Author: TSA Press

In
today’s
fast-moving,
hyper-connected
world,
legal
and
compliance
teams
shield
organizations
from
a
constant
stream
of
internal
and
external
threats
to
sensitive
data.

Effectively
countering
these
threats
requires
more
than
simply
erecting
strong
controls;
it
requires
navigating
the
complex,
shifting
landscape
of
privacy
and
data
protection
laws.

Privacy
and
cybersecurity
laws
and
regulations
change
constantly.
Laws
such
as
the
Health
Insurance
Portability
and
Accountability
Act
(HIPAA)
stringently
control
how
organizations
manage,
store,
use,
and
protect
data
within
their
scope.
And
literally
every
state
has
laws
that
may
also
bear
on
privacy,
security,
or
both.
Noncompliance
can
result
in
reputational
harm,
financial
penalties
and
damages,
or
even
long-term
consent
decrees.

Addressing
these
requirements
requires
people,
process,
and
technology
controls.
But
as
good
as
process
and
technology
get,
humans
remain
the
weakest
link.
I’ve
seen
seemingly
small
mistakes,
such
as
leaving
confidential
documents
on
a
printer
or
sending
sensitive
information
to
the
wrong
recipient,
escalate
into
major
compliance
issues. 

For
instance,
a
pharmacy’s
training
video
once
inadvertently
revealed
sensitive
health
information
–
a
patient’s
name,
prescription
details,
and
medical
diagnosis
–
leading
to
multiple
federal
investigations.
While
awful
for
the
organization
involved,
this
underscores
a
broader
point:
That
staff
in
every
department
must
understand
their
role
in
protecting
sensitive
information. 

Since
legal
and
compliance
teams
can’t
be
everywhere,
training
is
an
essential
tool.
Regular,
targeted
training
helps
employees
better
understand
their
critical
role
in
data
protection
and
avoid
potential
lapses.
Real
world
examples
like
that
pharmacy
training
video
powerfully
illustrate
the
importance
of
compliance.

Training
must
accompany
and
foster
a
culture
of
accountability
and
awareness.
Employees
should
feel
comfortable
questioning
the
need
for
certain
data
and
explaining
how
and
why
they
follow
established
procedures
when
handling
sensitive
information.
Organizations
must
also
engage
in
cybersecurity
tabletop
exercises
so
everyone
knows
how
to
respond
in
an
emergency,
and
hold
regular
data
protection
tests
to
help
avoid
one. 

When
incidents
occur,
a
coordinated
reactive
strategy
is
as
vital
as
proactive
prevention.
Legal
and
compliance
teams
must
work
closely
with
IT
and
security
departments
to
deploy
a
swift,
effective
response,
analyze
breaches,
determine
cause
and
exposure,
and
identify
and
enact
remediations.
Post-incident
reviews
should
focus
on
root
cause
analysis,
letting
organizations
learn
from
mistakes
and
opportunities.

Not
every
compliance
risk
or
effort
is
internal.
Data
may
flow
between
organizations
in
unseen
virtual
rivers.
Therefore,
it’s
crucial
to
ensure
that
a
company
understands
these
data
flows
and
that
its
vendors
who
receive
information
maintain
high
privacy
and
security
standards
for
data
in
transit
and
at
rest.
Simple
questions
and
processes
can
help
unearth
potential
red
flags. 

For
a
vendor,
such
questions
might
include:

• Tell
  me
  about
  your
  privacy
  and
  cybersecurity
  teams.
  How
  many
  people
  are
  on
  these
  teams?
  What
  are
  their
  credentials
  and
  training?
• Can
  you
  share
  your
  incident
  response
  plan?
  Please
  provide
  a
  real-world
  example
  of
  the
  plan
  in
  action. 
• What
  strategies
  do
  you
  employ
  to
  protect
  data
  and
  ensure
  it
  is
  used
  and
  disclosed
  properly?
• Can
  you
  share
  details
  about
  your
  access
  control
  measures?
• How
  do
  you
  train
  your
  teams?
• How
  do
  you
  test
  the
  effectiveness
  of
  your
  data
  protection
  measures? 

As
legal
and
compliance
professionals,
we
champion
privacy
and
cybersecurity
in
our
organizations,
but
success
requires
a
team
effort.
Building
resilient,
actionable
frameworks
that
meet
regulatory
requirements
but
also
instill
trust,
confidence,
and
reliability
enables
success. 

Fortunately,
with
diligence,
thoughtfulness,
a
culture
of
compliance,
and
strategic
action,
we
can
navigate
this
complex
terrain,
safeguarding
our
companies,
colleagues,
leaders,
and
partners. 

Photo:
anyaberkut,
Getty
Images

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.

*
Colorado
aims
to
shield
AI
companies
from
unauthorized
practice
of
law
claims.
No
way
this
can
go
wrong!
[ABA
Journal]

*
Luigi
looks
to
delay
trial
until
2027.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
Justice
Alito
used
to
recuse
himself
from
these
cases…
guess
not
so
much
anymore
[Slate]

*
Microsoft
considers
suing
over
OpenAI
deal
with
Amazon.
[Financial
Times]

*
Transportation
Secretary
Sean
Duffy’s
son-in-law
is
running
for
Congress,
and
transportation
lobbyists
are
showering
him
with
cash.
[Pro
Publica]

*
Markwayne
Mullin’s
DHS
confirmation
process
is
off
to
a
disastrous
start
courtesy
of
his
inability
to
even
try
to
be
nice
to
Rand
Paul.
[Slate]

*
Firms
and
clients
aren’t
talking
to
each
other
about
AI.
[Thomson
Reuters]

The
activists
(names
withheld
to
protect
their
identities)
are
part
of
the
Mapfungautsi
Constitutional
Hub
established
in
2022
with
the
sole
objective
of
raising
Constitutional
awareness
and
increasing
citizen
agency
in
terms
of
protecting
the
constitution.

Of
late,
ZANU
PF
has
launched
spirited
attacks
on
pro
democracy
forces
opposed
to
the
extension
of
Mnangagwa’s
stay
in
office
and
a
host
of
amendments
that
analysts
say
are
meant
to
usurpe
the
constitution,
adopted
in
2013,
and
entrench
authoritarian
rule.

The
clampdown
on
pro-democracy
forces
opposed
to
the
constitutional
amendments,
which
also
seek
to
compel
the
military
to
act
in
accordance
(rather
than
uphold)
the
constitution
has
cascaded
to
grassroots
level
ahead
of
public
hearings
on
the
Constitutional
Amendment
Bill
Number
3
set
to
begin
on
March
30.

This
is
part
of
a
calculated
attempt
to
instill
fear
and
compel
citizens
to
desist
from
opposing
the
Bill
during
the
public
hearings.

Senior
politicians
including
law
Professor,
Lovemore
Madhuku
and
opposition
politician
Tendai
Biti
and
other
activists
have
been
subjected
to
various
forms
of
torture
and
terror.

Grassroots
activists
have
not
been
spared.

“Initially,
we
were
being
threatened
by
Zanu
PF
activists
in
our
area
of
Mapfungautsi
until
we
started
receiving
anonymous
calls
with
the
callers
threatening
us
with
death.

After
that,
we
then
received
night
visits
but
fortunately
we
had
fled
our
homes
because
we
were
well
aware
of
what
would
happen
to
us
especially
during
this
period. 
For
now,
the
situation
is
not
okay
for
us
ro
return
to
our
area.
We
will
wait
maybe
until
the
public
hearings
end,”
said
one
of
the
activists.

Civil
society
organisations
in
Zimbabwe
are
on
high
alert
as
violence
against
prodemocracy
forces
escalate
during
this
period
with
activists
calling
for
various
forms
of
support
in
light
of
the
persecution
from
state
security
agents
and
ZANU
PF
supporters.

The
current
period
in
Zimbabwe
has
proved
to
be
a
time
of
victimisation
of
prodemocracy
activists
as
ZANU
PF
is
bent
on
consolidating
authoritarian
rule
at
all
costs.

Gokwe
is
one
of
Zimbabwe’s
political
hotspots
which
has
recorded
numerous
cases
of
murder,
torture
and
arbitrary
arrests
of
opposition
and
pro-democracy
forces.

We
implore
the
ruling
party,
ZANU
PF
to
desist
from
persecuting
pro-democracy
forces
and
allow
citizens
to
freely
express
themselves.

The
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe
is
a
sacrosanct
document
adopted
through
a
constitutional
referendum
in
2013
and
aptly
expresses
the
will
of
the
people
of
Zimbabwe.

As
such
this
supreme
document
should
never
be
tempered
with
for
purposes
of
selfish
political
gains
and
consolidating
authoritarian
rule.

Issued
by
Mapfungautsi
Constitutional
Hub

Showing
Up
Unannounced
Is
One
Thing,
But
Speaking?:
Supervisory
AUSA
Mark
Coyne
gets
shown
the
door.
Will
Someone
Please
Think
Of
The
Aggressors!:
Raiding
officers
want
millions
from
musician
who
hurt
their
feelings.
Another
Break
In
The
Glass
Ceiling:
Weil
Gotshal
&
Manges
announces
their
first
female
executive
partner!
Here
Would
Be
The
Epstein
Files:
If
not
for
Todd
Blanche!
Does
That
Supercar
Have
The
Proper
License?:
California
is
cracking
down.
On
This
Week
Of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer:
AI
hallucinations,
lazy
lawyering
and
the
fallout
of
swinging
dicks.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
new
financials
for
2025,
how
much
are
the
profits
per
equity
partner
at
Kirkland
&
Ellis?

Hint:
Since
2020,
profits
per
equity
partner
are
up
80%!

See the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Law
firms
often
assume
that
classrooms
trail
practice.
The
thinking
is
familiar.
Students
learn
theory.
Lawyers
learn
reality.
Training
catches
up
later,
shaped
by
client
demands
and
live
matters.

The
empirical
evidence
from
AI-supported
classrooms
suggests
the
opposite.
Classrooms
are
not
behind
practice.
They
are
stress
tests
for
legal
AI
design,
and
they
surface
failures
long
before
those
failures
become
visible
inside
firms.

This
inversion
became
clear
during
a
series
of
empirical
classroom
pilots
run
through

Product
Law
Hub
using
an
AI-based
legal
coach
called
Frankie.
The
pilots
were
designed
to
observe
how
users
interact
with
AI
while
learning
judgment-based
legal
skills.
The
findings
draw
on
quantitative
engagement
data
and
qualitative
interviews
conducted
throughout
the
course.

What
the
classroom
revealed
should
matter
to
any
firm
investing
in
AI
for
training,
knowledge
management,
or
decision
support.

Classrooms
Remove
The
Incentives
That
Hide
Failure

In
practice,
lawyers
are
remarkably
good
at
adapting
around
broken
tools.
They
learn
workarounds.
They
ignore
features
that
get
in
the
way.
They
keep
using
systems
long
after
they
have
stopped
trusting
them
because
abandoning
them
feels
riskier
than
tolerating
them.

Classrooms
strip
those
incentives
away.

Students
do
not
have
billable
pressure.
They
do
not
have
clients
waiting.
If
a
tool
feels
unhelpful,
they
disengage
immediately.
If
it
undermines
confidence
or
clarity,
they
say
so.
That
blunt
feedback
loop
makes
classrooms
unusually
good
at
exposing
design
flaws.

During
the
pilot,
disengagement
showed
up
quickly
when
the
AI
behaved
poorly.
Sessions
shortened.
Follow-up
interactions
declined.
Interview
feedback
became
more
critical.
In
a
firm,
the
same
tool
might
limp
along
for
months
before
anyone
admitted
it
was
not
working.

Disengagement
Is
An
Early
Warning
Signal

One
of
the
most
valuable
signals
from
the
classroom
data
was
disengagement.
Not
failure
to
complete
an
assignment.
Not
incorrect
answers.
Disengagement.

When
students
stopped
asking
follow-up
questions
or
abandoned
sessions
early,
it
was
a
sign
that
the
AI
was
not
supporting
their
reasoning.
That
signal
emerged
far
earlier
than
any
formal
evaluation
would
have.

In
firms,
disengagement
often
goes
unnoticed.
Lawyers
stop
using
a
tool
quietly.
Adoption
metrics
flatten.
Leaders
attribute
the
problem
to
change
management
instead
of
design.

The
classroom
made
it
clear
that
disengagement
is
not
a
user
problem.
It
is
a
system
problem,
and
it
appears
long
before
productivity
metrics
move.

Feedback
Loops
Are
Faster
And
More
Honest

Another
advantage
of
classrooms
is
speed.
Feedback
loops
are
short.
Students
interact,
react,
and
reflect
within
days,
not
quarters.
Interviews
conducted
shortly
after
use
capture
impressions
before
rationalization
sets
in.

In
the
pilot,
qualitative
interviews
surfaced
nuanced
reactions
that
would
be
difficult
to
extract
from
practicing
lawyers.
Students
articulated
when
the
AI
felt
helpful,
when
it
felt
condescending,
and
when
it
felt
inattentive.
They
described
confidence
erosion
and
trust-building
moments
in
real
time.

In
firms,
those
conversations
happen
later,
if
at
all.
By
then,
the
cost
of
change
is
higher
and
the
opportunity
to
redesign
is
smaller.

What
Practice
Hides,
Classrooms
Reveal

Many
of
the
failure
modes
observed
in
the
classroom
map
directly
onto
problems
firms
experience
with
AI,
but
more
quietly.

Overly
directive
systems
discourage
thinking.
Repetition
undermines
trust.
One-size-fits-all
interactions
frustrate
users
at
different
experience
levels.
These
issues
surfaced
immediately
in
the
classroom
because
there
was
no
reason
to
pretend
otherwise.

In
practice,
those
same
issues
show
up
as
stalled
adoption,
uneven
use
across
seniority
levels,
and
skepticism
disguised
as
compliance.
By
the
time
leadership
notices,
the
system
has
already
shaped
behavior.

Classrooms
make
these
dynamics
visible
early
enough
to
fix.

Training
Environments
Are
Safer
Places
To
Fail

There
is
another
reason
classrooms
matter.
They
are
safer
places
to
fail.

Testing
AI
in
live
matters
carries
reputational
and
client
risk.
Testing
AI
in
classrooms
carries
learning
risk.
That
distinction
should
encourage
more
experimentation,
not
less.

The
Product
Law
Hub
pilot
demonstrated
that
training
environments
can
be
used
to
probe
how
AI
affects
judgment,
confidence,
and
reasoning
without
exposing
clients
to
harm.
Design
choices
can
be
stress-tested
before
they
harden
into
workflows.

Firms
that
ignore
this
opportunity
are
missing
a
low-cost,
high-signal
testing
ground.

Why
Firms
Underestimate
Classroom
Insights

Despite
these
advantages,
firms
often
discount
classroom
findings
as
academic
or
theoretical.
That
dismissal
is
a
mistake.

The
classroom
data
was
not
about
doctrine.
It
was
about
behavior.
How
long
users
stayed
engaged.
Whether
they
asked
better
questions.
When
they
trusted
the
system.
Those
behaviors
are
directly
relevant
to
practice.

What
differs
is
not
the
psychology,
but
the
incentives.
Classrooms
remove
incentives
that
mask
problems.
That
makes
their
insights
more
predictive,
not
less.

Seeing
Around
Corners
Requires
Paying
Attention
Early

The
most
strategic
insight
from
the
pilot
is
that
AI
design
failures
are
detectable
early
if
firms
know
where
to
look.
Disengagement,
confidence
erosion,
and
trust
breakdowns
appear
first
in
learning
environments.

Waiting
for
client
complaints
or
adoption
metrics
to
surface
problems
is
reactive.
Using
classrooms
as
observatories
is
proactive.

Firms
that
pay
attention
to
these
early
signals
can
redesign
tools
before
they
shape
bad
habits.
Firms
that
do
not
will
keep
wondering
why
expensive
systems
never
quite
deliver.

The
Uncomfortable
Implication
For
Training
Leaders

The
uncomfortable
implication
is
that
law
firm
training
leaders
should
be
paying
closer
attention
to
classrooms
than
to
vendor
demos.
Classrooms
reveal
how
AI
actually
interacts
with
human
reasoning.

Demos
show
what
tools
can
do.
Classrooms
show
what
tools
do
to
people.

That
distinction
matters
as
AI
becomes
embedded
in
how
lawyers
learn
to
think.

The
Takeaway
Firms
Should
Not
Ignore

The
takeaway
from
the
empirical
classroom
work
is
not
that
education
should
drive
practice.
It
is
that
learning
environments
provide
early,
honest
feedback
about
AI
design.

Classrooms
are
not
behind
the
profession.
They
are
ahead
of
it,
precisely
because
they
expose
problems
before
incentives
smooth
them
over.

Firms
that
want
AI
to
support
judgment
rather
than
undermine
it
should
treat
classrooms
as
diagnostic
tools,
not
afterthoughts.
The
future
of
legal
AI
will
be
shaped
by
those
who
are
willing
to
listen
early,
before
the
warning
signs
become
too
expensive
to
ignore.

---

Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.


A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.


She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.

If
you
go
to
a
car
show
or
meetup
in
California
and
see
a
rare
or
exotic
car
such
as
a
Ferrari,
Lamborghini,
or
the
recently
legal

Nissan
R34
Skyline
GT-R,
you
probably
won’t
see
it
wearing
California
license
plates.
You
may
see
them
with
plates
from
Arizona,
Oregon,
Nevada,
or
even
Alaska.
But
the
most
common
license
plate
comes
from
Montana.

Montana
at
one
time
was
heaven
for
car
enthusiasts.
The
Treasure
State
is
known
for
having
very
scenic
driving
roads,
such
as

Beartooth
Highway,
the

Lake
Koocanusa
Scenic
Byway,
and
the
various
roads
in
Yellowstone
National
Park.
Also,
until
recently,
Montana
had
a
very
lax
speeding
law
which
led

Car
and
Driver
Magazine
to
call
it
the
autobahn
of
America.
Since
1974,
in
response
to
the
Emergency
Highway
Energy
Conservation
Act
which
limited
federal
freeway
speed
to
55
miles
per
hour,
Montana’s
anti-speeding
law
fined
violators
a
whopping
$5
(or
$30
in
2026.)
But
in
1998,
a
serial
litigant
ruined
it
for
the
rest
of
us
when
he
contested
his
$5
fine
all
the
way
up
to
the
Montana
Supreme
Court.
A
divided
court
ruled
that
the
$5
fine
was
unconstitutionally
vague.

But
today,
people
who
purchase
expensive
cars
are
getting
Montana
license
plates
not
for
its
scenery
or
its
once
liberal
speed
laws.
Instead,
they
are
getting
them
to
avoid
sales
taxes
and
emissions
rules
in
California
and
other
states.
This
was
typically
done
by
forming
a
Montana
limited
liability
company
(LLC)
wholly
owned
by
a
California
resident
which
would
then
purchase
the
car.
The
LLC
would
then
register
the
car
in
Montana.

The
California
Department
of
Tax
and
Fee
Administration
(CDTFA),
the
agency
responsible
for
collecting
sales
taxes,
has

announced
that,
in
conjunction
with
the
DMV,
they
will
be
cracking
down
on
auto
dealers
who
help
buyers
living
in
California
obtain
Montana
license
plates.

Also,
the
New
York
Times
has

reported
that
California
has
charged
14
people
with
tax
evasion
connected
to
obtaining
Montana
license
plates
for
the
sole
purpose
of
not
paying
California
taxes.

Looking
at
social
media
posts
responding
to
the
article,
the
responses
fall
mainly
into
two
factions.
The
first
group
has
no
sympathy
for
tax
cheats.
The
second
group
of
people
think
the
tax
is
excessive.
The
confusing
part
about
the
latter
group
is
that
many
of
them
paid
thousands
in
sales
taxes
for
their
daily
drivers,
yet
advocate
for
supercar
owners
who
could
probably
afford
to
pay
the
sales
tax
on
their
million-dollar
hypercars.
And
there
are
also
a
few
people
who
are
temporary
residents
such
as
military
or
students.

While
average
people
might
scoff
at
these
elite-world
problems,
registering
an
exotic
car
in
California
is
sometimes
difficult
to
the
point
where
most
people
will
just
take
their
chances
with
a
Montana
license
plate.

California
has
some
of
the
highest
sales
taxes
in
the
nation,
with
most
major
cities
charging
10%
on
average.

There
is
a
legal
way
to
avoid
the
sales
tax
or
use
tax.
A
car
is
not
subject
to
California
use
tax
if
the
car
was
physically
out
of
state
for
the
first
12
months
of
ownership.
Most
megawealthy
car
collectors
will
take
advantage
of
this
by
simply
keeping
the
car
out
of
California
for
the
requisite
period.
It
is
easy
for
them
because
they
don’t
need
to
flex
their
12th
Bugatti
or
LaFerrari
in
Santa
Monica
or
Beverly
Hills.
It
is
cheaper
for
them
to
transport
the
cars
to
a
concourse
show
in
another
state.

But
those
who
toiled
and
saved
to
purchase
a
salvage
title
Ferrari
Mondial
or
got
it
on
a
12-year
payment
plan
at
12%
interest
need
to
post
a
video
of
them
driving
it
out
of
the
lot
while
tagging
#Ferrari
and
#GlorytoGod.
And
these
people
will
go
to
car
shows
posting
their
social
media
handles
for
all
to
see,
including
tax
investigators.
These
social
media
posts
will
be
used
as
evidence
of
physical
presence.

The
other
problem
when
it
comes
to
registering
cars
in
California
is
its
strict
emissions
rules.
In
the
past,
California
had
huge
amounts
of
smog.
Those
who
grew
up
in
the
1950s
and
1960s
would
remember
their
eyes
burning
when
they
went
outside
because
of
the
smog.
In
response,
California
established
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
(CARB)
which
later
implemented
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act.
The
state
enacted
laws
that
required
cars
to
have
catalytic
converters
and
perform
regular
smog
tests.
This
dramatically
reduced
smog
emissions
in
California.

Recently,
auto
enthusiasts
have
claimed
that
CARB
has
gone
too
far
with
their
regulations.
In
2021,
CARB

ruled
that
any
car
that
has
a
modified
Electronic
Control
Unit
(ECU)
will
automatically
fail
a
smog
check
unless
the
modification
is
approved
by
CARB.
The
problem
is
that
getting
this
approval
(known
as
an

Executive
Order)
is
very
difficult
to
get
and
is
near
impossible
for
your
DIY
hobbyist.
This
rule
came
in
response
to
people
driving
diesel
trucks
modifying
their
engines
to
blow
black
smoke
in
the
air
—
commonly
known
as
“rolling
coal.”
But
the
rule
effectively
made
it
difficult
or
even
impossible
to
tune
cars.

Another
regulation
problem
involving
CARB
is
its
treatment
of
imported
vehicles,
called
Direct
Import
vehicles
in
California.
These
are
cars
made
overseas
but
not
sold
in
the
U.S.
This
includes
cars
like
the

Audi
RS
4
Avant
Station
Wagon,
the

E36
European-spec
BMW
M3
with
320
horsepower,
small
Japanese
kei-cars
such
as
the
Honda
Beat
and
Suzuki
Cappuccino,
and
the
Nissan
Skyline.
It
is
not
enough
for
the
car
to
be
over
25
years
old
which
makes
the
car
legally
importable
into
the
U.S.
In
California,
it
must
go
through
its
own
compliance
and
modification
process.

The
process
is
intensive.
It
requires
a
CARB-approved
modifier,
such
as
equipping
special
catalytic
converters,
and
oxygen
sensors,
to
name
a
few.
Once
the
requisite
modifications
are
done,
it
is
taken
to
a
CARB
lab
for
emissions
testing.
If
it
fails,
then
it
is
back
to
the
drawing
board,
where
more
modifications
are
done.
Finally,
once
it
passes
the
CARB
lab
test,
it
is
taken
to
a
Bureau
of
Automotive
Repair
(BAR)
referee
for
inspection.
Once
the
referee
approves,
it
will
receive
a
BAR
sticker
and
then
the
car
can
finally
be
registered
in
California.

The
compliance
process
mentioned
above
can
take
months.
There
have
been
reports
that
it
can
take
up
to
six
months.
Usually
the
process
will
take
less
time
if
the
car
is
fully
stock
with
no
modifications.

Unsurprisingly,
the
process
is
expensive.
Smaller
cars
are
charged
a
few
thousand
dollars
while
high-end
cars
can
be
charged
up
to
$15,000.
Also,
only
one
company
in
California
has
the
credentials
to
do
this,
which
pretty
much
creates
a
consumer-unfriendly
monopoly.

Given
the
time
and
money
required
to
make
the
car
emissions
compliant
in
California,
with
fees
high
enough
to
buy
a
used
car
in
some
cases,
many
people
will
just
take
the
risk
and
cut
corners.

We
will
see
whether
California
is
serious
about
going
after
people
using
Montana
plates.
But
CARB
also
needs
to
make
their
compliance
rules
easier
and
cheaper
so
people
will
not
need
to
turn
to
Montana
plates.
If
there
is
interest,
I
will
write
a
follow-up
column
on
how
CARB
can
make
it
easier
for
imported
cars
to
be
in
smog
compliance
and
how
states
can
step
up
their
game
to
go
after
tax
cheats.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

It’s
tough
to
be
a
law
firm
managing
partner
in
the
age
of
AI.
So
many
choices,
so
little
time.
It’s
like
the
proverbial
kid
in
the
candy
store
who
has
so
many
choices
that
they
either
can’t
pick
out
anything
or
reach
for
too
much.
We
see
evidence
of
the
first
option
in
8am’s
recent
outstanding

Legal
Industry
Report,
authored
by

Niki
Black.

8am’s
Legal
Industry
Report

One
thing
that
stood
out
in
the
report
was
the
discrepancy
between
use
of
AI
by
individual
legal
professionals
and
what
firms
are
doing
when
it
comes
to
AI
adoption
and
guidance. 
Almost
75%
of
those
who
responded
said
they
were
using
general
purpose
AI
tools
like
ChatGPT
and
Claude
for
work
purposes.
That’s
pretty
significant.

But
43%
say
their
firms
have
no
policy
for
the
use
of
these
AI
tools.
Only
9%
have
current
guidelines
in
place.
Seventy-one
percent
say
their
firms
have
no
current
training
on
the
responsible
use
of
AI.
Only
54%
say
their
firms
have
adopted
legal
specific
AI
tools.
I
know.
It’s
all
too
easy
to
do
nothing
and
stick
your
head
in
the
sand.

Importantly,
the
study
included
responses
from
over
1,300
legal
professionals
of
whom
45%
were
solo
practitioners
who
are
self-governed
and
trained.

But
There
May
be
More
to
the
Story

But
there
could
be
something
else
at
work.
Firms
are
currently
faced
with
a
myriad
of
AI
choices.
Just
walking
the
exhibit
hall
at

Legalweek,
I
noticed
just
about
every
vendor
was
offering
some
kind
of
AI
tool.
How
do
firms
know
which
one
is
the
best
for
their
client
mix?
And
for
that
matter,
is
a
single
tool
best
for
every
practice
group?
Or
for
every
lawyer?
The
fact
is,
they
are
not.
That
means
firms
must
either
make
some
hard
choices
(never
easy
in
a
consensus
decision-making
organization)
or
buy
a
multitude
of
tools.

Or
throw
up
their
hands
and
do
nothing,
letting
individual
lawyers
decide
for
themselves,
which
drives
them
to
the
more
public
models
like
ChatGPT,
Claude,
or
Gemini. 
Which
could
in
part
explain
the
8am
findings.
It’s
hard
and
time
consuming
for
law
firms
to
drink
from
the
firehose
of
AI
information
and
determine
what
is
best
for
all
their
legal
professionals
and
lines
of
business.
So,
they
just
ignore
the
issue
altogether.

But
having
no
guidelines
or
training
risks
all
kinds
of
problems
as
we
well
know.
Firms
have
to
recognize
lawyers
are
using
the
general
tools
and
take
steps
to
be
sure
it’s
done
responsibly.

The
Hodge-Podge
Solution

The
other
option
to
which
some
firms
resort
is
overcorrection
and
try
to
do
too
much.
These
firms
turn
to
a
variety
of
AI
tools
and
experiment
with
AI
across
practice
groups
and
lines
of
business.
Driven
in
part
by
FOMO,
firms
are
purchasing
pilots
and
letting
lawyers
play
with
them.
When
it
doesn’t
suit
all,
they
go
to
the
next
one
and
on
and
on.

They
don’t
think
through
what
work
or
problems
they
need
the
AI
tools
to
do
and
solve.
They
don’t
take
time
to
look
at
workflows
and
what
lawyers
need
to
practice
day
to
day.
It’s
a
hodge-podge
solution.

But
that
too
carries
risks.
I
recently
ran
across
an

article
in
Artificial
Lawyer
by

Ben
Nicholson,
the
General
Manager
of
Clio’s
UK
Enterprise.
The
thrust
of
the
article
was
that
firms
employ
various
systems
to
do
various
tasks
but
that
switching
between
them
costs
time
and
energy.
As
Nicholson
puts
it,
“Fee
earners
jump
between
systems
that
were
never
designed
to
operate
as
one
environment:
time
in
one
place,
documents
in
another,
client
and
matter
data
somewhere
else
again.”
And
when
it
comes
to
AI
adoption,
all
too
often
matters
are
not
defined
correctly,
workflows
vary
by
team
and
location,
so
outputs
drift.
And
as
a
result,
workers
get
frustrated.

I
hearken
back
to
my
days
practicing.
All
too
often,
the
clunkiness
of
the
various
systems
with
which
I
had
to
work
resulted
in
me
just
going
outside
firm
software
to
Google,
Dropbo,x
and
other
tools
that
just
worked.
(I
hope
our
IT
Director
doesn’t
read
this.)
The
problem
was
I
was
busy
and
didn’t
have
time
or
energy
to
figure
out
how
to
use
other
tools.

If
a
firm’s
internally
adopted
AI
tool
is
clunky
or
doesn’t
work
well
with
other
systems,
then
lawyers
are
going
to
flock
to
the
easy-to-use
private
systems,
particularly
since
they
are
already
using
and
familiar 
with
them.
They
don’t
cost
much
and
they
are
easy
to
work
with.
Secondly,
if
a
firm
has
multiple
internal
systems,
finding
the
best
one
to
use
for
various
tasks
also
takes
time
and
energy.
If
not
done,
or
not
done
correctly,
it
will
also
lead
lawyers
to
the
public
systems.

What
Does
This
Tell
Us?

First
and
foremost,
firms
need
to
recognize
lawyers
are
going
to
use
and
are
using
the
publicly
available
systems.
It’s
a
fact
of
life.
And
for
some
things,
let’s
face
it,
that
makes
sense.
So,
trying
to
stop
them
from
using
these
tools
is
futile
and
counterproductive.

Moreover,
creating
rules
that
aren’t
grounded
in
reality
breeds
disrespect
and
risks
those
affected
will
conclude
all
the
rules
are
rules
for
the
sake
of
rules.
The
result
is
they
simply
ignore
the
lot
of
them.

All
of
which
means
whatever
firms
decide,
at
the
very
least
they
need
to
double
down
on
training
and
making
sure
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
know
when
to
use
and
perhaps
more
importantly
when
not
to
use
these
systems.
Realistic
guidelines
are
important,
even
if
a
firm
does
not
adopt
an
AI
tool
across
the
board.
Even
solos,
for
whom
the
notion
of
formal
guidelines
seems
silly,
still
need
to
investigate
and
understand
the
AI
systems.

Relatedly,
law
firms
need
to
recognize
that
these
systems
are
getting
better
and
can
do
more
of
the
work
lawyers
need.
That’s
not
going
to
change
in
the
future
so
what
is
imposed
today
may
make
little
sense
tomorrow.

Firms
need
to
recognize
that,
if
they
do
decide
to
adopt
internal
systems,
those
systems
need
to
be
intuitive
and
easy
to
use.
They
need
to
help
lawyers
do
their
specialized
work
—
what
a
litigator
needs
from
an
AI
system
is
far
different
than
what
a
trusts
and
estate
lawyer
needs.
So,
purchasing
decisions
need
to
be
made
with
this
in
mind.
For
some
firms,
one
system
is
fine.
For
others,
various
systems
may
be
necessary.
But
decisions
require
careful
analysis
of
the
workflows
and
what
the
tools
can
do
second.

Finally,
firms
need
to
be
wary
of
the
AI
(and
other
technology)
creep.
Trying
to
house
too
many
systems
and
have
them
work
together
can
produce
the
unintended
result
of
lawyers
not
using
any
of
them
and
turning
to
the
public,
low-cost
tools
for
things
that,
for
now,
they
shouldn’t
be.

Bottom
line,
firms
need
to
recognize
reality,
define
what
their
legal
professionals
need,
and
then
determine
how
to
adopt
and
govern
the
use
of
AI
tools.
Neither
doing
nothing
nor
buying
multiple
AI
platforms
is
the
solution.
Spending
the
time
to
study
and
investigate
the
problems
and
the
solution
on
an
ongoing
basis
is.
So,
managing
partners,
roll
up
your
sleeves
and
do
the
hard
work.

---

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.

Remember
when
the
Epstein
files
were

sitting
on
Pam
Bondi’s
desk
right
now
and
would
be
imminently
released
in
the
crowning
achievement
of
the
new,
most
transparent
DOJ
in
history?
Multiple
delays,
legislative
action,
DOJ
flouting
of
that
same
legislative
action,
and
then
half-assed
compliance
later,
the
Justice
Department
has
kept
millions
of
pages
hidden
and
moved
the
most
damning
possible
witness
to
a
cushy
resort
prison
which
was

totally
not
a
quid
pro
quo
to
keep
her
silent.
So
it
won’t
surprise
you
at
all
to
learn
that
the
Deputy
Attorney
General
himself
seems
to
have
just
intervened
to
block
another
document
from
reaching
lawmakers.

Man,
can
you
imagine
giving
up
a
Biglaw
partnership
to
run
interference
for
a
dead
pedophile?
Or,
you
know,
that
dead
pedophile’s
buddy.

Senator
Ron
Wyden
sent
a
letter
to
Blanche
on
Tuesday,

as
reported
by
Bloomberg,
asking
why
the
DOJ’s
number
2
felt
the
need
to
personally
block
the
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
from
releasing
an
unredacted
69-page
document
about
a
2015
investigation
of
Epstein
—
and,
likely
more
to
the
point,

associates
of
Epstein’s
—
for
drug
trafficking
and
money
laundering.

According
to

Wyden’s
letter,
when
the
Finance
Committee
sought
an
unredacted
copy
from
the
DEA,
the
agency
indicated
that
it
would
hand
it
over.
Then
the
DEA
—
at
the
behest
of
Blanche,
according
to
a
confidential
tip
received
by
Wyden’s
office
—
changed
its
mind
and
the
request
for
basic
transparency
about
an
11-year-old
investigation
pulled
an
Epstein
and
died
under
suspicious
circumstances.

The
unredacted
version
of
this
document
is
not
even
arguably
classified
—
it’s
stamped
“unclassified”
on
top
of

every
single
page
—
and
falls
squarely
within
the
mandate
of
the
Epstein
Files
Transparency
Act.

Wyden’s
letter
doesn’t
mince
words
about
what
we’re
looking
at:

By
withholding
this
unclassified
document
from
the
U.S.
Congress,
you
are
covering
up
for
pedophiles
and
obstructing
my
investigation
into
the
financing
of
Epstein’s
criminal
sex
trafficking
organization.

The
heavily
redacted
document
released
back
in
January
revealed
enough
to
know
that
the
DEA
had
investigated
Epstein
and
his
chums
for
involvement
in
drug
trafficking,
money
laundering,
and
prostitution
with
a
healthy
dose
of
organized
crime
connections.
An
informant
told
authorities
that
Epstein
was
involved
in
funding
and
distributing
ecstasy,
ketamine,
and
meth.

Nobody
was
ever
charged.

Yesterday,
Blanche
went
on
social
media

to
badmouth
a
federal
judge
for
“refusing
to
follow
the
law”
when
the
judge
dutifully
applied
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
to
block
RFK
Jr.’s
brain
worm
from
arbitrarily
rewriting
the
approved
childhood
vaccine
schedule
based
on
vibes.
A
curious
accusation
for
Blanche
to
make
while
he
tries
to
cover
up
for
a
bunch
of
pedophiles
in
an
explicit
violation
of
a
bipartisan
statute.

The
identities
of
the
other
targets
in
the
redacted
document
are
blacked
out.
The
Epstein
Files
Transparency
Act
allows
redactions
to
protect

victims
—
but
not
so
much
the
perpetrators.
As
much
as
Donald
Trump
might
see
himself
as
the
REAL
victim
here,
even
the
Federalist
Society’s
most
committed
textualists
would
struggle
to
find
that
reading.

You
almost
have
to
appreciate
Blanche
embracing
a
personal
touch
in
keeping
Epstein’s
pedophile
ring
covered
up.
In
a
world
of
delegation,
Blanche
keeps
rolling
up
his
sleeves
whenever
it
comes
to
a
sex
crime
case
involving
a
guy
who
died
seven
years
ago.
Normally,
the
Deputy
Attorney
General
handles
high
level
management,
but
Blanche
is
flying
to
prisons
to
have
chit
chats
with
convicts.

As
Wyden
points
out
to
Blanche:

Your
alleged
interference
in
this
matter
is
highly
disturbing,
not
just
because
it
continues
the
DOJ’s
long-running
obstruction
of
my
investigation,
but
also
because
of
your
bizarrely
favorable
treatment
of
Ghislaine
Maxwell,
one
of
Epstein’s
closest
criminal
associates.
I
should
not
have
to
explain
the
significance
of
the
fact
that
Epstein
was
a
target
of
an
OCDETF
task
force
investigation.
It
suggests
the
government
had
ample
evidence
indicating
he
was
engaged
in
large
scale
drug
trafficking
and
prostitution
as
part
of
cross-border
criminal
conspiracy
and
that
Epstein
was
likely
pumping
his
victims,
including
underage
girls,
with
incapacitating
drugs
to
facilitate
abuse.
I
am
at
a
loss
to
understand
why
you
are
blocking
further
investigation
of
this
matter.

Are
you
at
a
loss,
though?
I
think
most
of
us
have
connected
the
dots
on
this
one.

Meanwhile,
Senator
Sheldon
Whitehouse
is
separately
pressing
the
DOJ
on
a

different
Organized
Crime
Drug
Enforcement
Task
Forces
operation
called
“Trip
Knot,”
also
tied
to
Epstein-linked
money
laundering
and
trafficking
networks.
That’s
right
—
there
are
MULTIPLE
organized
crime
task
force
investigations
into
Epstein
that
the
DOJ
is
sitting
on!

Whitehouse
sent
his
letter
to
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi,
FBI
Director
Kash
Patel,
and
DEA
administrator
Terry
Cole.

Probably
should’ve
written
Blanche
directly…
he
seems
to
be
on
top
of
all
this
Epstein
stuff.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.

There
was
no
bravery
in
me
seeking
help.
I
was
completely
broken.
I
didn’t
think
‘oh
today
I
need
to
go
get
some
support
for
this’,
I
was
literally
broken.

— Chris
Parsons,
an
HSF
Kramer partner
who
serves
as
chair
of
the
firm’s
India
practice,
in
comments
given
to

Law.com
International,
concerning
his
struggles
with
mental
health
issues
throughout
his
decades-long
career
at
the
firm.
“While
there’s
no
doubt
that
the
stigma
has
reduced,
there’s
still
stigma
there,”
he
said.
“For
me,
knowing
that
the
firm
is
understanding
and
is
giving
me
space
and
time
has
been
the
thing
that
I’ve
found
most
helpful
in
getting
better.”

---

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.