Author: TSA Press

When
law
firms
talk
about
technology,
the
word
“ease”
doesn’t
always
come
up.
But
Elisabeth
Alonzi,
Senior
Solutions
Consultant
at
CARET
Legal,
made
a
convincing
case
that
the
company’s
all-in-one
practice
management
platform
has
cracked
the
code.

“Every
firm
has
some
kind
of
heartburn
with
getting
paid,
managing
matters
or
tracking
time,”
Alonzi
said.
“And
all
types
of
law
firms
work
very
differently,
even
if
they’re
in
the
same
practice
area.
So
we
really
focus
on
consolidation,
which
is
where
we
play
really
well.”

CARET
Legal
is
a
cloud-based
practice
management
platform
that
combines
case
management,
document
management,
time
tracking,
billing,
accounting,
analytics,
and
payments
in
a
single
system.
It
includes
built-in
email
and
calendar
integrations
with
Outlook
and
Gmail,
allowing
lawyers
to
save
emails
to
a
matter,
create
tasks,
and
track
billable
time
automatically.

Having
all
those
features
in
one
place
adds
up
to
saving
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
billable
hours
per
year.
During
a
recent
demo
with
Above
the
Law,
Alonzi
showed
us
how.

Getting
Started

In
one
view
on
the
firm
Dashboard,
users
can
get
a
global
view
of
everything
on
their
plate.
The
navigation
bar
on
the
left
allows
quick
access
to
case
matters,
calendar,
contacts,
analytics,
tasks,
documents,
and
more. 

Firms
can
customize
what
they
see
upon
opening
the
platform.
For
example,
the
Analytics
view
below
is
based
on
business
intelligence
insights,
which
a
client
previously
spent
hours
per
month
running
manually.
Now
their
business
analytics
update
automatically,
and
they
can
see
them
first
thing
in
the
morning.

“It’s
really
the
art
of
the
possible,”
Alonzi
said.

A
Platform
Lawyers
Can
Actually
Use
Without
an
IT
Degree

Ease
of
use
was
a
constant
refrain
throughout
Alonzi’s
walkthrough.
“A
managing
partner
once
told
me,
‘The
CARET
Legal
interface
looks
so
easy
to
use,
I
could
easily
see
a
fast
return
on
investment,’”
Alonzi
said.

That
simplicity
carries
through
every
layer
of
the
platform. 

CARET
Legal
integrates
directly
with
Microsoft
365
and
Gmail,
so
users
can
manage
emails,
link
them
to
matters,
create
tasks
for
others
by
checking
a
box,
and
even
capture
billable
time
from
within
their
inbox.
It
beats
manually
exporting
emails
as
PDFs
to
put
them
into
a
folder.  

“This
is
truly
your
inbox,”
she
said.
“With
this,
you
just
open
an
email
and
link
it
to
any
matter
you
need
to.” 

CARET
also
offers
15
ways
to
record
time,
accommodating
users
at
every
tech
comfort
level.
“That’s
not
to
overwhelm,
but
to
say
you
all
have
different
comfort
levels
with
technology.
We
work
with
what
works
best
for
you.”

Time
entries
are
prepopulated
with
the
rate
you’re
charging
for
the
case.
For
instance,
if
it
were
a
personal
injury
case,
it
could
be
programmed
to
say
“no
charge”
if
the
action
were
unbillable
hours. 

The
timer
also
automatically
starts
any
time
an
attorney
starts
writing
an
email,
catching
those
moments
when
they
may
have
forgotten
to
start
the
time. 

“That’s
a
revenue
leakage
that
you
don’t
even
know
that’s
happening
in
your
day-to-day,
but
we
do,”
Alonzi
said.
“And
so
we’ve
built
in
those
fail-safes
to
help
you
organically
increase
your
billables
with
work
you’re
doing
anyway.”

No
More
‘Toggle
Tax’—for
All
Departments

CARET
Legal’s
central
selling
point
is
its
all-in-one
design.
Attorneys
working
on
case
matters,
paralegals
helping
with
research,
and
accountants
in
the
back
office
all
use
the
same
software,
eliminating
the
need
for
different
subscriptions
for
different
departments. 

“We’re
not
a
modular
platform,”
Alonzi
said.
“It’s
really
all-in-one,
to
avoid
what
I
would
call
a
toggle
tax
or
a
click
tax
on
what
attorneys
are
doing
and
how
they’re
spending
their
time.”

The
system
combines
matter
management,
document
storage,
accounting,
reporting,
and
payment
processing
in
one
interface.
And
all
the
features
are
included
in
the
base
price,
including
payment
processing. 

CARET’s
built-in
accounting
tools
follow
generally
accepted
accounting
principles
and
are
designed
with
the
legal
industry
in
mind.
“We
know
state
bar
requirements,
we
know
IOLTA
compliance
requirements,”
Alonzi
said.
“We
understand
certain
ways
this
needs
to
be
done,
more
so
than
a
generic
QuickBooks.”

That
integration
extends
to
billing
and
payments
as
well.
When
a
client
pays
through
CARET’s
payment
processor,
the
invoice
is
automatically
updated
as
paid,
eliminating
the
need
for
manual
entry. 

Alonzi
highlighted
one
firm
that
told
her
payments
started
arriving
as
they
were
still
running
their
second
billing
batch
because
invoices
were
being
processed
and
reconciled
in
real
time.

“You
get
workflows,
document
management,
text
messaging,
reporting,
and
analytics—it
all
lives
in
a
single
platform,”
Alonzi
said.

Automation
and
Analytics
That
Boost
the
Bottom
Line

If
ease
of
use
and
consolidation
make
CARET
Legal
approachable,
automation
and
analytics
make
it
powerful.

“Our
analytics
are
built
right
into
the
platform,”
Alonzi
explained.
“Sometimes
people
forget
that
they
actually
are
a
business,
but
how
are
you
managing
the
business
side
of
the
firm?”

The
analytics
engine
turns
raw
data
into
living
dashboards
based
on
custom
fields
that
depend
on
whatever
the
firm
needs.
“I
set
this
specific
report
up
one
time,”
she
said.
“Then
it
will
continue
running
as
information
continues
to
update.”
That
means
no
more
exporting
spreadsheets
or
manually
refreshing
reports.

The
analytics
suite
also
helps
firms
monitor
key
financial
metrics
like
days
to
payment.
With
CARET’s
built-in
payment
processor,
firms
get
paid
faster,
Alonzi
said. 

The
Financial
Health
dashboard
(pictured
above)
provides
deep
insights
into
the
business
of
your
law
firm,
helping
you
keep
a
pulse
on
key
financial
trends
and
metrics
like
year-to-date
revenue
and
revenue
by
practice
area.
Predictive
modeling
shows
where
you’re
headed
and
helps
set
targets.
With
real-time
alerts
when
data
changes,
the
dashboard
illuminates
hidden
reporting
needs
and
adapts
to
your
firm’s
unique
requirements
through
powerful
customization
and
configurability
–
without
complexity.

Automation
extends
beyond
reporting.
When
documents
are
uploaded
to
the
system,
they
are
automatically
processed
and
scanned
for
easier
recall
and
searching
later.
When
the
latest
version
of
the
document
is
saved,
it
updates
to
the
newest
version
in
all
locations
for
all
users,
highlighting
the
change.

CARET
also
has
customizable
workflows
that
automatically
create
tasks
and
events
based
on
predefined
templates,
keeping
everyone
on
schedule. 

“Workflows
are
very
configurable
and
very
easy
to
do,”
Alonzi
said.
“You
can
create
one
for
document
preparation,
client
intake,
or
financial
reporting.
Once
the
first
task
is
completed,
the
next
one
automatically
populates.”

Firms
that
still
manage
tasks
through
email
threads
or
spreadsheets
would
particularly
benefit
from
CARET’s
built-in
task
and
reminder
tools.
It
ensures
no
one
misses
a
deadline
because
an
email
got
lost
in
an
inbox.

This
automation
also
supports
better
onboarding
and
training.
Especially
for
attorneys
who
are
particular
about
their
workflow,
they
can
create
a
custom
workflow
in
their
profile. 

Alonzi
offered
the
example
of
one
attorney
who
had
a
special
“Michael
Workflow”
that
CARET
was
able
to
program
into
the
system.
When
a
new
paralegal
or
associate
joined
the
firm,
he
assigned
them
the
workflow.
It
clearly
outlined
their
tasks
and
timelines,
and
he
got
a
faster
return
on
his
investment
because
he
wasn’t
constantly
reminding
people
how
he
works.

Efficiency
Without
the
Growing
Pains

From
CARET
Legal’s
in-app
support
agent
and
24/7
phone
assistance
to
their
knowledge
base
and
other
online
resources,
their
support
team
is
with
you
every
step
of
the
way.

Lawyers
will
be
surprised
at
how
fast
they
see
a
return
on
their
investment,
Alonzi
said.

“You
know
how
to
do
the
law,”
Alonzi
said.
“We’re
your
business
partner
to
help
your
business
run
more
efficiently—and
to
get
you
paid
faster
for
the
work
you’re
already
doing.”

Ready
to
see
for
yourself?

Schedule
a
personalized
demo.

The
week
after
Thanksgiving
is
known
for
being
kind
of
a
drag,
but
nothing
lightens
the
mood
more
than
Biglaw
firms
announcing
that
they’re
handing
out
bonuses
on
top
of
bonuses
on
top
of
bonuses.
Which
firm
is
the
latest
to
announce
its
year-end
bonus
scale?

That
would
be
Sidley
Austin,
a
firm
that
took
in
$3,439,646,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
6
on
the
latest
Am
Law
100.
The
elite
firm
recently
let
associates
know
that
it
would
be
matching
the

Cravath
scale,
complete
with

Milbank’s
summer
bonuses,
for
those
who
have
met
their
2000-hour
billable
requirement.
Those
who
weren’t
able
to
meet
the
minimum
“may
be
recognized
with
partial
bonuses.”
Here’s
what
the
bonus
scale
looks
like
at
Sidley:

Associates
who
have
gone
above
and
beyond
—
i.e.,
those
who
have
“higher
productivity
and/or
exceptional
performance”
—
will
be
rewarded
with
even
more
money.
Here
are
the
details:

As
in
prior
years,
we
also
recognize
associates
who
have
higher
productivity
and/or
exceptional
performance
with
additional
bonuses
that
exceed
the
base
bonus
amounts,
resulting
in
those
associates
receiving
more
than
the
base
bonus
for
their
class
year,
and
in
some
cases
more
than
50%
above
base
bonus.

Bonuses
will
hit
bank
accounts
prior
to
December
31,
2025.
Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Sidley!

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

---

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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Trust
in
the
U.S.
healthcare
system
is

eroding
—
but
this
decline
isn’t
happening
evenly
across
the
system,
one
leader
pointed
out.

People
largely
trust
individual
clinicians,
but
they
tend
to
distrust
payers,
drugmakers
and
hospital
leadership,
said
Kristin
Wikelius,
chief
program
officer
at
the

United
States
of
Care,
a
national
health
policy
advocacy
group.

That
split
in
trust
becomes
particularly
apparent
when
patients
move
beyond
the
exam
room. 

Wikelius
noted
that
people
routinely
run
into
contradictory
answers
about
costs
and
coverage,
leaving
them
feeling
like
the
healthcare’s
major
institutions
are
opaque
at
best
and
self-interested
at
worst.

“Say
someone
needs
to
have
a
procedure
—
then
they
have
to
figure
out
for
their
insurance.
Is
this
provider
in-network?
What’s
it
going
to
cost?
They
get
a
set
of
answers,
and
then
they
go
ask
the
provider’s
office
—
and
they
can’t
tell
them
how
much
it’s
going
to
cost,
and
they’re
not
sure
if
they’re
in-network.
And
so
it
feels
to
people
—
even
when
they’re
trying
to
do
their
due
diligence
—
there’s
never
a
simple
answer,”
she
explained.

To
her,
better
transparency
—
especially
when
it
comes
to
costs
—
and
simpler
navigation
will
be
key
in
helping
rebuild
people’s
confidence
in
the
healthcare
system.

She
pointed
out
that
people
are
resentful
about
healthcare’s
rising
costs.

“Individuals
themselves
don’t
have
a
place
to
cost-shift.
If
your
insurance
is
going
up,
there’s
no
place
for
you
to
move
that
cost
—
you
have
to
find
that
money.
What
that
means
for
people
is
often
just
foregoing
care
that
they
need,”
Wikelius
remarked.

The
expensive
nature
of
healthcare
makes
it
so
that
many
people
only
seek
care
when
they
feel
their
need
is
dire
—
but
this
“sick-care”
system
isn’t
what
they
want,
she
said.
People
want
a
more
preventive,
health-maintaining
system,
not
one
that
only
treats
illness. 

Some
of
this
sentiment
is
reflected
in
the
public
support
for
the
“Make
America
Healthy
Again”
movement,
Wikelius
pointed
out,
noting
that
there
is
a
strong
public
appetite
for
holistic
care,
healthy
food
access
and
avoiding
unnecessary
medical
encounters.

She
also
highlighted
how
linking
coverage
to
politics
or
employment
creates
major
anxiety
for
Americans.

People
dislike
that
their
insurance
stability
can
swing
because
of
new
lawmakers
or
job
changes
—
which
is
why
United
States
of
Care
focuses
on
“durable”
policies
that
can
survive
political
shifts,
Wikelius
stated. 

“We’re
looking
for
policies
that
can
stand
the
test
of
time,
so
people
don’t
feel
like
the
coverage
or
the
care
that
they’re
getting
is
at
risk
as
a
result
of
an
election.
I
think
below
the
surface,
there
are
a
lot
of
areas
of
continuity
—
of
really
nonpartisan
agreement
and
alignment
—
on
changes
that
we
need
to
make
in
healthcare,”
she
declared.

Wikelius
said
the
challenge
now
is
translating
that
public
desire
for
stability,
transparency
and
preventive
care
into
policies
that
actually
deliver
it.

Photo:
Maskot,
Getty
Images

Back
in
August,
I
presented

Part
I
of
my
written
interview
with
a
law
firm
marketing
professional,

Jonathan
Blotner.
In
the
interim,
Jonathan
has
been
hard
at
work
finalizing
his
latest
website
launch
for
a
leading
IP
boutique.
Now
that
the
site
is
live,
it
is
a
good
time
for
readers
to
review
his
answer
to
the
first
of
my
three
questions
in
the
August
column.
There,
he
focused
on
challenges
IP
law
firms
and
attorneys
may
face
from
a
marketing
perspective.
What
follows
are
Jonathan’s
answers
to
my
remaining
two
questions.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
his
answers
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
his
answers
as
he
provided
them.

GK:
How
did
you
end
up
working
on
a
new
website
for
a
leading
patent
boutique
firm?

JB:
Patent
attorneys
and
IP
firms
operate
in
an
increasingly
competitive
landscape
where
clients
—
often
sophisticated,
tech-savvy
companies
—
expect
a
polished,
modern
digital
presence.
A
website
is
no
longer
just
an
online
brochure;
it’s
often
a
firm’s
first
impression
and
a
key
differentiator.
Refreshing
a
site
isn’t
about
chasing
trends
—
it’s
about
aligning
the
firm’s
digital
identity
with
its
market
position,
practice
strengths,
and
client
expectations.
In
a
field
where
expertise
is
everything,
a
stale
or
outdated
website
can
unintentionally
signal
the
opposite.
Firms
should
be
thinking
more
strategically
about
how
their
online
presence
supports
business
development,
communicates
thought
leadership,
and
reflects
their
command
of
cutting-edge
legal
and
technological
issues.
Our
client,
Radulescu
LLP,
saw
the
need
to
refresh
their
website.

Based
on
my
experience
building
and
designing
legal
and
law
firm
websites,
our
firm
came
highly
recommended
for
the
project.
Over
the
years,
we’ve
developed
a
reputation
for
understanding
the
unique
communication
challenges
within
the
legal
space
—
particularly
how
to
translate
complex
areas
of
practice,
like
patent
litigation,
into
clear,
compelling
digital
experiences.
When
this
leading
patent
boutique
was
looking
to
modernize
their
web
presence
and
better
reflect
their
deep
expertise,
we
were
brought
in
to
help
bridge
that
gap. 
We
are
pleased
that
the
site
we
built
is
now
live
at

Radip.com.

GK:
When
it
comes
to
marketing,
firms
of
all
sizes
can
get
complacent
over
time.
As
a
result,
the
cutting-edge
website
built
for
your
firm
in
2018
can
look
completely
outdated
in
2025.
Likewise,
concentrating
your
marketing
spend
on
conference
attendance,
for
example,
may
not
be
enough
in
today’s
video-driven
marketing
environment.
As
with
most
things,
having
a
diversified
and
considered
approach
to
marketing
is
the
best
way
to
spotlight
your
practice’s
unique
market
offerings.
A
law
firm
marketing
professional
like
Jonathan
can
lend
an
important
voice
to
discussion
of
these
issues,
even
for
something
as
straightforward,
but
important,
as
a
website
refresh. 

GK:
How
should
law
firms
be
thinking
about
advertising
their
use
of
AI
tools
on
behalf
of
their
clients?

JB:
Law
firms
should
approach
the
advertising
of
AI
use
with
both
strategic
clarity
and
ethical
transparency.
Clients
are
increasingly
interested
in
how
AI
can
improve
efficiency,
reduce
costs,
and
enhance
legal
outcomes
—
but
they’re
also
cautious
about
overhyped
claims
or
the
implication
that
human
judgment
is
being
sidelined.
Instead
of
using
AI
as
a
buzzword,
firms
should
highlight
the
specific,
practical
ways
these
tools
enhance
service
—
for
example,
by
accelerating
prior
art
searches,
streamlining
patent
portfolio
analysis,
or
improving
litigation
risk
assessment.
Importantly,
firms
should
be
prepared
to
explain
how
AI
fits
within
the
broader
legal
strategy,
always
underscoring
that
experienced
attorneys
remain
central
to
all
decision-making.
Transparency
around
the
limits
of
AI
tools
—
and
how
they’re
supervised
—
builds
trust
and
credibility.

GK:
Jonathan’s
answer
correctly
spotlights
the
challenges
and
opportunities
afforded
by
a
transformational
technological
leap
like
AI.
Clients
want
to
know
that
their
lawyers
are
facile
with
any
and
all
technological
tools
that
can
benefit
work
done
on
the
clients
behalf,
and
AI
is
no
exception.
At
the
same
time,
no
one
wants
their
lawyer
taking
technology-enabled
shortcuts,
much
less
ending
up
the
latest
lawyer
or
firm
spotlighted
on
ATL
for
filing
a
brief
full
of
hallucinated
cases
and
stilted
writing
in
the
place
of
real
legal
reasoning
and
advocacy.
In
that
vein,
IP
firms
can
and
should
spotlight
how
they
are
using
AI
to
benefit
their
clients,
but
not
in
a
way
that
oversells
or
feeds
into
skeptical
distrust
on
the
client’s
end.
One
of
the
benefits
of
working
with
a
marketing
professional
like
Jonathan
would
be
to
leverage
their
familiarity
with
how
AI
is
being
marketed
by
law
firms
across
the
legal
world,
along
with
insights
into
how
to
translate
that
knowledge
into
IP-specific
marketing
practices
that
properly
spotlight
AI’s
burgeoning
role
in
IP
practice.

My
thanks
to
Jonathan
for
the
insights
and
cooperation,
and
I
wish
him
continued
success
with
all
aspects
of
his
marketing
practice. 
Hopefully
this
interview
encourages
this
readership
to
consider
their
current
marketing
efforts,
so
as
to
ensure
that
precious
dollars
are
being
spent
in
the
service
of
effectively
highlighting
the
strengths
of
their
practices. We
are
in
a
competitive
business
where
successes
are
hard
earned
—
the
least
we
can
do
is
spotlight
what
we
are
capable
of
achieving
on
behalf
of
clients
—
ideally
with
the
help
of
professionals
like
Jonathan.
I
am
always
open
to
conducting
interviews
of
this
type
with
other
IP
thought
leaders,
so
feel
free
to
reach
out
if
you
have
a
compelling
perspective
to
offer. 

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.

---

Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.

*
Meta
learns
that
you
can’t
just
block
your
former
friend’s
deposition
testimony.
[Law360]
*
DOJ
considering
new
Comey
indictment
even
though
it
would
be
—
to
quote
Talladega
Nights
—
“completely illegaI
and
in
no
way
will
count.”
[Reuters]
*
Immigration
judge
sues
Pam
Bondi
and
the
DOJ
for
wrongful
termination.
[National
Law
Journal]
*
Revisiting

Dudley
&
Stephens.
[ABA
Journal]
*
Supreme
Court
hears
bid
to
hold
internet
provider
liable
for
user
conduct.
[Courthouse
News
Service]
*
Former
Cooley
lawyer
launches
AI-driven
startup.
[Business
Insider]

Collision
Sends
Two
Families
To
Court:
Serious
case,
but
you’ve
gotta
admit
the
names
are
funny.
Tell
Us
About
Your
Bonuses!:
We
heard
from
Willkie
and
Perkins
Coie!
White
Supremacist
Wins
Day
In
Court:
The
ball
is
back
in
University
of
Florida’s
court.
Eight
Crazy
Days:
That’s
how
long
it
took
to
kick
Trump’s
nonsense
RICO
suit.
Here’s
Our
17th
Annual
Holiday
Card
Contest!:
Send
in
your
submissions!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

How
many
nominations
has
Donald
Trump
withdrawn
this
year
(including
attorneys

Paul
Ingrassia,

Ed
Martin,
and

Donald
Korb),
the
highest
since
at
least
the
Ronald
Reagan
presidency?

Hint:
“It
would
appear
that
some
nominees
haven’t
been
vetted,
and
…
somebody
says,
‘Go
with
them
anyways,’”
Sen.
John
Kennedy
(R-La.)
said.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Whenever
new
AI
laws
are
introduced,
the
reaction
in
many
companies
is
predictable:
frustration,
concern,
and
a
scramble
to
adjust.
Regulation
is
often
cast
as
the
adversary
of
innovation,
the
red
tape
that
slows
launches
and
burdens
teams.
In
reality,
legal
frameworks
can
serve
as
design
tools.
When
used
intentionally,
they
can
shape
AI
products
that
are
not
only
compliant
but
also
more
competitive
and
resilient.

Seeing
The
Law
As
A
Design
Partner

Compliance
has
traditionally
been
treated
as
a
final
step
before
launch,
a
box
to
tick
once
the
system
is
built.
That
approach
is
risky.
For
AI
in
particular,
many
of
the
requirements
embedded
in
new
regulations,
from
explainability
to
bias
monitoring,
influence
the
product’s
core
structure.
Ignoring
them
until
the
end
means
expensive
redesigns
and
missed
opportunities.

If
counsel
is
involved
from
the
earliest
design
discussions,
those
same
requirements
become
part
of
the
creative
process.
The
legal
framework
becomes
less
of
a
roadblock
and
more
of
a
set
of
guiding
lines,
pushing
the
product
toward
safer
and
more
marketable
outcomes.

Turning
Boundaries
Into
Breakthroughs

Some
of
the
most
interesting
AI
features
emerge
directly
from
regulatory
requirements.
If
the
law
says
your
AI
must
be
explainable,
your
team
might
develop
intuitive
user
interfaces
or
clearer
decision
logs,
both
of
which
improve
user
experience.
If
bias
testing
is
mandated,
you
might
invest
in
richer
datasets
or
better
evaluation
methods,
improving
model
accuracy
overall.
Privacy
constraints
can
lead
to
innovations
in
synthetic
data
or
federated
learning
that
make
the
product
faster
and
more
secure.

These
improvements
are
not
side
benefits.
They
are
market
advantages.
In
a
competitive
field,
the
product
that
can
prove
it
is
safe,
transparent,
and
fair
is
the
one
that
earns
user
trust.

Building
Compliance
Into
The
DNA

The
real
shift
happens
when
compliance
is
embedded
in
the
development
process,
not
bolted
on
at
the
end.
That
means
counsel
understanding
the
technology
well
enough
to
translate
legal
obligations
into
engineering
goals.
It
also
means
engineers
seeing
compliance
not
as
an
external
burden
but
as
a
parameter
to
design
within.

This
collaboration
prevents
the
common
scenario
where
a
nearly
finished
system
needs
major
rework
to
meet
a
regulation.
Instead,
the
product
is
launch-ready
both
legally
and
technically,
with
no
last-minute
compromises.

The
Competitive
Advantage
Of
Being
Ready

AI
markets
move
fast,
but
regulatory
change
is
accelerating
too.
A
company
that
reacts
to
new
laws
only
after
they
pass
is
already
behind.
The
teams
that
anticipate
likely
requirements,
design
with
them
in
mind,
and
keep
counsel
engaged
throughout
are
positioned
to
move
quickly
and
confidently
when
the
rules
take
effect.

From
a
business
perspective,
this
reduces
the
risk
of
enforcement
actions,
product
delays,
or
reputational
damage.
From
an
innovation
perspective,
it
pushes
teams
to
think
more
deeply
and
creatively
about
the
product’s
structure
and
capabilities.

Shaping
The
Future
Responsibly

The
assumption
that
rules
and
innovation
cannot
coexist
belongs
to
an
earlier
era
of
technology.
In
the
AI
space,
regulation
is
helping
define
what
responsible,
sustainable
products
look
like.
Those
who
embrace
that
reality
will
not
only
keep
pace
with
compliance
but
will
also
lead
in
building
systems
the
public
and
regulators
can
trust.

For
in-house
counsel,
this
is
an
opportunity
to
shift
the
conversation
from
“what
do
we
have
to
change
to
comply”
to
“how
can
these
requirements
make
our
product
better.”
That
is
where
compliance
becomes
more
than
a
safeguard.
It
becomes
a
driver
of
innovation.

---

Olga
V.
Mack is
the
CEO
of TermScout,
an
AI-powered
contract
certification
platform
that
accelerates
revenue
and
eliminates
friction
by
certifying
contracts
as
fair,
balanced,
and
market-ready.
A
serial
CEO
and
legal
tech
executive,
she
previously
led
a
company
through
a
successful
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
Olga
is
also
a Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
the
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
She
is
a
visionary
executive
reshaping
how
we
law—how
legal
systems
are
built,
experienced,
and
trusted.
Olga teaches
at
Berkeley
Law,
lectures
widely,
and
advises
companies
of
all
sizes,
as
well
as
boards
and
institutions.
An
award-winning
general
counsel
turned
builder,
she
also
leads
early-stage
ventures
including Virtual
Gabby
(Better
Parenting
Plan), Product
Law
Hub, ESI
Flow,
and Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,
each
rethinking
the
practice
and
business
of
law
through
technology,
data,
and
human-centered
design.
She
has
authored The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers, Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data, Blockchain
Value,
and Get
on
Board,
with Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers (ABA)
forthcoming.
Olga
is
a
6x
TEDx
speaker
and
has
been
recognized
as
a
Silicon
Valley
Woman
of
Influence
and
an
ABA
Woman
in
Legal
Tech.
Her
work
reimagines
people’s
relationship
with
law—making
it
more
accessible,
inclusive,
data-driven,
and
aligned
with
how
the
world
actually
works.
She
is
also
the
host
of
the
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self
podcast
(streaming
on Spotify, Apple
Podcasts,
and YouTube),
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
Newsweek,
VentureBeat,
ACC
Docket,
and
Above
the
Law.
She
earned
her
B.A.
and
J.D.
from
UC
Berkeley.
Follow
her
on LinkedIn and
X
@olgavmack.

Sending
a
White
Supremacist
back
to
class
is
a
strange
way
to
start
the
month
but
hey,
it
is
Florida.
Back
in
August
the
University
of
Florida
expelled
Preston
Damsky
over
an
antisemitic
tweet.
Damsky
had
earned
notoriety
earlier
as
the
guy
who
got
an
A
for
writing
a
paper
laying
out
the

constitutionally
backed
case
for
a
White
ethnostate.
Good
on
them
for
the
effort.
Law
school
is
difficult
enough
without
going
to
class
with
hate
speech
gunners.
But
Damsky
took
them
to
court,
arguing
that
kicking
him
out
for
his
tweet
was
a
freedom
of
speech
violation.
Even
if
you
don’t
like
the
argument,
it
was
good
enough
to
get
a
judge
to
rule
in
his
favor.

Reuters
has
coverage:

A
federal
judge
has
ordered
the
University
of
Florida
to
reinstate
a
law
student
it
expelled
for
making
controversial
statements
about
race
and
religion,
including
a
post
on
X
that
said
“Jews
must
be
abolished
by
any
means
necessary.”

Chief
U.S.
District
Judge
Allen
Winsor
in
Tallahassee
granted
a
preliminary
injunction
on
Monday
requiring
plaintiff
Preston
Damsky
be
readmitted
to
the
Gainesville
law
school
for
now,
finding
that
the
school
had
not
shown
his
statements
online
and
in
academic
papers
were
true
threats
of
violence
and
that
the
expulsion
likely
violated
his
free
speech
rights
under
the
U.S.
Constitution’s
First
Amendment.

I
think
this
outcome
makes
sense.
Shitty
thing
to
say,
but

without
some
aspect
of
immediacy,
his
“abolish”
advocacy
reads
more
like
impotent
wishful
thinking
than
it
does
a
legitimate
threat.
And
while
it

might
have
sparked
enough
environmental
hostility
at
a
private
college
to
justify
giving
a
student
the
boot,
the
First
Amendment
thumbs
the
scale
in
Damsky’s
favor
at
a
public
university.
At
least
for
now.

There’s
another
case
worth
keeping
on
your
radar.
A
professor
at
the
University
of
Oklahoma
was
put
on
administrative
leave
after
giving
a
student
a
failing
grade
for
a
poorly
written
paper.
This
time,
we
have
a
rubric
that
we
can
compare
the
assignment
with:

Here’s
the
paper:

As
you
should
be
able
to
see,
the
paper
is
not
good.
The
paper
doesn’t
even
meet
the
“It
was
revealed
to
me
in
a
dream”
standard
of
citation,
advances
arguments
a
step
from
being
circular,
and,
above
all
else,
makes
no
clear
connections
to
the
assigned
reading.
For
example,
the
student
claims
—
and
I’m
paraphrasing
here
—
that
God
had
deliberate,
teleological
ends
in
mind
when
he
made
man
and
woman.
Cool
beans,
but
what
does
that
have
to
do
with
the
assigned
article?

However,
none
of
that
matters
because
the
content
is
religious
in
nature.
The
student
cried
censorship
and
here
we
are.
The
whole
scenario
screams
Turning
Point
USA
test
case
for
Jesus
being
the
answer

or
else.
It’s
a
shame
that
Turning
Point
is
spinning
this
as
an
attack
on
Christianity
when
all
it
evidences,
if
anything,
is
an
attack
on
education.
Does
this
honestly
read
like
a
college-level
essay?

Since
when
does
the
First
Amendment
provide
constitutional
protection
for
sloppy
scholarship?
I
don’t
think
I
forgot
any
of
the
First
Amendment’s
freedoms…
it’s
not
like
I’m

Amy
Coney
Barrett.
Samantha’s
essay
reads
like
a
Youth
Pastor’s
sermon
on
sex
and
gender
for
middle
schoolers
and
Damsky’s
White
Supremacist
essay
is
just
plagerized
KKK
constitutionalism
with
a
modernized
flair.
I’m
a
strong
advocate
for
free
speech;
I
just
wish
the
speech
wasn’t
as
shoddy.

Judge
Orders
Readmission
Of
Law
Student
Who
Posted
‘Jews
Must
Be
Abolished’
[Reuters]

Earlier:

Florida
Lawsuit
Will
Determine
If
Law
School
Student
Tweeting
‘Jews
Must
Be
Abolished’
Is
An
Expellable
Offense

Trump
Judge
Gives
Nazi-Sympathizing
Law
Student
High
Marks
For
Rehashing
Klan
Legal
Theory
Calling
For
Minority
Disenfranchisement
And
Murdering
Immigrants

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

People
in
the
U.K.
may
continue
to
refer
to
it
as
Ashurst,
but
I
think
in
the
U.S.,
unfortunately
for
the
double
brand,
it
will
be
known
as
Perkins,
which
is
what
happens
when
these
large
law
firms
come
together.
There
are
very
few
(firms)
that
have
managed
to
keep
the
double
name.
Increasingly,
firms
are
known
by
a
single
name.
Skadden,
Cravath,
Pillsbury…
It’s
just
hard
to
maintain
the
double
branding.

—
Allan
Ripp,
a
media
strategist
for
law
firms
and
principal
at
Ripp
Media,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
concerning
the
name
Ashurst
Perkins
Coie
will
be
known
by
once
its

merger
is
complete.
“[T]here’s
always
a
dominant
firm
in
a
merger,
despite
what
they
tell
you,”
Ripp
continued,
adding,
“The
dominant
name
in
this
case
comes
from
behind
out
of
strength,
not
weakness.” He
went
on,
suggesting
that
if
Perkins
Coie’s
name
had
come
first,
“Ashurst
[could]
be
at
risk
of
being
dropped
by
those
referencing
the
combined
firm.”

---

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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.