Category: News Feeds

The U.S.
News
&
World
Report
law
school
rankings are
here,
and
let
us
be
one
of
the
first
to
say
that
lawyers
and
law
students
are
going
to
be
in
an
absolute
tizzy
over
the
state
of
the
T14.
This
edition
of
the
rankings
brings
us
an
historic
shakeup
at
the
very
top,
complete
with
a
brand-new
No.
1
for
the
first
time

ever.
If
you
thought
the
hierarchy
of
elite
law
schools
was
untouchable,
it’s
time
to
think
again.
What
on
earth
is
going
on
here?

Before
we
get
to
that,
here’s
the methodology for
the
latest
edition
of
the
rankings,
which
may
explain
some
of
the
wild
gains
and
losses
you’re
about
to
see:

Employment:
33% 
First-Time
Bar
Passage:
18% 
Ultimate
Bar
Passage:
7% 
Peer
Assessment:
12.5% 
Lawyer/Judge
Assessment:
12.5% 
LSAT/GRE:
5%
UGPA:
4%
Acceptance
Rate:
1%
Student-Faculty
Ratio:
5%
Library
Resources:
2%

Here
is
the
new-and-improved
T14,
featuring
some
pretty
major
moves:

Well,
it
finally
happened:
Yale
Law
School
is
no
longer
No.
1
in
the
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings.
Stanford
has
overtaken
Yale
to
become
the
best
law
school
in
the
nation,
with
the
former
leader
falling
to
No.
2
—
in
a
tie
with
Chicago,
no
less!
Yale
has
resided
in
the
No.
1
spot
since
the
inception
of
the
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings,
so
this
change
is
indeed historic.
So,
what
should
everyone
do?
Panic?
Mourn?
Shrug?
If
the
rankings
are
as
meaningless
as
some
claim,
this
shouldn’t
mean
anything,
but
if
it

does
mean
something,
then
welcome
back
to
caring
an
awful
lot
about
a
list
we
all
pretend
not
to
believe
in.

Getting
back
to
the
T14,
Harvard
remains
outside
of
the
Top
5,
Cornell
has
officially
returned
to
the
(bottom
of
the)
top,
and
now
we’ve
got
a
three-way
tie
at
No.
13.
This
time
around,
we’ve
got
15
schools
included
in
the
ranking
of
the
top
14
law
schools
in
the
nation.
Congratulations
to
Vanderbilt
and
Wash
U.
on
staying
among
the
top
schools,
and
a
fond
farewell
to
UC-Berkeley,
Georgetown,
and
UT-Austin.
Let’s
see
how
long
these
law
schools
will
be
able
to
retain
their
places
at
the
tippy
top
of
the
rankings.

Now,
let’s
take
a
gander
at
the
law
schools
outside
of
the
T14.
Like
years
past,
we’re
faced
with
yet
another
rankings
orgy,
with
nothing
but
ties,
ties,
and
more
ties.
There
are
five
ties
in
this
segment
of
the
rankings
alone
(three
ties
and
two
three-way
ties),
with
more
to
follow.
Here
are
the
schools
ranked
16–30:

The
biggest
winners
here
were
BC
(up
five
places,
and
into
the
Top
20)
and
BYU
(up
four
places,
and
into
the
Top
25).
The
biggest
loser
here
of
course
was
UC
Berkeley,
which
finds
itself
out
of
the
T14
for
the
first
time
since
the
90s.
Georgetown
has
once
again
been
evicted
from
the
top
law
schools
in
the
country,
while
UT-Austin
was
able
to
enjoy
a
brief
moment
in
the
sun.
Better
luck
next
year.

Now,
for
the
rest
of
the
law
schools
in
the
Top
50,
where
there
are
seven
ties
(noticing
a
trend
within
these
rankings
yet?).
As
you
can
see,
there
was
A
LOT
of
movement
here:

The
biggest
winners
here
were
Alabama
(+10),
Baylor
(+9),
and
Pepperdine
(+9).
The
biggest
loser
here
was
Utah
(-13).
Whatever
some
of
the
schools
here
are
doing,
they’d
better
shape
up,
because
some
have
almost
been
shipped
out
of
the
Top
50.

The
rest
of
the
rankings
are
available
on
the
next
page.

Pam
Bondi’s
Firing
Gets
The
SNL
Treatment:
The
Dow
won’t
stop
the
humor!
Who
Will
Replace
Bondi?:
Expect
to
see
more
of
Jeanine,
Alina,
and
Harmeet.
Georgetown
Law
Students
Aren’t
Looking
Forward
To
Graduation:
Hundreds
are
petitioning
the
school’s
proposed
changes.
More
Bar
Exam
Takers
Are
Getting
Extended
Time:
Is
it
because
of
increased
access
to
diagnoses
or
are
people
paying
for
more
time?
Have
Your
Sights
Set
On
Government
Work?:
These
are
the
schools
you
need
to
go
to!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

What
Disney
film
features
a
judge
as
the
primary
villain?

Hint:
Christopher
Lloyd
played
the
character
and
has
said
overtly
evil
characters,
like
this
one,
are
“fun
to
play.”
In
the
climax
of
the
film,
this
villain
is
revealed
to
have
previously
unknown
powers.

See the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Deepfakes:
they’re
real
and
coming
to
our
courtrooms.
And
they
are
going
to
change
how
we
do
things.
But
are
our
judges
and
us
trial
lawyers
prepared?

I
earlier
authored

an
article
raising
the
issue
whether
the
mushrooming
creation
of
deepfakes
would
jeopardize
our
judicial
and
litigation
system.
My
concern
and
that
of
others
is
that
the
increased
battles
over
what
digital
evidence
is
real
and
what
is
fake
would
embroil
our
system
in
endless
time-consuming
disputes
and
battles
of
experts.

And
that
by
virtue
of
being
exposed
over
and
over
to
AI-generated
fake
photos,
audio
recordings,
and
videos,
people
—
judges
and
juries
—
would
come
to
disbelieve
any
and
all
of
it.
It’s
known
as
the

liar’s
dividend,
a
phrase
coined
by
Robert
Chesney
and
Danielle
Citron
in
a
2019

law
review
article.

Both
have
enormous
repercussions
for
litigation
and
perhaps
more
significantly,
the
courtroom.
The
reliance
on
digital
materials
in
courtrooms
both
for
real
evidence
and
as
demonstrative
material
is
pretty
standard
today.
Indeed,
it’s
probably
expected.
But
what
happens
when
all
that
evidence
is
now
questioned
and
 fought
over?
At
the
very
least,
it
could
change
the
way
cases
are
tried.

The
Courts
and
Deepfakes

First,
courts
may
soon
come
to
insist
on
more
vigorous
authentication
as
a
matter
of
course.
The
proponent
of
a
photograph,
video,
or
audio
recording
must
offer
evidence
sufficient
to
support
a
finding
of
authenticity.
Typically,
this
means
the
following
questions
and
answers
of
a
witness:

Q:
Did
you
take
this
photo?

A:
Yes

Q:
Does
it
fairly
and
accurately
depict
what
you
saw
when
you
took
it?

A:
Yes

It’s
then
offered
for
admission.
There
is
almost
a
presumption
of
authenticity.

But
in
the
future,
that
may
not
be
enough
as
we
move
toward
a
spoken
or
unspoken
presumption
of
lack
of
authenticity.
This
means
that
those
offering
digital-type
evidence
will
have
to
do
much
more
to
convince
a
skeptical
judge
that
the
item
be
admitted
into
evidence.
Things
like
providing
the
underlying
meta
data,
testimony
on
how
the
image
was
created
and
“touched
up,”
requiring
a
showing
of
what
amounts
to
a
chain
of
custody
of
the
image
or
recording.
Perhaps
even
expert
testimony.
The
“sufficient
to
support”
standard
may
be
about
to
get
tougher.

Seeing
will
no
longer
be
believing;
seeing
will
require
verification.
All
of
which
is
going
to
gum
up
our
trials,
make
them
longer,
and
more
expensive.

Another
option
for
courts
may
be
the
greater
and
more
aggressive
use
of
concepts
like
those
set
out
in

Federal
Evidentiary
Rule
403.
This
Rule
allows
courts
to
exclude
evidence
the
probative
value
of
which
is
“substantially
outweighed”
by
the
risk
of
prejudice,
misleading
the
jury,
or
confusion.

This
rule
is
already
used
to
exclude
things
like
gruesome
photos
of
accident
victims.
Its
use
has
also
been
debated
in
situations
where
the
opportunity
to
use
immersive
evidence
such
as
that
which
could
be
viewed
on
a
Vision
Pro.

But
when
faced
with
digital
evidence,
the
authenticity
of
which
is
hotly
contested,
a
judge
could
very
well
conclude
that
the
risk
the
evidence
could
mislead
the
jury
into
thinking
some
is
real
when
there
is
a
good
chance
it
isn’t
(or
vice
versa).
And
that
risk
outweighs
its
probative
value.
The
result
of
course
is
less
digital
evidence
in
the
courtroom.

One
final
option
for
the
court:
just
let
the
jury
decide
if
the
digital
evidence
is
credible
and
real.
As
a
former
defense
lawyer,
I
shudder
at
the
thought
but
understand
the
logic.
If
digital
evidence
is
offered
and
I
oppose
it,
it’s
up
to
me
on
cross
examination
to
raise
doubts
about
credibility.
Of
course,
this
places
a
lot
of
responsibility
on
juries
to
understand
and
deal
with
technical
issues
but
it’s
an
easy
out
for
judges.

No
matter
which
way
courts
go,
the
risk
of
deepfakes
will
change
the
courtroom,
and
it
will
be
up
to
trial
lawyers
to
deal
with
it.

What
Does
It
Mean
for
the
Lawyer

Trial
lawyers
in
the
future
will
be
faced
with
greater
authenticity
scrutiny,
more
risk
of
exclusion
of
digital
evidence,
or
perhaps
being
forced
to
convince
a
jury
of
an
item’s
authenticity
or
lack
thereof.
All
the
while
facing
jurors
who
are
likely
to
believe
any
and
all
digital
evidence
is
not
real
and
will
therefore
disregard
it
anyway.
The
power
of
digital
evidence
then
actually
becomes
a
liability
instead
of
an
asset.
What’s
a
poor
lawyer
to
do?

First,
courtroom
lawyers
must
be
better
prepared
to
offer
stronger
proof
of
authenticity.
It
will
no
longer
be
the
standard
two
or
three
questions.
This
means
boning
up
on
deepfakes
and
how
to
combat
them.
It
means
mastering
the
technical
end
of
photos,
videos,
and
audio
recordings
and
being
able
to
explain
and
show
validity
in
simple
terms
a
jury
and
judge
can
understand.
It
means
explaining
creative
methods.
More
importantly,
it
means
offering
corroborating
proof
in
the
courtroom
of
what
the
digital
evidence
purports
to
show.

In
some
situations,
it
may
even
mean
electing
to
use
less
technology
and
digital
evidence,
not
more.
In
fact,
in
general,
varying
digital
evidence
with
more
analogue-type
evidence
every
now
and
then
is
a
good
idea
in
any
event.
It
keeps
the
jury’s
interest,
in
my
experience.

It
comes
down
to
preparation
and
understanding
of
the
risks
and
benefits
of
technology,
which
is
already
ethically
required.

Tomorrow’s
Trials:
We
Better
Be
Ready

There
can
be
little
doubt
that
authenticity
will
be
front
and
center
in
the
future.
There
will
be
some
tough
calls
that
need
to
be
made
by
judges,
juries,
and
lawyers.
It
will
mean
dealing
with
technical
issues
and
concepts
that
aren’t
clear
cut.
Tough
decisions
that
will
need
to
be
made
by
both
judges
and
juries.

As
with
most
technology,
the
key
will
be
to
understand
the
risks
of
deepfakes
and
be
ready
to
deal
with
it.
You
can’t
get
there
by
ignoring
reality.

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.

Suppose
Portugal,
instead
of
the
United
States,
did
it.

Suppose
Portugal
announced
that
it
wanted
France
to
be
its
newest
state.  

Governor
Macron,
and
all
that.

How
would
the
world
react?

Lunatic
at
the
helm,
maybe?

Suppose
Portugal
said
that
it
intended
to
take
over
Greenland
—
preferably
by
negotiation,
but
by
force,
if
necessary.

What
would
we
think
of
the
Portuguese
leader? Would
we
be coming
to
take
him
away,
ha-haaa?

Suppose
Portugal
imposed
ridiculously
high
tariffs
on
the
rest
of
the
world.

Portugal’s
economy
doesn’t
really
matter
in
the
scheme
of
things,
so
I
guess
the
rest
of
the
world
would
just
let
’em
do
it,
and
let
Portugal
suffer
the
consequences.

Suppose
Portugal
started
blowing
up
fishing
boats
off
the
coast
of
Great
Britain,
saying
that
the
boats
harbored
drug
smugglers,
and
Portugal
wasn’t
going
to
let
the
criminals
get
away
with
it
any
more.

Would
the
U.K.
sit
still?

Suppose
Portugal
launched
a
military
raid
to
capture
the
president
of
another
country.

Would
the
rest
of
the
world
tell
Portugal
not
to
do
such
things?

Suppose
the
president
of
Portugal
started
using
social
media
to
insult
foreign
leaders. Prime
Minister
Keir
Starmer
was
“no
Winston
Churchill,”
“spineless,”
“cowardly,”
and
“a
loser
who
has
no
future.” Sadiq
Khan was
a
“horrible,
vicious,
disgusting
mayor”
of
London. Suppose
the
Portuguese
president posted on
social
media
private
notes
that
Portugal
had
received
from
Emanuel
Macron
and
NATO
Secretary
Mark
Rutte,
publicly
embarrassing
the
notes’
authors. 

Would
the
U.K.,
France,
and
NATO
later
want
to
help
Portugal
if
it
had
a
moment
of
need?

Suppose
Portugal
started
a
war
in
Iran
without
consulting
its
allies
and
later,
after
the
Strait
of
Hormuz
was
closed
and
the
worldwide
price
of
oil
was
skyrocketing,
asked
other
countries
to
step
in
and
open
the
Strait.

Having
spent
the
previous
year
antagonizing
people
around
the
world,
do
you
suppose
Portugal
would
find
much
global
sympathy
or
support?

(Come
to
think
of
it,
suppose
the
president
of
Portugal
had
posted
on
social
media
that
Donald
Trump
was
a
convicted
felon
who
had
been
found
liable
for
sexual
assault
—
an
entirely
accurate
statement
—
and
later
asked
the
United
States
to
get
Portugal
out
of
a
jam. How
would
Donald
Trump
react?)

I
realize
of
course
that
the
United
States
is
rich
and
powerful,
and
the
American
economy
and
military
matter
more
to
the
world
than
the
Portuguese
ones. But,
on
a
personal
level,
do
people
react
differently
when
they’re
treated
poorly
by
the
leader
of
a
rich
and
powerful
country
than
when
they’re
treated
poorly
by
the
leader
of
a
less
rich
and
less
powerful
one?

Despite
all
that
Trump
has
done,
other
global
leaders
might
continue
to
treat
the
United
States
with
public
respect,
for
fear
of
the
consequences
if
they
do
otherwise.

But
you
can
bet
your
last
dollar
that
no
American
ally
now
feels
warmly
toward
the
United
States
or
is
inclined
to
do
the
U.S.
any
optional
favors.

America
has
gotten
away
with
having
a
clownish
buffoon
at
the
helm
because
America
is
the
most
powerful
country
on
earth.

But
the
guy
at
the
helm
is
still
a
clownish
buffoon,
and
everyone
else
in
the
world
knows
it.

Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

When
you
pay
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
go
to
law
school,
you
should
expect
to
be
confronted
with
questions
throughout
the
process.
There
are
the
obvious
“what
is
subject
matter
jurisdiction
again?”-esque
questions,
but
those
aren’t
the
ones
that
keep
you
up
at
night.
The
big
questions
tend
to
be
more
existential:
What’s
the
point
of
all
this?
Am
I
just
wasting
my
time?
Who
even
cares
if
I
finish
this
degree
or
not?
And
it
isn’t
just
you
wondering
those
things.
That
one
guy
who
bombed
his
cold
call
in
Crim
Law,
the
nerds
chasing
extracurricular
clout
on
trial
team,
they
want
to
have
a
moment
that
makes
it
plainly
obvious
that
their
hard
work
mattered
and
will
matter
to
others.
Graduation
ceremonies
can
offer
that
much-needed
confirmation.

You
probably
remember
bits
of
yours:
the
dean
or
your
favorite
professor
calling
your
name
on
stage
and
some
quirky
celebrity
they
managed
to
opine
about
how
bright
your
future
is.
But
the
part
that
mattered
the
most
for
many
were
the
people
in
the
audience.
Friends,
family,
the
support
system
that
got
you
to
this
part
of
the
rest
of
your
life.
And
they
travel
far
to
be
there.
My
mom
traveled
~800
miles
to
show
up
to
my
graduation
at
WashU,
but
that’s
a
short
walk
compared
to
the
international
flights
my
cohort
members’
families
flew
to
celebrate
all
of
their
hard
work.

Schools
tend
to
honor
the
importance
of
the
celebration.
This
year’s
class
of
graduating
Georgetown
students
were
looking
forward
to
their
Graduation
Gala
and
small
accessible
ceremonies
that
grouped
graduates
with
their
1L
sections.
But
this
year,
the
school
is
planning
major
cuts
to
the
program
and
the
students
are
understandably
pissed
off.

Georgetown
Voice
has
the
story:

In
the
weeks
leading
up
to
commencement,
what
should
feel
like
the
proud
finish
line
for
Georgetown
Law’s
Class
of
2026
has
felt
more
like
a
fight.

The
Law
Center
sent
out
an
email
announcing
changes
to
its
May
graduation
ceremony
on
Dec.
23,
2025,
which
involved
the
cancellation
of
small
cohort
ceremonies
on
the
Capitol
Campus.
The
beloved
Graduation
Gala
was
also
cancelled,
though
most
students
were
unaware
that
this
decision
occurred.
This
change
disrupted
months
of
planning
and,
for
many
students,
was
a
disappointment
after
years
of
anticipation.

In
response,
students
are
planning
to
boycott
the
ceremony
and
skip
it
all
together.
Met
with
that
reality,
the
dean
told
them
that
skipping
graduation
“would
be
a
shame
for
them,’
not
for
the
school,
for
them[.]”’

Way
to
cut
off
a
generation
of
potential
future
donors,
dean!

The
school
intends
to
have
the
graduation
ceremony
at
the
historic
Hilltop
Campus.
While
that
is
part
of
the
school’s
pre-COVID
tradition,
that
part
of
campus
is
less
accessible
than
other
parts
of
campus
that
could
host
the
ceremony
like
the
Eleanor
Holmes
Norton
Green
on
the
Capitol
Campus.
Ceremonies
were
held
there
as
part
of
a
temporary
change,
but
sometimes
the
new
thing
is
better
than
the
old
one.
And
considering
that
the
student
petition
against
the
announced
changes
has
about
800
student,
faculty,
and
familial
signatures,
the
university
could
have
done
a
better
job
of
incorporating
feedback.
Instead,
the
school
plans
to
go
with
an
outdoor,
5+
hour
ceremony
with
limited
shaded
seating
that
will
lump
everyone
together,
and
an
AI
program
that
will
read
out
the
graduates’
names.
And
the
Gala?
It
was
replaced
by
a
happy
hour
in
one
of
the
buildings
that
hosts
classes.
Students
should
be
able
to
expect
more
from

one
of
the
most
expensive
law
schools
in
the
nation.

You
can
read
a
student
voice
their
frustrations
in
their
own
words
on
the
next
page.

Georgetown
Law’s
Class
Of
2026
Pushes
Back
Against
Commencement
Changes
[Georgetown
Voice]

Earlier:

Georgetown
LLMs
Bent
Out
Of
Shape
Over
Graduation

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
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at


[email protected]
and
by
Tweet/Bluesky
at @WritesForRent.

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

This
isn’t
legal
analysis.
It’s
idiocy.
That
would
be
an
F
on
the
bar
exam.

— 
Professor

Ryan
Goodman
of
NYU
Law,
who
serves
as
co-editor-in-chief
of

Just
Security,
in

comments
given
on
X
concerning
the
Trump
administration’s
apparent
stance
that

electric
plants
are
“legitimate
military
targets”
because
their
destruction
could
complicate
Iran’s
development
of
a
nuclear
device
due
to
civil
unrest.

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.

Legal
AI
vendors
talk
about
trust
constantly.
Transparent
models.
Responsible
AI
principles.
Guardrails
and
disclosures.
Yet
many
lawyers
distrust
legal
AI
not
because
it
is
unsafe
or
unethical,
but
because
it
feels
inattentive.

That
distinction
matters
more
than
most
discussions
of
trust
acknowledge.

This
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
build
or
lose
trust
in
AI
systems
while
learning
judgment-based
legal
skills.
The
findings
draw
on
quantitative
engagement
data
and
qualitative
interviews
conducted
during
and
after
the
course.

What
emerged
was
counterintuitive.
Users
were
willing
to
tolerate
difficulty,
ambiguity,
and
even
uncertainty.
What
they
did
not
tolerate
was
repetition,
generic
responses,
and
overstructured
interactions
that
made
the
system
feel
inattentive
to
context.

Lawyers
Do
Not
Trust
Politeness.
They
Trust
Judgment.

Many
legal
AI
systems
are
designed
to
be
agreeable.
They
explain
patiently.
They
reassure
users.
They
avoid
friction.
On
paper,
that
looks
like
good
UX.

In
practice,
it
often
has
the
opposite
effect.

During
the
pilot,
users
consistently
reported
lower
trust
when
the
AI
behaved
in
overly
“helpful”
ways.
Repeating
the
same
guidance
in
slightly
different
words.
Offering
generic
checklists
regardless
of
context.
Steering
users
toward
safe,
obvious
answers
without
engaging
the
substance
of
the
problem.

These
interactions
felt
polite,
but
not
thoughtful.
Users
described
them
as
shallow
or
inattentive.
Trust
eroded
quickly.

By
contrast,
when
the
AI
challenged
assumptions,
surfaced
competing
considerations,
or
forced
users
to
grapple
with
ambiguity,
trust
increased.
Even
when
the
interaction
was
harder,
users
felt
the
system
was
paying
attention.

Repetition
Erodes
Trust
Faster
Than
Difficulty

One
of
the
clearest
quantitative
signals
from
the
pilot
was
that
trust
dropped
more
sharply
in
response
to
repetition
than
to
hard
questions.
Sessions
shortened
when
users
encountered
recycled
prompts
or
familiar
phrasing.
Follow-up
engagement
declined
even
when
the
underlying
legal
issue
was
manageable.

Interviews
reinforced
this
pattern.
Users
were
explicit
that
difficulty
was
not
the
problem.
In
fact,
many
welcomed
it.
What
frustrated
them
was
the
sense
that
the
system
was
not
responding
uniquely
to
their
inputs.

For
lawyers,
repetition
is
a
red
flag.
It
signals
that
a
tool
is
not
reasoning,
but
pattern-matching.
Once
that
perception
takes
hold,
trust
is
hard
to
recover.

Overstructuring
Can
Feel
Like
Disengagement

Another
trust
killer
was
overstructuring.
Checklists
and
frameworks
were
helpful
early,
especially
for
less
experienced
users.
But
when
structure
persisted
regardless
of
context,
it
began
to
feel
like
the
system
was
ignoring
nuance.

Users
described
these
interactions
as
“going
through
the
motions.”
The
AI
was
doing
what
it
was
programmed
to
do,
not
what
the
situation
required.
That
distinction
matters
deeply
in
legal
work,
where
credibility
often
turns
on
whether
advice
reflects
situational
awareness.

Overstructuring
is
often
justified
as
a
safety
measure.
In
reality,
it
can
undermine
trust
by
signaling
that
the
system
is
not
capable
of
adapting.

Realism
Builds
Trust
Better
Than
Reassurance

One
of
the
strongest
trust-building
signals
in
the
pilot
was
realism.
Users
consistently
preferred
fewer,
richer
scenarios
over
large
numbers
of
simplified
questions.
Role-play
exercises
that
incorporated
stakeholder
pushback,
incomplete
information,
and
messy
tradeoffs
felt
credible.

Importantly,
these
scenarios
were
not
easier.
They
were
harder.
But
they
felt
real.

When
the
AI
engaged
with
that
complexity
instead
of
smoothing
it
away,
users
trusted
it
more.
When
it
defaulted
to
generic
explanations
or
abstract
advice,
trust
declined.

This
mirrors
how
trust
works
between
lawyers.
We
trust
colleagues
who
acknowledge
uncertainty
and
wrestle
with
complexity.
We
distrust
those
who
offer
tidy
answers
to
messy
problems.

Bugs
Matter
Less
Than
Behavior

Another
surprising
insight
was
how
users
reacted
to
technical
imperfections.
Minor
bugs
or
rough
edges
were
noticed,
but
they
were
not
decisive.
What
mattered
more
was
how
the
system
behaved
in
response.

If
the
AI
adapted,
acknowledged
limitations,
or
adjusted
its
approach,
trust
was
preserved.
If
it
repeated
itself
or
ignored
context,
trust
evaporated.

This
has
implications
for
how
legal
AI
teams
prioritize
development.
Fixing
every
edge
case
matters
less
than
ensuring
the
system
behaves
attentively
when
things
are
imperfect.

Trust
Is
Earned
Through
Resistance,
Not
Agreement

The
most
trusted
interactions
in
the
pilot
shared
a
common
feature.
The
AI
resisted
the
user
in
some
way.
It
asked
follow-up
questions.
It
surfaced
alternative
views.
It
declined
to
collapse
complexity
into
a
single
answer.

That
resistance
signaled
judgment.

In
legal
work,
trust
is
not
built
by
agreeing.
It
is
built
by
demonstrating
that
you
understand
what
is
at
stake
and
are
willing
to
engage
with
it
honestly.
AI
systems
that
optimize
for
smoothness
miss
this
entirely.

Why
Responsible
AI
Rhetoric
Misses
The
Point

Much
of
the
current
conversation
about
trust
in
legal
AI
focuses
on
ethics,
bias,
and
transparency.
Those
issues
matter.
But
they
are
not
the
primary
drivers
of
day-to-day
trust
for
lawyers.

Behavior
is.

Lawyers
trust
systems
that
feel
attentive,
situationally
aware,
and
willing
to
challenge
them.
They
distrust
systems
that
feel
generic,
repetitive,
or
overly
eager
to
please.

The
Product
Law
Hub
pilot
suggests
that
trust
in
legal
AI
is
less
about
assurances
and
more
about
interaction
design.
Systems
that
push
back
thoughtfully
earn
credibility.
Systems
that
try
too
hard
to
be
helpful
lose
it.

Until
legal
AI
builders
and
buyers
internalize
that
distinction,
they
will
keep
investing
in
tools
that
look
responsible
on
paper
and
feel
untrustworthy
in
practice.

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.

Last
week,
Pam
Bondi
learned
that
life
comes
at
you
fast
as
she
was
dumped
in
the
trash
(weirdly,
not
a
metaphor).
The
now-former
Attorney
General,
whose
tenure
was
already
doing
heavy
lifting
in
the
“controversial
at
best”
category,
has
been
roundly

mocked
since
news
broke
that
her
portrait
was
spotted
unceremoniously
tossed
aside
almost
immediately
after
her
firing.
And
then
Saturday
Night
Live
got
in
on
the
action.

In
the
cold
open,
cast
member
Ashley
Padilla
took
a
turn
as
Bondi,
delivering
a
performance
that
managed
to
capture
both
the
self-seriousness
and
the
spectacular
lack
of
self-awareness
that
defined
Bondi’s
time
at
DOJ.
The
highlight?
A
line
that
feels
destined
to
live
far
longer
than
Bondi’s
already-short-lived
post-Trump
tenure,
“The
truth
is,
I
was
amazing
at
my
job,
and
I
am
proud
to
say
I
made
history
as
the
first
woman
ever
to
be
fired
as
attorney
general.
I
shattered
that
glass
exit
door!”

But
SNL
didn’t
stop
there.

Because
if
you’re
going
to
twist
the
knife,
you
might
as
well
go
for
the
jugular.

“They
threw
my
headshot
in
the
trash
like
it
was
the
Epstein
files!”
Padilla
cried,
summoning
crocodile
tears
for
her
disgraced
legal
career.