Category: News Feeds

The
mounting
conversations
around
compounded
GLP-1
medications
aren’t
just
about
science
or
safety.
Rather,
lawsuits
and
corporate
power
plays
have
had
massive
influence
on
how
these
drugs
are
being
perceived
and
doctors’
ability
to
make
the
best
treatment
decisions
for
their
patients.
Most
recently,
Eli
Lilly
issued
a

lawsuit
against
Mochi
Health,
the
physician-led
obesity
care
platform
I
founded,
challenging
our
use
of
compounded
tirzepatide
formulations.

While
misinformation
around
compounding
is
nothing
new,
the
lawsuit
has
spurred
a
new
cycle
of
discussion
around
safety,
regulation,
and
the
right
of
physicians
to
prescribe
personalized,
affordable
care.
But
here’s
what’s
getting
lost
in
the
noise:
not
every
patient
fits
into
a
one-size-fits-all
box.
They
may
need
a
lower
dose,
a
different
delivery
method,
or
a
formulation
that
avoids
allergens
or
side
effects.

The
bottom
line?
Compounded
medication
is
what
makes
this
kind
of
ultra-personalized,
patient-first
treatment
possible
—
and
more
affordable.
So,
as
the
healthcare
industry
watches
this
case
unfold,
we
have
to
ask
—
are
we
really
protecting
patients
here,
or
protecting
profits?

As
the
CEO
of
Mochi
Health,
I
want
to
clear
up
the
confusion
around
what
compounding
actually
means,
why
the
impact
of
this
lawsuit
stretched
far
beyond
our
company,
and
why
protecting
safe,
customized
care
for
patients
should
be
the
real
priority.

Compounding
is
the
original
personalized
medicine

Compounded
medications
exist
because
not
every
patient
can
safely
take
a
drug
in
its
commercial
form.
The
future
of
medicine
will
be
personalized,
taking
patients’
specific
medical
history
into
account
when
prescribing
care. 

Hand-tailored
treatment
plans
are
especially
crucial
for
issues
as
nuanced
as
obesity,
which
is
often
tied
to
a
number
of
other
medical
conditions
and
considerations.
For
example,
some
patients
are
treated
for
obesity
in
tandem
with
PCOS,
requiring
specific
doses
or
additives.
Others
suffering
from
vicious
side
effects,
such
as
nausea
or
vomiting,
may
require
vitamin
supplements
to
reduce
their
discomfort.
And
those
with
aversions
to
needles
have
the
option
to
opt
for
oral
medication.

The
FDA
recognizes
this
and,
under
Sections
503A
and
503B,
compounding
is
explicitly
legal
and
essential.
These
aren’t
loopholes
—
they’re
part
of
a
system
designed
to
make
sure
people
get
the
care
they
need
when
standard
drug
options
fall
short.

Millions
of
Americans
depend
on
compounded
medicine
every
day
—
in
cancer
care,
dermatology,
pediatrics,
women’s
health.
GLP-1s
are
simply
the
latest
example.
Yet
this
trusted,
necessary
practice
is
suddenly
being
dragged
into
court.

Eli
Lilly’s
lawsuit
attempts
to
blur
the
lines
between
clinical
care
and
commercial
strategy

Mochi
Health
was
named
in
Eli
Lilly’s
recent
lawsuit
targeting
providers
and
pharmacies
that
offer
compounded
tirzepatide.

Let’s
be
clear
about
what
we
do.
Mochi
doesn’t
make
or
sell
compounded
medications.
We’re
a
physician-led
medical
practice
focused
on
offering
patients
personalized,
evidence-based
care.
We
prescribe
these
medications
only
when
they’re
appropriate
for
a
patient’s
specific
needs
and
legally
allowed.

This
lawsuit
is
about
control
—
who
gets
to
decide
how
patients
receive
care.
At
stake
is
the
ability
of
doctors
to
make
the
right
call
for
their
patients
when
off-the-shelf,
branded
drugs
are
not
the
right
fit.
Safety
is
always
part
of
the
conversation
—
which
is
something
Mochi
takes
seriously.

Compounded
GLP-1s
are
safe
when
properly
sourced
and
prescribed

At
Mochi,
we
only
work
with
licensed
and
accredited
503A
pharmacies
that
follow
strict
federal
and
state
guidelines.
Every
prescription
gets
reviewed
and
approved
by
a
board-certified
physician.

And
unlike
mass-produced
drugs,
compounded
medications
are
tested
for
potency
and
sterility
in
every
batch
before
they
ever
reach
a
patient.

Still,
there’s
a
lot
of
misinformation
out
there
—
which
can
make
patients
worry
unnecessarily.
As
healthcare
providers,
it’s
on
us
to
explain
the
difference
between
safe,
regulated
compounders
and
those
who
cut
corners.

But
safety
is
just
one
piece
of
the
puzzle.
The
other
—
and
often
overlooked
—
challenge
is
ensuring
that
these
treatments
remain
accessible
to
those
who
need
them
most.

The
industry
narrative
ignores
the
real
barrier:
Accessibility

There’s
no
denying
that
GLP-1
medications
are
game-changing
for
treating
obesity
and
related
chronic
conditions.
But
the
reality
is,
the
high
cost
of
branded
versions
puts
them
out
of
reach
for
too
many
Americans
—
especially
those
without
insurance
or
with
poor
coverage.

Pharmaceutical
companies
have
a
clear
financial
incentive
to
limit
compounded
alternatives.
But
keeping
patients
from
affordable
options
doesn’t
solve
the
healthcare
crisis
—
it
only
makes
it
worse.

Even
though
the
FDA
recently
removed
some
GLP-1
drugs
from
its
official
shortage
list,
compounded
versions
that
are
meaningfully
different
—
by
FDA
definition
—
remain
legal,
needed,
and
in
some
cases
the
best
choice
for
certain
patients.

And
that’s
why
this
lawsuit
isn’t
just
about
market
share.
It’s
about
whether
healthcare
stays
patient-first
—
or
profit-first.

This
isn’t
just
a
legal
fight
—
it’s
a
healthcare
equity
issue

Obesity
affects
more
than

40%
of
Americans.
It’s
a
complex,
chronic
disease
that
demands
more
than
blockbuster
drugs.
It
requires
new
models
of
care
that
are
affordable,
scalable,
and
led
by
clinicians
—
not
by
market
forces.

At
Mochi,
our
care
model
is
built
to
serve
real
people
with
real
needs
—
including
offering
compounded
medications
when
they
make
sense.
Our
physicians
don’t
prescribe
these
lightly
—
but
sometimes
they
are
the
right
option.
And
when
they
are,
patients
deserve
access
to
them
—
without
fear,
confusion,
or
unnecessary
barriers.

This
lawsuit
may
look
like
a
business
dispute
on
the
surface.
But
underneath,
it’s
about
something
much
more
important:
the
right
of
patients
to
receive
personalized,
affordable
care.

Life-changing
obesity
medications
shouldn’t
be
gatekept
by
lawsuits
or
profit
motives.
As
regulators,
providers,
and
industry
leaders
navigate
these
issues,
we
have
to
stay
focused
on
what
matters
most:
evidence,
ethics,
and
patients
—
not
patents.

The
future
of
chronic
disease
care—and
the
ability
for
patients
to
get
the
treatment
that’s
right
for
them
—
depends
on
it.

Author
bio:

Dr.
Myra
Ahmad,
founder
and
CEO
of

Mochi
Health,
is
dedicated
to
revolutionizing
obesity
care
by
providing
patients
with
accessible,
evidence-based
weight
management
programs.
Driven
to
minimize
healthcare
disparities
and
provider
biases,
she
champions
personalized,
holistic
care
that
empowers
patients.

Dr.
Ahmad
received
her
MD
from
the
University
of
Washington
School
of
Medicine,
and
has
held
research
positions
at
the
MIT
Koch
Institute
for
Integrative
Cancer
Research,
UCSF
Medical
Center,
and
University
of
California,
San
Francisco.

Photo:
Gearstd,
Getty
Images

*
Supreme
Court
allows
Trump
to
move
forward
with
plan
to
eliminate
the
Department
of
Education.
Why?
Well,
that
might
require
writing
an
opinion
and
they’re
not
going
to
do
something
like
that.
[One
First]

*
Plaintiff
side
firms
can
be
just
as
lucrative
for
associates
as
Biglaw…
and
people
are
just
now
figuring
that
out.
[Left
Side
of
the
V]

*
Government
argues
that
it
should
not
have
to
reveal
its
agency
reorganization
plans,
even
though
the
only
basis
for
last
week’s
Supreme
Court
order
was
that
the
government
had
to
reveal
its
plans
and
the
courts
can
evaluate
this
issue
then.
It’s
almost
as
though

one
justice
knew
this
was
all
a
lie.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Sixth
Circuit
nominee
confirmed.
[Law360]

*
Administration
installing
more
nationwide
abortion
advocates
in
key
positions.
Surely
nothing
to
worry
about
at
a
time
when
the
Supreme
Court
has
deferred
absolute
authority
to
the
executive.
[Balls
and
Strikes]

*
DOJ
announces
it’s
mainstreaming
the
theory
that
media
outlets
refusing
to
be
compelled
to
publish
misinformation
is
ACTUALLY
an
antitrust
violation.
[The
Verge]

*
A
look
at
Nevada’s
decision
to
reject
the
NextGen
bar
exam
and
what
comes
next.
[Law.com]

This
Former
Legal
Secretary’s
“I
Quit!”
Is
Still
Worth
Talking
About:
If
you
bring
your
home
life
to
work,
your
secretary
might
tell
your
spouse
you
were
cheating!
Kirkland
Questionnaire
Perks
Up
Ears:
Is
this
a
sign
of
attendance
policy
consequences
to
come?
Hey
Man,
Sorry
Would
Have
Sufficed!:
Apologizing
for
lazy
AI
citations
should
never
require
this
much
purple
prose.
States
Sue
Trump
Administration
So
Kids
Can
Attend
Summer
Programs:
Billions
of
dollars
earmarked
by
Congress
were
taken
away
from
children.
Midsize
Firm
Associate
Dies
In
Texas
Flood:
We
extend
our
condolences
to
her
family
and
friends.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
data
collected
by
Am
Law,
which
Biglaw
firm
hired
the
most
lateral
partners
from
a
single
firm
in
the
first
six
months
of
the
year?

Hint:
This
firm
picked
up
17
partners
(and
54
lawyers
total)
for
their
Paris
office.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

This
week,
Slate
is
featuring
ruminations
on
the
nature
of
revenge.
And
as
our
country
is
increasingly
run
by
the

petty
grievances
of
a
powerful
man,
it
feels
particularly
relevant.
Perusing
the
content,
I
was
struck
by
one

particular
tale
of
Biglaw
revenge.

Alison
Green
of


Ask
a
Manager
has
been
giving
out
workplace
advice
for
nearly
20
years.
For
her
contribution
for
the
revenge
compendium,
she
collected
the
best
stories
of
employee
revenge,
which
started
strong
with
this
Biglaw
story.

“A
legal
secretary
at
the
Big
Law
firm
I
worked
at
knew
she
was
going
to
be
fired,
so
the
day
before,
she
went
into
a
bunch
of
partners’
emails
and
sent
their
wives
evidence
of
infidelity,
printed
out
confidential
employee
evaluations
and
communications
about
bonuses/pay
and
left
them
in
everyone’s
desk,
and
then
cleaned
out
the
swag
closet
(company-branded
shirts/hats/bags
etc.)
and
dropped
several
thousand
dollars’
worth
of
merchandise
with
the
law
firm’s
name
and
logo
off
at
a
homeless
encampment.”

We
certainly
can’t
condone
the
questionably
legal
vengeance
in
this
anecdote.
But
there’s
a
lesson
in
the
narrative.
It’s
a
great
reminder
for
all
those
puffed
out
with
the
self-importance
of
their
elite
degrees
roaming
the
halls
of
Biglaw:
you’re
not
all
that.
It’s
often
the
staff
that
know
where
all
the
(figurative)
bodies
are
buried
and
treating
*all*
of
your
co-workers
with
respect
and
dignity
can
go
a
long
way.

---

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].

Big
changes
rarely
happen
quickly
at
Biglaw
firms.
Even
before
the
rank-and-file
associates
catch
wind
of
anything,
there’s
usually
much
discussion
and
analysis
going
on
at
the
management
level.
So
when
the
world’s
richest
law
firm,
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
made
a
change
to
standard
review
assessments,
it
got
tongues
wagging.

Kirkland
recently
sent
out
their
associate
review
questionnaires.
And
tipsters
at
the
firm
noticed
a
new
addition
to
this
year’s
form,
which
asked:

Work
Schedule:
As
a
reminder,
Firm
Policy
on
in-office
attendance
is
Tuesday
through
Thursday
each
week.
For
the
Associate
Review,
please
provide
a
general
description
concerning
your
in-office
attendance
during
the
past
review
period
so
that
the
Committee
can
consider
this
information
when
reviewing
any
in-office
data
reports
and
information.

Back
in
2022,
Kirkland
rolled
out
their

three
days-a-week
mandate,
but
in
2025,
more
and
more
firms
are
pushing
for
associates
to
be

in
the
office
four
or
even

five
days
a
week.
Now
that
the
firm
is
asking
questions
about
attendance,
tipsters
are
wondering
exactly
what
that
is
foreshadowing.
As
a
insider
told
Above
the
Law,
“For
the
first
time,
they
are
now
asking
about
in
office
attendance
which
seems
to
be
the
initial
step
to
demanding
more
in
office
attendance.”

But,
of
course,
this
could
be
a
prequel
to
something
even
more
punitive.
While
it’s
far
from
the
industry
norm,

several
firms
have

threatened
(or

even
gone
through
with)
docking
associate
bonuses
if
they
flout
the
in-office
requirements.

…Or
maybe
the
firm
is
just
trying
to
take
associates’
temperature
and
grab
data
on
how
the
policy
is
working
out.
That’s
a
pretty
Pollyanna
take,
but
it
COULD
be
true.

If
your
firm
makes
any
changes
to
their
office
attendance
plans
at
your
firm,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Office
Attendance”)
or
text
us
at
(646)
820-8477.
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
a
memo
(if
one
exists)
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
If
a
memo
has
been
circulated,
please
be
sure
to
include
it
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.
Thanks.

---

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].

Harvard
isn’t
the
only
school
worried
that
the
Trump
administration
will
screw
over
their
funding.
Public
schools
get
their
fair
share
of
funding
from
the
government
too
—
at
least
they
should.
On
Monday,
several
states
filed
suit
to
challenge
the
Trump
administration’s
decision
to
withhold
$6.8B
worth
of
Congressionally
approved
funding
meant
for
K-12
schools.

Reuters
has
coverage:

Attorneys
general
or
governors
from
24
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
sued
in
federal
court
in
Providence,
Rhode
Island,
arguing
that
the
U.S.
Department
of
Education
and
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
threw
schools
nationwide
into
chaos
by
unconstitutionally
freezing
funding
for
six
programs
approved
by
Congress…The
government
was
legally
required
to
release
the
money
to
the
states
by
July
1,
the
lawsuit
said.
Instead,
the
Education
Department
notified
states
on
June
30
that
it
would
not
be
issuing
grant
awards
under
those
programs
by
that
deadline.
It
cited
the
change
in
administration
as
its
reason.

If
you’re
gonna
usurp
Congress’s
power
over
the
purse,
doing
it
to
prevent
educating
children
has
to
be
one
of
the
worst
ways
to
go
about
doing
it.
Playing
the
“Will
I,
Won’t
I”
game
with
tariffs
is
terrible
for
the
supply
chain,
but
at
least
the
consequences
fall
most
obviously
on
business
owners
and
adults.
Disrupted
funding
has
lead
to
summer
school
and
summer
camp
cancellations.
Is
making
sure
little
Timmy
can’t
afford
to
go
to
summer
camp
really
worth
owning
the
libs?

The
good
news
is
that
the
law
seems
to
be
on
the
suing
states’
side.
Given
the
gut-check
Constitutional
wrongfulness
of
withholding
the
funds,
the
administration
has
a
steep
climb
ahead.
Unless
they
get
some
judge
like
James
Ho
who
sees
this
as
an
opportunity
to
prove
fealty
to
the
King.
Let’s
hope
the
funding
comes
through
for
the
teachers’
sake
—

it’s
hard
enough
for
them
to
provide
for
their
classrooms
as
is.

Trump
Sued
By
US
States
Over
Withholding
$6.8
Billion
For
Schools
[Reuters]

---

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.

[The
Trump
administration]
seems
to
have
a
little
bit
of
an
ax
to
grind
with
[Biglaw].
For
us,
it’s
been
trying
to
stay
clear
of
the
kinds
of
events
that
have
triggered
some
of
the
actions,
because
I
don’t
think
anything
good
comes
out
of
either
negotiating
a
deal
or
going
to
court
over
an
executive
order.

We’re
a
little
careful
with
executive
orders,
depending
on
what
it
is.
I
don’t
think
it’s
a
secret
that
the
strategy
that
the
president
has
deployed
has
been
pretty
effective:
Law
firms
are
thinking
twice
now.

—

John
Van
Gorp,
chair
of
Mayer
Brown,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
concerning
Donald
Trump’s

retaliatory
executive
orders
against
Biglaw
firms.
“We’re
still
focused
on
the
rule
of
law,”
Van
Gorp
went
on
to
say,
continuing,
“We’re
still
here
to
do
work
for
people
who
can’t
afford
legal
services.
But
we
also
want
to
be
sensitive
to
what
we’re
taking
on.”

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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.

It’s
a
day
that
ends
in
“y”
so
we
have
another
story
about
a
lawyer
filing
fake
citations
with
a
court
after
Skynet
trolled
him
with
phony
research.
The

first
public
hallucination
humiliation
should’ve
nipped
this
in
the
bud
and
yet
—
somehow
—
the
problem
seems
to
be
accelerating.
The
latest
out
of
New
York
is,
in
a
lot
of
ways,
par
for
the
course.
Some
non-existent
case
citations
and
misattributed
quotations,
but
no
wrong
legal
theories.
And
the
lawyer
responded
swiftly
upon
learning
of
the
mistake.

We’ve
said
before
that
sanctions
need
to

keep
ratcheting
up
to
reflect
that
as
these
stories
become
more
pervasive,
lawyers
still
making
these
mistakes
are
running
out
of
excuses.
Still,
if
a
lawyer
responds
quickly
and
contritely,
they
can
enjoy
some
grace
if
only
to
draw
a
line
between
boneheaded
errors
and

doubling
down
and
citing
more
fake
cases
to
defend
the
first
set
of
fake
cases.

So
this
story
should
sit
comfortably
in
the
“oops,
my
bad”
category.
But
then
he
decided
to
write
his
apology
straight
out
of
the
deleted
scenes
from

Dead
Poets
Society:

My
professional
practice
has
always
been
guided
by
the
principle
that
legal
advocacy
is
not
mere
mechanical
execution,
but
a
craft
that
demands
the
gardener’s
touch—a
careful,
lasting
engagement
that
leaves
something
of
oneself
behind.
Each
citation,
each
argument,
each
procedural
decision
is
a
mark
upon
the
clay,
an
indelible
impression
that
may
one
day
be
studied,
critiqued,
or
serve
as
a
cautionary
tale.

My
eyes
rolled
so
hard
that
I’m
dizzy.
Come
on,
man!
The
profession
is
pretentious
enough
as
it
is
without
calling
every
citation
an
indelible
mark
upon
the
clay.

In
this
spirit,
I
recognize
that
the
work
we
do
as
advocates—our
filings,
our
citations,
our
choices—are
not
ephemeral.
They
endure,
shaping
the
legal
landscape
and,
in
their
own
way,
becoming
part
of
the
record
of
our
professional
lives.
My
aspiration
is
always
to
be
the
gardener,
not
the
lawn-cutter:
to
leave
a
mark
that
is
careful,
thoughtful,
and
lasting,
even
as
I
acknowledge
and
learn
from
my
errors.

Ephemeral?
You’re
not
a
goth
kid
trying
to
score
a
spot
in
the
8th
grade
literary
magazine
—
you
can
just
say
“sorry”
without
going
all
Albert
Camus.
There’s
a
reason
no
one’s
writing:
“Verily,
my
failure
to
comply
with
the
court’s
page
limit
has
left
me
in
a
state
of
deep
despondence
not
unlike
that
of
the
majestic
black
swan….”

Thankfully,
the
brief
gets
back
on
track
to
recount
the
steps
that
led
to
the
error,
noting
that
he
had
employed
cross-verification
tools
but
that
those
had
failed.
He
also
identifies
a
breakdown
in
the
legal
technology
landscape
itself:

The
primary
source
of
citation
inaccuracies
stems
from
database
migration
complications
wherein
(i)
many
problematic
citations
originated
from
research
conducted
in
December
2024
using
Casetext
with
CoCounsel,
(ii)
when
Casetext
was
subsequently
acquired
by
Thomson
Reuters
and
integrated
into
Westlaw,
I
discontinued
my
subscription
due
to
prohibitive
cost
constraints,
thereby
losing
verification
access
to
previously
compiled
authorities,
and
(iii)
this
technological
disruption
created
a
verification
gap
that
my
alternative
research
methods
failed
to
adequately
bridge.

There’s
a
lot
of
grumbling
out
there
about
Casetext’s
final
absorption
into
Thomson
Reuters.
Multiple
small
and
solo
lawyers
have
expressed
frustration
about
TR’s
pricing
structure
and
it
touches
on
access
to
justice
issues
if
legal
AI
becomes
a
force
multiplier
only
accessible
to
the
deepest
Biglaw
pockets.
On
the
other
hand,
AI
is
expensive
—
or
at
least
all
the
work
required
to
keep
the
product
from
hallucinating
up
fake
cases
is
expensive
—
and
companies
have
to
get
that
money
somewhere.
TR
paid
over
$600M
for
Casetext
and
they’re
going
to
have
to
get
that
money
back.

But
all
that
aside,
this
explanation
should
raise
red
flags
—
see
what
I
did
there
—
because
if
the
Casetext/TR
migration
issue
tripped
up
“Michelangelo
of
the
Motion”
over
here,
it’s
going
to
happen
to
someone
else
too.
Casetext
was
too
beloved
of
a
platform
for
this
to
be
an
isolated
situation.

Then
the
response
outlines
the
attorney’s
plans
for
the
future:

Note
how
there’s
a
plan
that
doesn’t
run
away
from
AI.
It’s
too
trite
and
almost
definitely
bad
policy
to
say,
“I
promise
I’ll
never
use
AI
again.”
It’s
basically
a
high
school
abstinence
pledge:
noble,
doomed,
and
going
to
involve
gratuitous
Bible
quotes.
That
analogy
might’ve
gotten
away
from
me,
but
I’m
sticking
by
it.
First
of
all,
it’s
a
lie
because
AI
will
weasel
its
way
into
everything
before
too
long
so
there’s
no
way
to
avoid
it.
And
second,
it’s
actually
a
useful
tool
as
long
as
lawyers
understand
what
it
can
and
can’t
accomplish.
The
legal
profession
is
going
to
use
AI…
figure
out
how
to
do
it
without
injecting
ethical
disasters
into
the
workflow.

Honestly,
attorneys
who
find
themselves
on
the
wrong
end
of
a
hallucination
matter
should
look
to
this
response
as
a
template.
Take
immediate
action,
apologize,
explain
the
problem
so
future
lawyers
know
exactly
what
happened,
and
proactively
forge
an
AI
plan
for
the
future.
The

substance
of
this
response
should
be
taught
in
CLEs.

OK,
maybe
don’t
follow
everything
from
this
template:

Your
Honor,
in
the
ancient
libraries
of
Ashurbanipal,
scribes
carried
their
stylus
as
both
tool
and
sacred
trust—understanding
that
every
mark
upon
clay
would
endure
long
beyond
their
mortal
span.
As
the
role
the
mark
(x)
in
Ezekiel
Chapter
9,
that
marked
the
foreheads
with
a

tav
(x)
of
blood
and
ink,
bear
the
same
solemn
recognition:
that
the
written
word
carries
power
to
preserve
or
condemn,
to
build
or
destroy,
and
leaves
an
indelible
mark
which
cannot
be
erased
but
should
be
withdrawn,
let
it
lead
other
to
think
these
citations
were
correct.

Oh
my
GOD,
STOP!
If
the
case
isn’t
about
repatriating
an
archaeological
find,
the
word
“Ashurbanipal”
should
not
be
in
the
brief.
It’s
a
court
filing,
not
lore
for
the
next

Assassin’s
Creed.

But
hey…
the
gratuitous
Biblical
citation
made
it
in
there!

(Full
brief
on
the
next
page…)

---

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.

Here’s
to
the
crazy
ones.
The
misfits.
The
rebels.
The
round
pegs
in
the
square
holes.
The
ones
who
see
things
differently.
–
Steve
Jobs,
Apple’s
“Think
Different”
1997
Ad

This
past
weekend,
the
ninth
annual
community
sponsored

MacStock
Conference
was
held
in
a
Chicago
suburb.
MacStock
is
a
grassroots
gathering
for Apple
enthusiasts.
While
it’s
not
a
legal
conference
per
se,
it
does
have
lots
of
content
relevant
to
lawyers
and
legal
professionals.

Thinking
Differently
About
AI

While
most
lawyers
think
of
AI
as
a
glorified
research
assistant,
a
presentation
at
this
year’s
conference
proved
that
we
may
be
missing
the
real
opportunity:
using
AI
as
a
creative
partner.

This
point
was
brought
home
in
a
Friday
presentation
by

Mike
Schmitz.
Schmitz
is
a
young,
bespectacled,
and
well-known
content
creator
and
productivity
expert.
His
talk
was
entitled

Think
Different:
Using
AI
as
Your
Creative
Copilot.

I
have
to
admit.
When
I
saw
the
title,
I
thought
great,
another
productivity
guru
is
going
to
tell
us
the
same
old
shit
about
AI,
efficiency,
automation,
and
cost
savings.

Indeed,
particularly
in
legal
circles,
AI
is
frequently
referred
to
as
a
“co-pilot,”
a
sort
of
virtual
assistant
whose
main
use
is
to
automate
certain
tasks
like
retrieving
information
and
summarizing
information.
It
can’t
be
used
for
more
sophisticated
stuff
because
it
hallucinates
and
gets
stuff
wrong.
In
addition,
without
appropriate
guidance,
AI
can
create
AI
slop,
material
that
anyone
with
half
a
brain
can
see
came
not
from
a
human
but
from
a
bot.
The
overall
result
is
a
belief
that
AI
can’t
be
used
to
augment
and
enhance
creativity.

But
when
Schmitz
took
the
stage
wearing
a
simple
black
T-shirt
that
said
“Create
Every
Day”
on
the
front
and
started
his
talk
by
showing
the
famous
Apple
“Think
Different”
commercial
from
1997,
I
suspected
this
was
indeed
going
to
be
different.

Schmitz’s
view
is
that
the
belief
that
AI
can
only
do
mundane
tasks
because
it’s
not
totally
reliable
is
myopic
and
limiting.
His
thesis
is
that
the
real
value
of
AI
is
in
fact
its
creative
power.
And
the
fact
that
it
gets
stuff
occasionally
wrong
ignores
that
producing
incorrect
options
is
really
part
of
the
creative
process.
Schmitz
believes
we
need
to
think
about
AI
use
more
broadly.
Differently:
just
as
Jobs
challenged
conventional
thinking
about
technology,
lawyers
need
to
fundamentally
rethink
their
relationship
with
AI.

Schmitz
told
us
we
should
be
thinking
about
AI
not
just
as
a
way
to
get
work
done
more
efficiently
or
to
automate
an
end
product
but
as
a
tool
to
produce
higher
quality
work.
AI
can,
in
fact,
give
us
superpowers
that
make
it
easier
to
crank
out
content
and
augment
our
creative
processes.

Using
AI
to
Enhance
Creativity

Schmitz
gave
several
ways
he
uses
AI
to
enhance
his
creative
process,
some
of
which
are
well
known
but
some
were
new,
at
least
to
me.
Here’s
a
list
of
his
suggestions
that
have
relevance
to
legal.

1.
Using
AI
to
generate
topic
ideas
and
content.
For
lawyers,
it
could
be
ideas
for
a
marketing
pitch,
a
blog
post,
a
motion,
or
a
strategy.
Schmitz
suggested
role
playing
with
an
AI
tool.
For
example,
making
it
play
the
role
of
a
potential
client
with
an
issue
and
then
asking
the
tool
what
questions
it
would
have
for
you
as
a
lawyer.

2.
Getting
suggestions
for
social
posts.
For
example,
if
you
want
to
get
your
name
out
as
having
a
certain
area
of
legal
expertise,
you
could
ask
for
help
with
social
posts
demonstrating
that
expertise.
Or
to
post
something
you
had
written.
Of
course,
you
need
to
tell
the
tool
who
your
audience
is
and
what
you
want
from
it.
When
I
thought
about
this
afterwards,
it
dawned
on
me
that
the
mere
thinking
through
who
my
audience
is
and
what
I
want
them
to
do
was
revealing.

3.
Arguing
with
AI.
One
intriguing
suggestion
is
to
actually
argue
with
AI.
Take
a
position
on
some
issue
and
ask
it
to
argue
with
the
validity
of
that
position.
You
could
then
debate
it
back
and
forth
to
flush
out
good
and
bad
arguments.
Great
idea
for
lawyers
and
legal
professionals.
In
fact,
I
tried
it
out
after
the
talk
and
used
it
to
draft
a
forthcoming
post.
(Stay
tuned.)

4.
Using
it
as
a
conversational
partner.
I
had
a
client
who
was
fond
of
saying
let’s
be
careful
that
we
do
not
end
up
in
the
closet
talking
to
ourselves
too
much.
Ideas
in
our
heads
often
need
to
be
said
out
loud
to
someone
who
can
kick
the
tires
and
make
us
think.
AI
can
play
that
role
when
the
senior
partner
isn’t
around.
ChatGPT
has
this
conversational
feature;
Schmitz
suggested
an
app
called

VoicePal.
I
tried
it
and
it
appears
much
more
robust
and
geared
toward
helping
create
content.

5.
Use
it
to
repurpose
material.
Often,
we
want
to
take
something
we
have
done
in
the
past
and
then
use
it
for
another
purpose.
I
do
this
fairly
often
and
dread
it.
AI
takes
away
a
pain
point.

6.
Using
it
to
prepare
for
anything.
You
can
prompt
the
tool
by
telling
it
something
like:
you
are
my
client
who
has
a
certain
kind
of
problem.
I
am
meeting
with
my
actual
client
for
the
first
time.
What
questions
will
they
ask
me?
Or
how
about
this:
I
am
meeting
a
potential
client
for
the
first
time,
or
my
client
is
being
deposed.
What
questions
will
they
ask
me
or
will
the
client
be
asked?
How
about
this
for
a
prompt:
I
am
going
to
MacStock
for
the
first
time
in
years.
I
am
a
lawyer
and
a
legal
tech
writer.
What
questions
will
many
of
the
attendees
ask
me
about
at
networking
events
once
I
tell
them
my
background?

Schmitz
also
suggested
using
AI
to
help
create
your
brand
(and
yes,
lawyers
need
to
brand
themselves)
and
somewhat
surprisingly
to
create
video
content.

The
Real
Point

Of
course,
all
of
these
ideas
are
just
starting
points.
Much
of
what
is
produced
in
the
use
of
the
tools
can
be
obvious,
off
target,
or
just
plain
wrong.
But
AI
is
a
way
to
jump
start
your
creative
process.
(When
I
asked
about
the
questions
I
might
be
asked
by
MacStock
attendees,
it
gave
me
most
of
what
I
would
expect.
It
did
give
me
one
I
didn’t
expect
and
was
actually
asked
in
a
podcast
interview
at
the
conference.)

And
that’s
the
point.
As
humans,
we
don’t
just
create
a
masterpiece
off
the
top
of
our
heads.
We
work
through
things.
We
try
stuff
out.
We
reject
parts
and
accept
parts.
AI
can
help.

Even
the
idea
that
AI
can
be
used
to
augment
and
enhance
the
creative
process
in
and
of
itself
can
force
us
to
be
more
creative
in
how
and
for
what
we
use
the
tool.

And
Those
Hallucinations?

And
oh
yeah,
those
hallucinations
that
everyone
fears
and
thinks
of
as
a
barrier?
To
Schmitz,
they
are
part
of
the
creative
process.
You
come
up
with
things
and
then
you
throw
out
the
ones
that
are
wrong
or
don’t
make
sense.
So,
let’s
start
thinking
of
AI
as
the
key
to
creative
content,
not
the
barrier.

Think
differently.

Here
is
a

link
to
the
materials
and
apps
Schmitz
referenced.

---

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.