Aderant Signs Deal to Acquire Legal Tech Assets of HerculesAI, Including Its AI Platform for Billing Compliance

In

an
in-depth
piece


I
wrote
about


HerculesAI

last
February,
I
noted
that
the
past
year
had
been
a
big
one
for
the
company.
Well,
it
just
got
even
bigger,
as

Aderant
,
a
leading
global
provider
of
business
management
software
for
law
firms,
announced
it
has
signed
a
definitive
agreement
to
acquire
HerculesAI’s
legal
technology
assets.

Previously
known
as
ZERO,
HerculesAI
rebranded
to
its
new
name
last
year,
as
it also
raised
$26
million
in
Series
B
funding
and
launched
a
new
AI-powered
pre-bill
review
platform, 
Verify,
that
it
said
could
detect
up
to
50%
of
billing
compliance
issues
before
they
result
in
client
deductions. 

Under
the
deal,
Aderant
is
acquiring
all
of
the
legal
technology
assets
of
HerculesAI,
including
the
people
that
develop
and
support
them.
The
products
included
are
Apollo,
Athena,
and
Verify,
which
are
the
HerculesAI
products
that
support
the
legal
vertical.

The
company
HerculesAI
will
continue
to
exist
and
operate
its
other
product
lines
that
address
the
needs
of
customers
in
the
insurance
and
finance
industries.
This
is
not
a
full
acquisition
but
a
carve-out
of
their
legal
business.


Alex
Babin
,
the
founder
and
CEO
of
HerculesAI,
and
other
members
of
the
executive
team,
will
remain
with
that
company.

Aderant
says
this
acquisition
is
a
significant
leap
forward
in
its
mission
to
deliver
a
fully
automated,
insight-rich,
and
agile
work-to-cash
solution
for
the
legal
industry.

By
embedding
HerculesAI’s
advanced
machine
learning
and
decision
intelligence
into
its
solutions,
Aderant
says,
it
is
“unlocking
unprecedented
levels
of
automation,
insight,
and
agility
for
law
firms
around
the
globe.”

“By
integrating
HerculesAI’s
advanced
compliance
engine
with
our
industry-leading
work-to-cash
platform,
we’re
not
just
automating
workflows

we’re
enabling
intelligent
automation
that
drives
measurable
profitability,”
Chris
Cartrett,
Aderant’s
president
and
CEO,
said
in
a
statement
announcing
the
deal.
“Law
firms
will
gain
unprecedented
precision,
speed,
and
confidence
in
their
operations.”



Related:

A
Special
Interview
with
Aderant
CEO
Chris
Cartrett
Recorded
Live
at
Its
Momentum
Global
Conference
.

Insofar
as
the
deal
includes
bringing
the
entire
HerculesAI
legal
technology
team
to
Aderant,
Cartrett
said:
“This
acquisition
will
only
enhance
the
AI
engineering
and
data
science
talent
within
Aderant.
That’s
not
just
a
win—it’s
a
strategic
leap
forward.”

Babin,
HerculesAI’s
CEO,
said:
“Aderant
is
a
leading
force
in
legal
technology,
and
each
of
HerculesAI’s
legal
products
fits
naturally
into
their
portfolio.
This
move
strengthens
Aderant’s
end-to-end
work-to-cash
offering
and
further
transforms
compliance
from
a
bottleneck
into
a
business
accelerator.
Just
as
important
as
product
synergy
is
the
cultural
alignment
between
our
teams

a
shared
commitment
to
solving
real
problems
for
customers.
That
alignment
goes
beyond
technology
and
sets
the
foundation
for
long-term
impact.”

HerculesAI
launched
in
2017
under
its
former
name,
ZERO,
and
developed
a
mobile
app
that
automatically
captured
lawyers’
billable
time
spent
working
on
email
on
their
mobile
phones.
(In
2020,
I
wrote
about a
“lite”
version
of
this
app
 ZERO
released
for
smaller
firms.)

In
2021,
it launched
a
desktop
product
,
Apollo,
that
automatically
captured
time
spent
on
billable
work
on
a
desktop
device
and
integrated
those
time
entries
into
the
lawyer’s
billing
platform.
It
continues
to
offer
both
AI-powered
time
capture
and
AI-powered
email
classification
and
filing.

Last
year,
it
launched
its
AI-powered
pre-bill
review
platform, Verify,
saying
it
was
so
confident
in
the
product
that
it
offered
its
customers
a
Herculean
promise,
putting
guarantees
in
their
contracts
that
if
they
did
not
reach
a
specified
level
of
return
on
investment,
then
they
owed
nothing.

If
you
will
be
attending
ILTACON
this
week,
you
can
find
Aderant
there
at
booth
#501
and
HerculesAI
at
booth
#1209.


A
Special
Interview
with
Aderant
CEO
Chris
Cartrett
Recorded
Live
at
Its
Momentum
Global
Conference

Legal Chaos Calls For Excellent Client Service: New Ranking Names 55 Client Service Trailblazers – Above the Law

In
an
era
where
the
legal
landscape
seems
to
shift
by
the
hour

buffeted
by
economic
uncertainty,
regulatory
upheaval,
and
the
relentless
march
of
technology

client
service
has
become
more
than
a
matter
of
courtesy;
it’s
a
lifeline.
The
firms
that
rise
about
the
chaos
aren’t
just
delivering
sound
legal
advice

they’re
anticipating
needs,
calming
crises,
and
forging
trust
in
times
when
predictability
is
in
short
supply.
But
which
firms
are
the
best
of
the
best
when
it
comes
to
this
arena?

BTI
Consulting
Group
recently
set
out
to
find
which
firms
handled
the
task
with
ease
in
its
latest
ranking,
the
Client
Service
Trailblazers.
These
firms
are
the
ones
“turning
chaos
into
harmony.”
This
ranking
celebrates
those
firms
that
have
mastered
the
art
of
client
service
in
the
most
turbulent
of
times,
proving
that
even
in
the
midst
of
legal
disorder,
excellence
and
care
can
still
prevail.

Clients
have
singled
out
55
law
firms
that
are
proving
themselves
to
be
the
best
at
the
following
things,
time
and
time
again:


Act
with
lightning
speed

Include
clients
early
in
strategy

Field
the
absolute
best
team

Make
it
easy
to
work
with
their
firms
on
every
front

Deliver
ultra-practical,
actionable
recommendations

Here
are
the
55
firms
that
BTI
recently
named
as

Client
Service
Trailblazers
:

Akin
ArentFox
Schiff
Arnold
&
Porter
Baird
Holm
Baker
Botts
Baker
Donelson
Baker
McKenzie
BakerHostetler
Carlton
Fields
Cooley
Covington
Dentons
Dinsmore
DLA
Piper
Dorsey
Duane
Morris
Faegre
Drinker
Fenwick
&
West
Fish
&
Richardson
Fox
Rothschild
Frost
Brown
Todd
Gibbons
Gibson
Dunn
Godfrey
&
Kahn
Greenberg
Traurig
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson
Hogan
Lovells
Husch
Blackwell
Jackson
Lewis
Jones
Day
Kirkland
&
Ellis
Latham
&
Watkins
Littler
Maynard
Nexsen
McGuireWoods
Michael
Best
Mintz
Mitchell
Williams
Morgan
Lewis
Morrison
&
Foerster
Ogletree
Deakins
Patterson
Belknap
Perkins
Coie
Polsinelli
Poyner
Spruill
Proskauer
Reed
Smith
Ropes
&
Gray
Shook,
Hardy
&
Bacon
Sidley
Skadden
Smith
Anderson
Steptoe
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
Troutman
Pepper
Locke

If
attorneys
at
your
firm
make
more
of
an
effort
to
better
understand
your
clients’
businesses,
then
your
firm
may
be
recognized
as
a
trailblazer
the
next
time
this
ranking
comes
out.
Congratulations
to
all
55
firms
that
made
it
to
the
highest
ranks
of
client
service.
You’ve
proven
yourselves
to
be
outstanding
when
it
comes
to
making
corporate
clients
happy,
and
that’s
worth
celebrating.


Client
Service
Demands
Go
Chaotic

Confounding
All
But
These
55
Law
Firms

[BTI
Consulting
Group]


Staci Zaretsky




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

email

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

AI & GenAI In The Courts: Practical Takeaways From Recent eDiscovery Orders – Above the Law

Courts
appear
to
be
embracing
AI
and
GenAI
technologies
for
eDiscovery
workflows,
but
with
clear
expectations
around
transparency
and
defensibility.

Join
us
on
September
4th
at
1
p.m. as
we
examine
recent
court
orders
and
ESI
protocols,
including
EEOC
v.
Tesla

among
the
first
to
greenlight
GenAI
for
attorney
responsiveness
review

and
other
recent
federal
cases
that
establish
practical
frameworks
for
AI
implementation.

 In
this
webinar
we’ll
cover:

  • How
    courts
    and
    parties
    approach
    AI/GenAI
    disclosure
    requirements
    and
    meet-and-confer
    obligations
  • Validation
    methodologies
    and
    recall
    targets
    that
    satisfy
    judicial
    scrutiny
  • Essential
    transparency
    practices
    to
    avoid
    “black
    box”
    challenges
  • Real-world
    protocols
    from
    recent
    ESI
    orders
  • Best
    practices
    for
    explaining
    AI
    technology
    to
    opposing
    counsel
    and
    courts

Whether
you’re
considering
AI
adoption
or
refining
existing
workflows,
this
session
provides
actionable
insights
from
actual
court
orders
to
ensure
your
AI-powered
eDiscovery
processes
meet
evolving
judicial
standards
for
defensibility
and
transparency.

CLE
credit
is
available.
Sign
up
to
join
our
webinar!

Filling The Box: The Rules For Jury Selection – Above the Law

The
key
to
jury
selection
is
deselecting
jurors
who
are
harmful
to
your
case
and
selecting
favorable
jurors.
Each
side
is
trying
to
strike
bad
jurors
and
keep
good
ones,
which
means
you’re
trying
to
strike
their
favorable
jurors
and
they’re
trying
to
strike
yours. 

           
Some
argue
that
this
ensures
unbiased
jurors
presiding
over
the
case.
I
don’t
believe
that.
Mr.
and
Mrs.
America,
it
is
2025
in
the
fine
U.S.
of
A,
and
not
one
of
us
is
unbiased.
None
of
us,
in
this
current
social
and
political
culture,
is
without
firmly
held
opinions,
views,
and
perspectives.
And
if
at
the
end
of
jury
selection,
you
don’t
know
much
about
one
juror
or
another,
or
believe,
mistakenly,
they
don’t
have
strong
views
on
something,
likely
an
issue
related
to
your
case,
then
your
jury
selection
was
incomplete.

           
Jury
selection
is
not
the
time
to
convince
the
panel
to
see
the
case
through
your
client’s
eyes.
The
goal
is
to
find
and
remove
those
who
will
not
and
to
build
a
panel
that
leans
toward
your
client
or
at
least
will
keep
an
open
mind
and
listen
to
your
evidence.

           
The
key
to
jury
selection
is
to
identify
biased
jurors,
expose
their
bias
on
the
record,
and
commit
them
to
their
bias
to
lay
the
foundation
for
a
cause
challenge.
These
jurors
will
never
see
the
case
through
your
client’s
eyes,
and
because
of
that,
they
must
go.
Peremptory
challenges
are
limited.
Cause
challenges
are
not

so
long
as
you
lay
the
predicate
to
support
them.

           
Jury
selection
starts
before
jury
selection
starts,
namely,
securing
the
juror
list
as
soon
as
possible
to
conduct
your
due
diligence. 
Know
what
your
jurisdiction
and
judge
allow
when
it
comes
to
snooping
around
a
juror’s
background,
and
work
within
those
confines. 
For
example,
search
all
public
records

criminal
history,
litigation
history,
home
ownership,
party
affiliation,
bankruptcies,
divorces,
traffic
infractions,
etc.
Search
social
media

everything
that
is
publicly
available

Facebook,
Instagram,
TikTok,
LinkedIn,
Reddit,
X
(formerly
Twitter),
YouTube

but
don’t
try
to
connect
or
friend
the
juror
(that’s
unethical). 
Do
a
web
browser
search

business
ownerships,
websites,
articles
about
them,
online
resumes

anything
and
everything
about
them.
Some
investigators
charge
a
fee
for
this
service,
or
you
can
train
your
team
to
do
this.

           
Define
your
worst
juror
profile

the
juror
most
likely
to
hurt
your
case.
These
are
the
jurors
you’re
homing
in
on
and
with
whom
you’re
having
conversations
to
draw
out
their
biases.

           
Know
what
questioning
the
judge
conducts,
how
much
time
you’re
allowed,
and
the
scope
of
your
permissible
questioning. 
And
whenever
possible,
have
the
prospective
jurors
complete
a
juror
questionnaire.
This
will
provide
you
with
more
information
about
them
and
facilitate
your
research
on
them.

When
questioning
prospective
jurors,
do
the
following:

  • Build
    a
    rapport.
  • Frame
    bias
    as
    human
    and
    common
    to
    all
    of
    us. 
    “We’ve
    all
    had
    experiences
    that
    shape
    our
    views.”
  • Ask
    open-ended
    questions.
  • Listen
    more
    than
    speak.
  • Restate
    and
    confirm
    bias.
  • Move
    quickly
    from
    general
    to
    specific.

Don’t
do
the
following:

  • Lecture.
  • Argue.
  • Embarrass.
  • Let
    them
    rehabilitate
    themselves.
  • Spend
    time
    with
    favorable
    jurors.
  • Do
    the
    other
    side’s
    work
    for
    them.

In
personal
injury
cases
(which
I
defend),
common
issues
I
probe:

  • Litigation
    philosophy

    how
    they
    favorably
    or
    unfavorably
    view
    personal
    injury
    suits.
  • Burden
    of
    proof

    whether
    they
    will
    follow
    the
    standard
    or
    raise
    or
    lower
    it
    (especially
    in
    cases
    where
    my
    client
    has
    admitted
    liability).
  • Damages

    how
    they
    value
    money
    for
    injuries,
    especially
    for
    pain
    and
    suffering.
  • Authority
    &
    Institutions

    their
    view
    of
    authority,
    corporations,
    corporate
    defendants,
    etc.
  • Personal
    Responsibility

    their
    view
    of
    whether
    they
    control
    their
    life
    or
    life
    happens
    to
    them.
  • Victimhood

    their
    view
    of
    whether
    they
    are
    victims
    and
    others
    are
    to
    blame
    for
    their
    lives,
    conditions,
    and
    situations.
  • Case-specific
    issues

    specific
    factual
    matters
    related
    to
    your
    case.
  • Who
    they
    are

    if
    they
    could
    have
    any
    job,
    what
    would
    it
    be?
    If
    they
    could
    be
    anywhere
    other
    than
    the
    courtroom,
    where
    would
    they
    be
    and
    what
    would
    they
    be
    doing?
  • Leaders
    or
    followers

    evaluate
    whether
    they
    lead
    or
    follow
    at
    their
    jobs,
    in
    their
    lives,
    and
    at
    home.
  • “Friend
    and
    Family”
    questions

    sometimes
    jurors
    hide
    their
    own
    biases
    but
    reveal
    them
    through
    people
    they
    know

    “What
    does
    your
    family
    think
    about
    a
    case
    like
    this?”

Exposing
bias
is
straightforward:

  • Funnel
    questions,
    starting
    with
    broad,
    to
    personal,
    to
    case-specific.
  • Probe
    their
    life
    experiences.
    Ask
    jurors
    to
    discuss
    circumstances
    that
    may
    affect
    their
    view
    of
    your
    case.
  • Normalize
    their
    bias
    by
    telling
    them
    that
    it’s
    normal
    for
    them
    to
    have
    strong
    feelings
    and
    it’s
    safe
    to
    share
    those
    views.
  • Listen
    for
    extreme
    words
    like
    “always,”
    “never,”
    and
    the
    like.

Commit
jurors
to
their
bias:

  • Reveal
    their
    bias.
  • Restate
    their
    bias.
  • Confirm
    their
    inability
    to
    set
    aside
    their
    bias.
  • Elicit
    key
    words
    like
    “always,”
    “never,”
    “would
    start
    at
    a
    disadvantage,”
    etc.
  • Don’t
    fix
    a
    bad
    juror

    make
    them
    worse.

Use
the
1-10
approach:

  • Ask
    the
    juror
    how
    strongly
    they
    hold
    their
    view
    on
    a
    1-10
    scale.
  • Your
    job
    is
    to
    get
    them
    to
    move
    up
    that
    scale.
  • If
    they
    say
    a
    “6,”
    ask
    them
    if
    it
    could
    be
    a
    “7,”
    and
    then
    an
    “8,”
    and
    so
    on. 
  • This
    is
    a
    tricky
    approach,
    because
    a
    juror
    may
    provide
    a
    low
    number
    and
    not
    move
    from
    that
    number.
    Keeping
    that
    in
    mind,
    you
    can
    say,
    “It
    sounds
    like
    on
    a
    scale
    of
    1-10,
    you
    feel
    strongly
    about
    that,
    let’s
    say
    a
    9
    or
    even
    10.”

Question
all
the
jurors:

  • Some
    jurors
    are
    shy
    and
    hate
    speaking
    publicly. 
    It’s
    up
    to
    you,
    politely
    and
    safely,
    to
    get
    them
    to
    open
    up.
  • Ask
    open-ended
    questions
    and
    don’t
    let
    them
    demur
    or
    avoid
    your
    questions.
    I
    would
    rather
    know
    what
    all
    jurors’
    opinions
    are
    and
    upset
    some
    along
    the
    way
    than
    make
    every
    juror
    comfortable
    and
    not
    know
    what
    a
    juror
    thinks.

Plant
your
trial
themes:

  • They
    say
    you’re
    not
    supposed
    to
    try
    your
    case
    during
    jury
    selection. 
    Some
    judges
    will
    let
    you,
    to
    a
    degree.
  • Introduce
    your
    theme
    and
    see
    which
    jurors
    reject
    it
    and
    which
    embrace
    it.

Jury
selection
is
primarily
about
deselecting
biased
jurors
by
laying
the
foundation
for
cause
challenges. 
I’m
not
worried
about
poisoning
the
jurors
if
someone
has
statements
that
show
bias
against
my
client
and
my
case.
I
want
to
expose
those
opinions,
I
want
them
discussed,
and
I
want
other
jurors
to
feel
comfortable
expressing
their
biases
and
committing
themselves
to
those
biases.
The
worse
stuff
that
comes
out,
the
better. 
The
more
free-wheeling
and
open
the
jurors
are
about
their
biases,
the
better.
The
last
thing
I
want
is
a
biased
juror
on
my
jury.
And
everyone
these
days
has
such
strong
opinions
that
no
one
is
going
to
change
their
mind
because
a
mouthy
juror
says
he
hates
my
client
or
my
case.

Dig
with
each
juror,
and
if
you
sense
bias,
explore
and
reveal
it,
and
if
a
juror
views
the
world
as
your
client
and
you
do,
don’t
reveal
their
biases
for
the
other
side
to
exploit
and
get
them
stricken
for
cause.
There
is
no
such
thing
as
an
unbiased
jury.
Your
job
is
to
have
their
bias
favor
your
client
and
your
case. 




Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn.

Politician Calls On New York Bar To Reform ‘Disorganized, Delayed’ Emergency Response – Above the Law

Above
the
Law
may
have
been

one
of
the
first

to
talk
about
the
New
York
bar
exam’s

atrocious
response

to
a
medical
emergency
of
a
test
taker
mid-exam

but
we’re
far
from
the
last.
Last
week,
New
York
lawmaker
Assembly
Judiciary
Chairman
Charles
Lavine

wrote

to
the
New
York
Board
of
Law
Examiners
about
his
“deep
concern”
about
the
way
proctors
dealt
with
a
test
taker’s
cardiac
episode
at
the
Hofstra
location
of
the
July
administration
of
the
bar
exam.

Specifically,
Lavine
called
out
that
“the
response
to
the
situation
appeared
disorganized,
delayed,
and
lacking
in
clear
protocol.
It
is
troubling
that
no
consistent
or
codified
procedures
were
in
place
to
ensure
an
immediate
coordinated
response.”

“While
we
all
recognize
the
logistical
challenges
inherent
in
administering
the
bar
exam
across
multiple
sites
and
jurisdictions,
this
incident
underscores
the
urgent
need
for
the
Board
to
establish
and
implement
a
uniform
emergency
response
policy
across
all
testing
locations.
Protocols
should
include
clearly
designated
responsibilities
for
proctors
and
staff,
immediate
access
to
medical
personnel
or
emergency
services
and
procedures
for
pausing
or
addressing
disruptions
in
a
way
that
protects
both
the
individual
in
crisis
and
the
integrity
of
the
examination
process.”

NYBOLE
acts
as
a
gatekeeper
for
the
profession,
ensuring
that
there
is
a
minimum
competency
for
all
New
York
lawyers.
But
that
role
in
ensuring
the
integrity
of
the
legal
profession
encompasses
more
than
acting
like
a
bouncer
at
a
nightclub
and
“includes
safeguarding
the
well-being
of
those
entering
it.
Our
future
attorneys,
many
of
whom
have
spent
years
preparing
for
this
moment,
deserve
to
sit
for
the
bar
exam
in
an
environment
that
prioritizes
their
health
and
safety.
No
candidate
should
fear
that
a
medical
emergency
will
be
met
with
hesitation
or
confusion.”

It’s
a
powerful
statement,
let’s
hope
the
bar
examiners
actually
do
something
in
response.

Read
the
full
letter
below.




Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her

with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1
 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Florida’s New Stem Cell Law: What It Signals for Physicians, Patients and the Future of Regenerative Medicine – MedCity News

Something
important
happened
in
Florida
on
July
1st
that
most
healthcare
professionals
probably
missed

the
state
quietly
passed
a
law
allowing
physicians
to
offer
patients
certain
stem
cell
treatments
that
have
not
yet
been
approved
by
the
FDA,
for
use
in
treating
specific
indications
and
subject
to
regulatory
compliance.

Across
the
country,
clinicians,
patients,
and
policymakers
are
watching
closely.
Many
see
this
as
a
long-overdue
step
toward
expanding
treatment
options
for
patients
that
are
not
satisfied
with
the
current
standard
of
care. 

As
the
demand
for
stem
cell
therapies
continues
to
grow
worldwide,
Florida’s
Senate
Bill

SB‑1768

is
expected
to
bring
about
many
differing
options
across
the
entire
ecosystem.
For
physicians,
it
introduces
an
opportunity
to
offer
patients
new
treatment
alternatives
while
also
putting
a
spotlight
on
the
complex
intersection
of
innovation,
oversight,
and
clinical
ethics,
especially
in
a
space
that
has
long
lacked
regulatory
clarity.


What
the
law
actually
allows

The
law
boils
down
to
this:
licensed
physicians
in
Florida
can
now
use
non-FDA-approved
stem
cell
therapies
within
the
scope
of
practice
for
such
physicians
and
for
therapies
that
are
related
to
orthopedics,
wound
care,
and
pain
management.
Compliance,
however,
is
tightly
regulated.

The
sourcing
requirements
alone
are
quite
stringent.
Physicians
must
make
sure
that
the
biologics
supplier
they
choose
uses
afterbirth
placental
perinatal
stem
cells,
or
human
cells,
tissues,
or
cellular
or
tissue-based
products,
all
obtained
in
an
ethical
manner,
and
that
do
not
involve
stem
cells
derived
from
aborted
fetuses.
In
addition,
the
stem
cells
must
be
retrieved,
manufactured,
and
stored
in
a
facility
that
is
registered
and
regulated
by
the
FDA,
and
accredited
by
the

 AABB
,

NMDP
,
or

AATB
.
They
must
follow
current
Good
Manufacturing
Practices
(cGMP)
and
retain
post-thaw
viability
reports
for
each
treatment
lot.
Plus,
any
marketing
materials
must
clearly
state
that
the
therapy
isn’t
FDA
approved.
It
cannot
be
buried
in
fine
print.
Choosing
the
right
supplier
is
essential
for
physicians
to
stay
compliant.

Patient
consent
represents
another
significant
requirement.
The
law
mandates
detailed
informed
consent
documents
that
spell
out
risks,
alternatives,
and
regulatory
status.


The
risks
of
noncompliance

The
consequences
for
cutting
corners
are
steep.
According
to
the
bill’s
official

analysis
,
violations
such
as
misrepresenting
treatments,
using
fetal
or
embryo-derived
cells,
or
failing
to
choose
a
biologics
supplier
who
meets
sourcing
standards
could
result
in
felony
charges
and
license
revocation.
While
the
law
is
state-specific,
its
implications
are
national
as
other
states
are
expected
to
follow
Florida’s
initiative.

For
physicians,
this
creates
both
opportunity
and
obligation.
There
is
now
more
room
to
innovate,
but
also
more
pressure
to
ensure
treatments
meet
high
standards
for
safety,
science,
and
transparency.
In
this
environment,
partnering
with
the
right
supplier
is
essential
for
safety.
That
includes
verifying
the
scientific
integrity
of
any
product
used
and
maintaining
clear
documentation
and
consent
protocols.

As
noted
by

New
Regen
Ortho
,
some
products
marketed
as
stem
cell
therapies
contain
little
or
no
viable
cells.
Even
with
post-thaw
viability
documentation
in
place,
therapeutic
value
depends
on
how
the
cells
are
sourced,
handled,
and
delivered.
The
burden
of
quality
assurance
will
continue
to
fall
on
providers,
which
is
why
choosing
the
right
supplier
is
essential
to
meet
this
regulatory
standard.


What
this
means
for
the
market

Stem
cell
therapy
has
long
existed
in
a
gray
zone,
caught
between
scientific
promise
and
regulatory
gaps.
Some
providers
operate
with
strong
data
and
clear
protocols,
while
others
rely
on
marketing
that
outpaces
clinical
evidence.

SB‑1768
introduces
structure
where
there
was
once
ambiguity.
By
requiring
more
transparency
around
sourcing,
consent,
and
advertising,
the
law
will
elevate
providers
who
are
already
committed
to
responsible
care.
In
addition,
opportunities
to
expand
the
use
of
stem
cell
therapies
and
obtain
data
surrounding
these
treatments
may
provide
a
faster
and
cheaper
pathway
to
develop
and
improve
these
therapies.


What
physicians
everywhere
should
take
away

You
don’t
have
to
practice
in
Florida
for
this
law
to
matter.
Patient
interest
in
regenerative
care
is
growing
rapidly,
and
physicians
across
the
country
need
to
be
prepared
to
understand
and
consider
advising
patients,
where
applicable,
of
these
stem
cell-related
treatment
options.
As
the
use
of
stem
cells
becomes
more
commonplace,
the
patient
demand
will
increase,
the
science
will
continue
to
improve,
and
the
cost
of
treatment
will
go
down
(it
may
even
be
covered
under
national
health
insurance
plans
in
the
future).


Innovation
requires
accountability

As
other
states
consider
following
Florida’s
lead,
the
responsibility
falls
on
providers
to
push
the
movement
forward.
Access
means
little
without
accountability.
Whether
in
Florida
or
elsewhere,
patients
deserve
therapies
that
are
as
transparent
and
trustworthy.
For
physicians,
the
challenge
is
not
just
navigating
what’s
allowed,
but
making
sure
the
source
of
the
therapeutics
is
from
reliable,
diligent,
and
compliant
suppliers.


Photo:
chombosan,
Getty
Images


Ian
Bothwell

is
currently
the
Chief
Executive
Officer
and
Chief
Financial
Officer
and
a
member
of
the
Board
of
Directors
of

ZEO
ScientifiX,
Inc.
,
a
publicly
traded
clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical
company
(OTCQB
“ZEOX”)
focused
on
the
research
and
development
of
biological
therapeutic
platforms
and
is
currently
positioning
itself
to
be
a
leading
provider
of
stem
cell
products
for
physicians
in
Florida
that
comply
with
the
regulations
of
the
new
Florida
legislation
SB
1768.

This
post
appears
through
the MedCity
Influencers

program.
Anyone
can
publish
their
perspective
on
business
and
innovation
in
healthcare
on
MedCity
News
through
MedCity
Influencers. Click
here
to
find
out
how
.

Morning Docket: 08.14.25 – Above the Law

*
Diligent
journalism
students
devote
a
lot
of
words
to
“some
law
students
are
losers
and
join
FedSoc
to
feel
good
about
themselves
and
get
jobs
their
grades
could
never
justify.”
[Harvard
Crimson
]

*
Swapping
courses?
[ABA
Journal
]

*
Milbank
carries
the
love
across
the
pond.
[LegalCheek]

*
In
what
shouldn’t
be
controversial
news,
bad
judges
continue
to
be
very
bad
at
law.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
How
are
we
still
talking
about
this
guy?
[NPR]

*
$40B
here,
$40B
there,
pretty
soon
you’re
talking
about
real
money.
[Law360]

*
ILTACON
update
from
Legal
Tech
News’s
newest.
[LegalTech
News
]

Today At ILTACON: Key Takeaways And The Annual General Meeting – Above the Law

This
morning,
we
kick
off
the
final
day
of
ILTACON
2025
at
9
a.m.
in
Potomac
A/B
with
a

Keynote
Recap

of
this
year’s
G100/G200
programming.
Join
Steve
Assie,
Michael
Bruckner,
Karen
Campbell,
James
McKenna,
and
Andrew
Powell
as
they
offer
overviews,
key
discussion
points,
and
poignant
takeaways. 


Follow
the
links
below
for
more
on
some
of
the
sponsors
you’ll
be
meeting:


• Aiden
• Litera
• Opus
2

• Traveling
Coaches

Thursday’s
first
round
of
educational
sessions
starts
at
11
a.m.
and
includes
learning
opportunities
like

The
Yin
and
Yang
of
Cybersecurity
in
Ediscovery,
Transform
Your
Organization
with
the
Microsoft
Power
Platform:
Real
World
Success
Stories,
Change
Management
and
Training:
The
PB
and
J
of
Adoption,
Legal
Collaboration
with
Microsoft
Loop
Ahoy,
SaaS
Security:
Beyond
Prevention,
Realizing
Value
With
Your
Data
Science
Team:
Notebook
to
Production,
Integrating
AI
with
Customer
Service:
Preserving
the
Human
Element
,
and

Steering
Your
Tech
Through
AI
Regulations
[CLE]
.
Or
join
the

Small
Firm
Summit

from
10-noon
in
Maryland
A.  

From
noon-2,
non-members
and
partners
can
pick
up
a
boxed
lunch
in
Prince
George’s
Exhibition
Hall.
Members
will
gather
in
Potomac
A/B
to
enjoy
lunch
and
the

Annual
General
Meeting

Thursday
closes
with
two
more
rounds
of
educational
sessions.
During
the
2-3
p.m.
block,
attendees
can
choose
from
sessions
like

So,
You
Wanna
Join
the
C-Suite,
30
IT
Tools
in
60
Minutes,
Transforming
Your
AI
Work
with
Design
Thinking,
The
Message
of
Metrics:
Communicating
Value
in
an
AI
Landscape,
Titans
vs.
Trailblazers:
Choosing
eDiscovery
and
Practice
Support
Solutions,
Mastering
Bottlenecks,
New
Tech,
and
Team
Upskilling,

 and

Legal
Collaboration
with
Microsoft
Loop.

The
final
round
of
sessions
begins
at
3:30
p.m.
and
includes
selections
like

Transforming
Training
with
Gen
AI:
Tools,
Techniques,
Productivity
Boosts
and
Tools,
Unmasking
Synthetic
Media
and
Deepfakes,
So,
You
Wanna
Join
the
C-Suite
Part
Two,
Cloud
First
or
Cloud
Only

What’s
Achievable,
Data
Lakehouse
with
a
View,
Navigating
the
Ethics
of
Drafting
and
Collaboration
with
AI
[CLE],

and

Raising
the
Bar
on
Accessibility:
Apps
for
Employees
with
Special
Needs.

At
6:30,
make
your
way
to
Potomac
A/B
to
attend
the

Closing
Reception

for
ILTACON
2025.
Celebrate
another
incredible
ILTACON
with
friends
and
colleagues
before
hoisting
the
sails
for
your
return
voyage
home.   

Will Obergefell Fall Soon? – See Also – Above the Law

Republicans
Have
Been
Gunning
For

Obergefell

For
Years
Now:
Will
SCOTUS
finally
shoot
it
down?
Looking
For
A
List
Of
The
Most
Elite
Firms?:
We
saved
you
some
of
the
work!
Drake’s
Lawyers
Are
Looking
For
Anything
To
Save
Their
Client’s
Reputation:
From
private
communications
to
a
Pulitzer
Prize
winner’s
children’s
DNA,
the
desperate
Canadian
wants
it
all.
DEI
Ain’t
Dead
Yet!:
It’s
just
a
little
harder
to
find
the
resume
drop-off
point.
On
This
Week’s
Episode
Of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer:
Where
the
hell
is
the
bonus
money?

What Will A Jury Do When The Law Isn’t Fair? – Above the Law



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


According
to
a
new
survey
of
jury-eligible
adults
by
Orrick,
Herrington
&
Sutcliffe,
what
percentage
of
potential
jury
members
say
that,
when
in
conflict,
juries
should
prioritize
protecting
the
community
over
the
letter
of
the
law?


Hint:
The
firm
asked
the
same
question
in
a
2022
survey,
and
the
respondents
that
agree
with
that
sentiment
went
up
a
eye-popping
13
percentage
points.



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.