stick around for the long term. We look at the influence of influencers, how to create a real connection and making the store about more than just fulfilling a transaction.

This week, we will have mother/daughter duo Taylor and Shannon Ryan on the show to talk about Taylor's experience with the YEA! program and the development of her product/company, Unstoppable Protective Gear. She was a YEA! Class of 2020 graduate AND went on to place in the TOP FIVE in the Country when competing at the National Saunder's Competition last Fall. She is amazing, and her mom is in Rotary with me and absolutely delightful! https://www.unstoppable-gear.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7ox0GRgxT0 =+=+=+=+=+=+ To Find Out More about our host Joe Terry visit https://www.ForeverMemoirs.com For a comprehensive selection of things to do and places to go in the South Bay of Los  Angeles visit http://www.SouthbayByJackie.com What's Happening in the South Bay, South Bay, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, The South Bay Show, Los Angeles, California, Current Events Calendar, Torrance, El Segundo, Palos Verdes

In the third hour, Mike Mulligan and David Haugh discussed the potential moves the Bulls could make ahead of the NBA trade deadline on Thursday afternoon. Later, Shannon Ryan of the Chicago Tribune joined the show to preview the Loyola-Oregon State matchup in the Sweet 16 on Saturday. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Bears have a lot of holes in the current roster. Shannon Ryan joins the guys to talk March Madness. We create a bot to monitor Kap & JHood.

Shannon, Ryan and Jana

Hartzell and Norlander recap the weekend!-Shannon Ryan from the Chicago Tribune joins the show to talk Illini, Loyola Chicago and Big Ten hoops!-Hartzell once again makes us college basketball's premier Georgia Tech podcast-The crew gets into the best albums of the 00's in Now Spinning (Surber Nerd Alert)

In the third hour, Mike Mulligan and David Haugh were joined by Score baseball insider Bruce Levine to discuss the latest Cubs and White Sox storylines as position players get set to report to spring training Monday. Later, Shannon Ryan of the Tribune joined the show to discuss No. 5 Illinois' rout of Minnesota on Saturday and how the Illini are playing their best basketball at the right time. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Columbus Dispatch sports reporter Bill Rabinowitz speaks with special guest Shannon Ryan from the Chicago Tribune to preview the upcoming Big Ten championship between the Ohio State Buckeyes and the Northwestern Wildcats. Finally, we discuss Northwestern’s coach Pat Fitzgerald. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to RETHINK Luxury, a new four-part, forward-looking series on the luxury industry at-large. On today's episode, we take a deeper look at connected experiences and the digital tools that are transforming the luxury retail industry into a place where shoppers can touch, sense, smell and dream bigger and bolder than ever before.  This episode features guests Ludovic Baussan, Sandrine Crener, Marie Driscoll, Shannon Ryan, Ron Thurston, and Line Tousignant.

One woman's quest to become a beacon of positivity on Facebook has connected her with so many people in her town while growing a community that actually helps people.  Hear from Shannon Ryan, a stay at home mom who started a positivity based Facebook page and found so much more than she bargained for.  

In the third episode of the #OneValley podcast, Kelly Burke is joined by Indiana State assistant men's basketball coach Kareem Richardson, Shannon Ryan of the Chicago Tribune & former University of Northern Iowa football player Jamison Whiting.

In the final hour, Dan Bernstein was joined by Shannon Ryan of the Chicago Tribune to discuss the challenges that universities face with controlling the spread of COVID-19 across campus. Later, Rich Lerner of the Golf Channel joined the show to preview the BMW Championship on the PGA Tour this week. See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information.

Lakeena and Sid are back and speaking with NBC Sports Chicago Blackhawks pre-and-post hame host Pat Boyle to preview Game 3 of the Hawks series with Las Vegas -- do the Hawks still have a chance to make an upset? Plus, Chicago Tribune college football and college hoops reporter Shannon Ryan talks about the Big Ten and Pac 12 postponing their seasons, how and if college sports can survive this pandemic, Illinois and DePaul hoops and more! Now you can listen to new episodes of 2CS each Saturday and Tuesday on WARR on Anchor. Subscribe to WARR on Anchor and follow WARR for all the latest on our movement and stay tuned for upcoming episodes and specials from your guys. Weareregalradio.com provides the best independent coverage of sports and culture -- feel free to share our content and rate us well here or wherever else you find our podcasts. Thanks for listening. twitter.com/regalradio1 facebook.com/regalradio1 instagram.com/weareregalradio --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/regal-radio/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/regal-radio/support

No time for news? We've got you covered. Welcome to the Retail Rundown, your go-to weekly podcast where RETHINK Retail teams up with industry experts to deliver the top trending news stories in retail. July 13, 2020: Walmart's unexpected initiatives, digital shoppers flock to new retailers, Pier 1's interested buyer. Hosted by Julia Raymond Written and produced by Gabriella Bock Edited by Trenton Waller

The Lionel SHIPman $HAPE YOUR FINANCES Show is a financial and life empowerment show focusing on our lives around money and finances. The show aims to educate and motivate people to improve their financial outlooks and empower them to take charge of their lives and to live life to the fullest.  Tonight: Special Guest Shannon Ryan (Founder of The Heavy Purse LLC) Shannon Ryan, a Certified Financial Planner (CFP®), is a veteran of the financial services industry and a highly in-demand public speaker for Corporate events and as a financial expert for Print, Web, TV and Radio. Known for her engaging style, Shannon delivers immense value to your readers, viewers or listeners by making finance personable, understandable and entertaining. Shannon credits her father for igniting her passion for financial literacy. He began his “money lessons” when she was 13 years old, which changed her life forever. Now she is a Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) and has helped thousands. However, she considers her greatest achievement to be her two financially confident daughters, Lauren and Taylor, who are the inspiration behind her children's books, The Heavy Purse and The Lemonade Stand. She resides in Manhattan Beach, CA with her husband, Chris, and their daughters. What Differentiates Shannon? Shannon has become a go-to financial expert because she is real and relatable to your audiences. She is a working Mom with two young daughters and has spent her entire professional career helping real people make sense of their money. She's been in the trenches with people as life happens to them, giving her invaluable hands-on experience and insight.

Mike Carpenter talks to Shannon Ryan (Chicago Tribune) about Illini linebacker Milo Eifler's comments on player safety, COVID-19's effects on college sports, students speaking out, and the importance of journalism.  

No time for news? We've got you covered. Welcome to the Retail Rundown, your go-to weekly podcast where RETHINK Retail teams up with industry experts to deliver the top trending news stories in retail. June 8, 2020: Retailers respond to nationwide protests, thredUP's partnership with Walmart, and the future of digital innovation. Hosted by Julia Raymond Written and produced by Gabriella Bock Edited by Trenton Waller

No time for news? We've got you covered. Welcome to the Retail Rundown, your go-to weekly podcast where RETHINK Retail teams up with industry experts to deliver the top trending news stories in retail. June 1, 2020: We hear from top industry thought leaders about the power of innovation during tough times - Valtech’s Shannon Ryan, Infovista’s Ricardo Belmar, Bob Phibbs, the Retail Doc, Forrester’s Nigel Fenwick, and Perch Interactive’s Trevor Sumner. Hosted by Julia Raymond Written and produced by Gabriella Bock Edited by Trenton Waller

Ever wonder how the sports movies we grew up watching resonate with the kids of today?  Shannon Ryan of the Chicago Tribune gives us an idea after watching some of them with her son, Aiden. http://www.mediafire.com/file/cv91q6zfxdt75ul/Shannon_Ryan.mp3/file

In the second hour, Laurence Holmes was joined by Shannon Ryan of the Tribune to discuss her quarantine project of introducing her son to sports movies -- and then ranking them. Later, sports historian Jack M. Silverstein joined the show to discuss Michael Jordan's gambling habits. Silverstein interviewed Richard Esquinas, a former golfing partner of Jordan's who claimed to have won more than $1 million in wagers with Jordan but never received full payment.

An ASU sophomore who is looking to pursue the event planning world head on. We have worked multiple events together, and I cannottttttt say enough about this amazing girl

my favorite astronaut.

Laurence Holmes opened his show by asking listeners to share with the younger generation which sports stories, games and players of years past they wished everyone had a full appreciation of understanding of. Later, Shannon Ryan of the Tribune joined the show to discuss how Illinois and Northwestern football players are trying to stay in shape amid the coronavirus pandemic.

No time for news? We've got you covered. Welcome to the Retail Rundown, your go-to weekly podcast where RETHINK Retail teams up with industry experts to deliver the top trending news stories in retail. October 28, 2019: Five Below's got games, Barneys' uncertain fate, Prescription drone delivery. Hosted by Julia Raymond Researched, written and produced by Gabriella Bock Edited by Trenton Waller

Shannon Ryan is on the show ahead of Celebrity Treasure Island tonight, This Is Why I'm Fat and when did your pet embarrass you?

The Real Pod assembles to dissect the week in reality television and real life, with special thanks to Nando's.With Duncan enjoying a MAFS-style beach holiday in Bali, Alex and Jane are left to cover another crazy week in reality television. Shannon Ryan has gone full beast-mode in Celebrity Treasure Island, Married At First Sight NZ revealed that two of the contestants have already slept together and TVNZ is about to dish up a brand new cooking competition that nobody asked for.There's also a boatload of Real News, including the truth about the Loch Ness monster, some extremely rude embroidery and an exciting eye witness account of the Briscoes Lady. It's The Real Pod, for real this time. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Each fortnight, Trip Notes hosts Stephanie Holmes and Tim Roxborogh are joined by a special guest to talk all about travel. On this episode, brought to you by House of Travel, we chat with Bree Tomasel.If you're one of her ZM Drive listeners or 100,000-plus Instagram followers (hi, Channing Tatum, we're talking to you), you'll already know Bree and her unmistakable Aussie accent. But in the last couple of months, Bree has been wrangling celebrities like Shane Cameron, Eric Murray, Jodie Rimmer and Shannon Ryan in Fiji, as host of Celebrity Treasure Island.Bree tells us what the filming experience was like, and shares some inside goss about the celebs on the show.We also chat about her favourite destinations, including Bali, Vietnam and the Philippines, where Bree travelled solo for the first time. For more travel inspiration go to https://www.nzherald.co.nz/tripnotes and, when you're ready for your own adventure, go to https://www.houseoftravel.co.nz. You can reach Stephanie Holmes at https://www.instagram.com/holmesstephanie or https://www.twitter.com/holmesstephanie, and Tim Roxborogh at https://www.instagram.com/timroxborogh or https://www.facebook.com/timroxborogh

The Real Pod assembles to dissect the week in reality television and real life, with special thanks to Nando's.Dress us up in shit-covered clothing and send us to Disneyland with Richie McCaw, The Real Pod is back for another stonker week of real life in this foolish corner of the globe. In real news, influencers have paired up with Dettol to punk us all, celebrities are listening to our podcast and MAFSNZ is facing the edit job of a lifetime.There's also reality check, where we recap a truly terrible week on The Block NZ and a really wonderful time on Celebrity Treasure Island. The Whizz is the captain now, Shannon Ryan is an absolute vision and Matty McLean has lost his goddamn mind. But at least he listens to The Real Pod! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 1914, 132 sealers found themselves stranded on a North Atlantic icefield as a bitter blizzard approached. Thinly dressed and with little food, they faced a harrowing night on the ice. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll tell the story of the Newfoundland sealing disaster, one of the most dramatic chapters in Canadian maritime history. We'll also meet another battlefield dog and puzzle over a rejected necklace. Intro: England has seen some curious cricket matches. In 1940 two Australian planes collided in midair and landed as one. Above: Crewmembers carry bodies aboard the Bellaventure. Sources for our feature on the 1914 sealing disaster: Cassie Brown, Death on the Ice: The Great Newfoundland Sealing Disaster of 1914, 2015. Melvin Baker, "The Struggle for Influence and Power: William Coaker, Abram Kean, and the Newfoundland Sealing Industry, 1908–1915," Newfoundland and Labrador Studies 28:1 (2013). Willeen Keough, "(Re-) Telling Newfoundland Sealing Masculinity: Narrative and Counter-Narrative," Journal of the Canadian Historical Association/Revue de la Société historique du Canada 21:1 (2010), 131-150. R.M. Kennedy, "National Dreams and Inconsolable Losses: The Burden of Melancholia in Newfoundland Culture," in Despite This Loss: Essays on Culture, Memory, and Identity in Newfoundland and Labrador, 2010, 103-116. Kjell-G. Kjær, "Where Have All the Barque Rigged Sealers Gone?", Polar Record 44:3 (July 2008), 265-275. Helen Peters, "Shannon Ryan, The Ice Hunters: A History of Newfoundland Sealing to 1914, Newfoundland History Series 8 [review]," Newfoundland and Labrador Studies 12:1 (1996). Raymond Blake, "Sean Cadigan, Death on Two Fronts: National Tragedies and the Fate of Democracy in Newfoundland, 1914–34 [review]," Newfoundland and Labrador Studies 30:1 (2015). Michael Harrington and Barbara Moon, "Tragedy on Ice: One of the Most Dramatic Disasters in Canadian History Occurred on the Newfoundland Ice Floes in 1914," Maclean's 113:48 (Nov. 27, 2000), 76. "Disaster on the Ice," [Winnipeg] Beaver 89:3 (June/July 2009), 22-23. Guy Ray, "Seal Wars," Canadian Geographic 120:2 (January/February 2000), 36-48. Jenny Higgins, "1914 Sealing Disaster," The [Newfoundland and Labrador] Independent, April 1, 2011. Sue Bailey, "Newfoundland Marks 1914 Sealing Disaster With Father and Son's Frozen Embrace," Guelph Mercury, March 30, 2014. "Frozen Embrace to Mark 1914 Tragedy at Sea," Prince George [B.C.] Citizen, March 31, 2014, A.13. "The 1914 Sealing Disaster: 100 Years Later," CBC News, March 30, 2014. Francine Kopun, "Gale of 1914 Proved Deadly," Toronto Star, April 24, 2007, A8. Tim B. Rogers, "The Sinking of the Southern Cross," [Winnipeg] Beaver 89:3 (June/July 2009), 16-22. Alison Auld and Michael MacDonald, "Questions Raised About Coast Guard's Actions in Fatal Sealing Accident," Canadian Press, March 29, 2008. Joanna Dawson, "Newfoundland's 1914 Sealing Disaster," Canada's History, March 31, 2014. Sean T. Cadigan, "Tuff, George," Dictionary of Canadian Biography (accessed June 16, 2019). "The 1914 Sealing Disaster," Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage (accessed June 16, 2019). Wes Kean and the S.S. Newfoundland. Listener mail: Wikipedia, "Rin Tin Tin" (accessed June 19, 2019). Michael Schaub, "'Rin Tin Tin': The Dog Who Never Died," National Public Radio, Sept. 29, 2011. Linda Holmes, "Rin Tin Tin: From Battlefield to Hollywood, a Story of Friendship," Weekend Edition Saturday, National Public Radio, Sept. 24, 2011. John Banville, "Rin Tin Tin: The Life and the Legend by Susan Orlean – review," Guardian, Feb. 2, 2012. Wikipedia, "The Lighthouse by the Sea" (accessed June 21, 2019). Wikipedia, "Political Colour" (accessed June 17, 2019). "Why Is the Conservative Party Blue?" BBC News, April 20, 2006. Wikipedia, "Red States and Blue States" (accessed June 22, 2019). Stephen Battaglio, "When Red Meant Democratic and Blue Was Republican," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 3, 2016. Ruaridh Arrow, "Gene Sharp: Author of the Nonviolent Revolution Rulebook," BBC News, Feb. 21, 2011. "Commentary: Braille Restaurant Menus Are Still Hard to Find," Chicago Lighthouse (accessed June 22, 2019). Sophie Meixner and Tara Cassidy, "Braille on the Menu to Accommodate Blind and Vision Impaired Patrons," ABC News, June 1, 2018. Josh Haskell and Armando Barragan, "Blind Monrovia Student Creates Braille Menus for Local Restaurants," KABC-TV Los Angeles, May 11, 2019. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listeners Jeff and Emmett Moxon. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

Small-Town Girl makes good in the big city! This was such a great conversation. Shannon and I talked about her humble beginnings in Ohio, how Philly toughened her up, and why she laughs when fans in Champaign think she's citified. Plus, we both share fears about where journalism is going and Shannon opens up about being a white mom, raising a black son. 

In our continuing celebration of Financial Literacy Month, tonight's program discusses How To Maintain Or Take Control Of Your Finances.  During this program we will discuss the importance of a realistic budget, understanding credit and credit scores, the correct approach to spending, and avoiding and getting out of debt.  Our special guest is Certified Financial Planner, author and speaker, Ms. Shannon Ryan. Shannon has two decades of experience helping individuals, families, and businesses become financially confident.  She has spent her entire professional career helping real people make sense of their money.  She has been in the trenches with people as life happens to them, giving her invaluable hands-on experience and insight.  As a result, she's learned that how you think about money is the key to financial success.  Join us for this very insightful program about the way we think about money, and the way we should think about it, and how we may do a better job of maintaining control or taking control of our personal finances.

The author of The Heavy Purse, a book for kids, a blog, and the host of a new podcast called Financially Sound, Shannon spends her days as a Certified Financial Planner helping individuals reach their own version of financial freedom.

In this episode, Shannon speaks with financial planner and blogger, Shannon Ryan about the basics of life insurance, who needs it, how much do you need, what type and how much will it cost.

Shannon discusses common investing questions with Shannon Ryan, CFP and financial advisor.

Our Children’s financial future largely depends on the habits we teach them. Shannon Ryan from The Heavy Purse LLC is a financial planner and has created a masterful system for teaching our children how to be financially responsible. You’ll enjoy this show very much.