“Not
all
crazy
ideas
are
great,
but
all
great
ideas
are
crazy.”
–
Mike
Posner
Since
it’s
clear
that
lots
of
lawyers
still
don’t
either
understand
or
heed
the
risks
of
GenAI,
perhaps
it’s
time
for
a
crazy
idea:
mandatory
CLE
on
just
this
subject.
Ask
a
room
full
of
lawyers
when
giving
a
GenAI
presentation
who
is
using
GenAI
and
you
still
get
blank
looks
and
few
hands.
Yet
the
GenAI
train
has
clearly
left
the
station.
And
every
day
we
hear
of
lawyers
being
sanctioned
for
citing
cases
that
don’t
exist
or
which
are
inaccurate
even
recently
in
the
appeal
of
disciplinary
order.
So
those
that
are
using
it
are
either
ignorant
of
what
GenAI
is
or
just
choose
to
ignore
the
risks.
Clearly
what
we
have
here
is
failure
to
communicate,
to
borrow
a
line
from
an
old
movie.
A
Solution
Situations
like
this
always
inspire
asking
a
“what
if”
question:
what
if
state
bar
associations
and
courts
promulgated
a
mandatory
GenAI
CLE
requirement
for
all
lawyers?
I
know
what
you’re
saying.
You’re
rolling
your
eyes
and
saying
just
what
we
need,
another
boring
CLE
requirement.
Another
room
full
of
lawyers
or
a
bunch
of
squares
on
a
computer
screen
with
bored
lawyers
checking
their
emails
and
waiting
for
it
to
be
over.
But
before
you
conclude
this
is
the
dumbest
idea
you’ve
ever
heard,
let’s
look
at
some
facts.
Technological
Competence
Is
Critical
to
Lawyer
Competency
A
recent
Reuters’
Practical
Lawyer
article
talked
about
the
state
of
technological
ethical
compliance.
The
article,
written
by
two
Redgrave
partners,
Erica
Zolner
and
Benjamin
Redgrave,
is
a
good
summary
of
the
present
requirements,
relevant
ethical
rules,
and
opinions
relating
to
a
lawyer’s
obligation.
The
article
notes
that
over
39
states
have
adopted
Comment
8
to
the
ABA
Competency
Rule
which
states
lawyers
should
stay
abreast
of
the
benefits
and
risks
of
relevant
technology.
And
it
also
highlights
that
several
states
and
the
ABA
have
weighed
in
particularly
on
a
lawyer’s
ethical
duties
when
it
comes
to
the
use
of
GenAI.
The
authors
also
note
that
three
states
—
New
York,
Florida,
and
North
Carolina
—
have
a
mandatory
one-hour
tech
training
requirements.
Lawyers
like
precedent:
there
now
is
some
for
more
specific
tech-related
training.
According
to
Zolner
and
Redgrave:
[M]any
attorneys
have
struggled
with
this
long-established
ethical
principle
in
the
face
of
rapid
technological
change
impacting
litigation
practice.
Some
attorneys
are
ignorant
of
evolving
technologies
or
fear
them
as
unduly
complex,
while
others
rely
too
much
on
technologies
and
fail
to
understand
their
limitations…
Technological
issues
are
no
longer
relegated
to
substantial
cases
or
large
corporate
matters.
Instead,
they
pervade
all
litigation,
regardless
of
size
or
complexity,
particularly
in
a
post-COVID-19
world.
Okay,
but
you
say,
GenAI
is
just
another
technology
lawyers
need
to
keep
abreast.
No
need
to
make
everyone
sit
through
a
seminar
or
webinar
just
on
it.
Right?
Wrong.
GenAI
is
too
ubiquitous
and
potentially
too
disruptive
to
be
lumped
in
with
tech
in
general.
That’s
the
reality.
The
GenAI
Reality
Want
some
more
facts?
Here’s
a
few:
-
Every
day,
lawyers
are
being
fined
and
embarrassed
for
citing
fictitious
cases
or
citing
cases
inaccurately
because
they
rely
on
GenAI.-
Nevertheless,
the
use
of
GenAI
tools,
particularly
publicly
facing
ones,
are
ubiquitously
used
by
lawyers
and
laypeople.
We
have
to
assume
that
will
only
increase.
-
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
may
be
using
GenAI
tools
in
ways
that
jeopardize
client
confidentiality
and
in
ways
that
could
waive
privileges.
-
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
being
inundated
by
vendor
claims
and
other
information,
much
of
which
is
hyperbole.
-
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
under
increasing
pressure
from
clients
to
use
GenAI
tools.
-
Clients
themselves
are
using
these
tools
in
good
ways
but
often
in
bad
ways,
making
inappropriate
decisions
and
creating
a
discovery
trails.
-
GenAI
may
change
the
way
lawyers
bill,
work,
and
their
culture
in
ways
that
can’t
be
predicted
but
for
which
preparation
is
needed.
-
There
are
indeed
ways
to
use
GenAI
tools
for
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
and
clients
benefit
if
used
correctly.
-
Nevertheless,
All
of
which
suggests
and
even
compels
the
need
for
increased
training
and
education
on
GenAI.
The
Practical
Benefits
There
are
a
bunch
of
advantages
to
making
GenAI
training
mandatory.
A
mandatory
CLE
course
could
cover
such
things
as
how
LLMs
and
GenAI
works,
what
it
is
and
can
do,
and
what
it
can’t.
It
would
help
lawyers
understand
and
avoid
the
resulting
risks
of
hallucination
and
inaccuracies.
It
could
make
them
understand
why
verification
is
critical
and
reduce
the
number
of
incidents
that
are
eroding
trust
in
the
process.
It
would
help
avoid
waiver
issues
and
the
inadvertent
breach
of
privacy.
It
would
help
lawyers
advise
clients
as
to
the
risks
and
benefits
of
these
tools
and
what
not
to
do.
It
would
help
legal
professionals
sort
through
the
tools
and
vendor
claims
and
decide
what
tools
best
fit
their
needs.
It
would
assist
in
incorporating
GenAI
tools
into
the
practice
and
achieving
the
benefits
of
the
tools
for
lawyers
and
their
clients.
It
would
aid
them
in
planning
for
the
potential
disruption
these
tools
can
bring.
It
would
show
them
how
to
better
supervise
those
who
will
undoubtedly
be
using
these
tools
in
their
firms
and
develop
appropriate
use
guidelines.
Such
a
course
would
set
a
baseline
level
of
competence
that
all
lawyers
in
today’s
world
simply
have
to
have.
It
would
send
a
message
to
everyone
on
how
important
and
pervasive
these
tools
are.
A
basic
course
would
cover
at
a
minimum
what
LLMs
are,
why
they
pose
risks
(and
how
to
avoid
them),
and
how
to
supervise
others
who
will
use
them.
It
would
also
demonstrate
the
benefits.
And
it
could
be
standardized
and
delivered
at
scale.
It’s
not
complicated.
An
Idea
Whose
Time
Has
Come
GenAI
tools
are
too
important
and
impactful
on
the
profession
to
leave
it
to
individual
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
decide
whether
to
learn
about
the
tools.
From
courts
to
clients
to
those
whom
lawyers
owe
various
duties,
all
will
be
impacted.
Yes,
there
are
objections
and
concerns.
Bar
associations
may
struggle
to
develop
quality
curriculum,
and
vendors
will
immediately
lobby
to
get
their
products
“CLE-approved.”
Lawyers
could
simply
tune
out
and
not
listen;
after
all,
most
lawyers
resent
CLE
requirements
already.
A
poorly
designed
course
could
do
more
harm
than
good,
leaving
attendees
with
false
confidence.
One
hour
may
not
be
enough.
It
could
become
outdated
and
irrelevant.
It’s
too
costly
to
implement.
But
none
of
these
are
reasons
to
avoid
trying.
Sure,
lawyers
may
not
listen.
But
some
will.
And
multitasking
is
an
issue
with
any
CLE
but
that’s
not
considered
a
reason
to
throw
the
baby
out
with
the
bath
water.
If
nothing
else,
such
a
requirement
would
send
a
strong
message
to
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
that
GenAI
is
here
to
stay,
that
it’s
impacting
the
practice,
and
that
it’s
important
to
be
knowledgeable
about
it
to
represent
clients,
both
now
and
tomorrow.
Yes,
the
course
would
have
to
be
developed
carefully.
But
bar
associations
and
courts
have
tools
in
place
to
evaluate
all
CLE
to
see
if
they
qualify
for
credit.
The
same
criteria
with
a
bit
of
increased
vigilance
would
enable
the
proper
policing.
Change
is
occurring
quickly.
But
that’s
often
the
case
for
CLE
subjects
and
we
still
manage.
And
there
would
be
some
cost.
But
that
cost
pales
in
comparison
to
the
sanctions
and
potential
malpractice
claims
that
would
otherwise
occur.
The
bottom
line
is
that
GenAI
threatens
the
profession
and
those
it
represents
with
a
change
that
could
be
of
a
magnitude
the
likes
of
which
we
have
never
seen.
Its
use
is
increasing.
The
risks
are
real,
as
are
the
benefits.
We
can’t
afford
to
not
require
practitioners
to
be
prepared
and
ready.
We
don’t
need
any
more
headlines
about
sanctioned
lawyers.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.