🎙️ TSL.P Ep. #135: Ethical AI, Paperless Practice, and Smart Hardware Choices with ABA LTRC Chair Alan Klevan ⚖️🤖

カートのアイテムが多すぎます

ご購入は五十タイトルがカートに入っている場合のみです。

カートに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました

ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました

🎙️ TSL.P Ep. #135: Ethical AI, Paperless Practice, and Smart Hardware Choices with ABA LTRC Chair Alan Klevan ⚖️🤖

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

My next guest is Alan Klevan, a veteran personal injury lawyer and Chair of the ABA Law Practice Division's Legal Technology Resource Center (LTRC), known for running one of the first paperless practices in New England and for his clear-eyed approach to AI in law. In this live episode recorded at the ABA Spring Conference in San Diego, Alan and I dig into how solos and small firms can use AI, case management platforms, hardware, and workflows to practice more efficiently while honoring their ethical duties and protecting client confidentiality. Join Alan Klevan and me as we discuss the following three questions and more! What are the top three ways Alan uses AI and other tech tools to control discovery and document management at scale, protect client confidentiality, and communicate complex case progress to clients who only care that it is accurate and on time?As Chair of the ABA Law Practice Division's Legal Technology Resource Center, what top three technology practices does Alan wish every small or solo lawyer would adopt in the next 12 months?What were the three most important technology decisions Alan made early in his career around paperless workflows, practice management, automation, and AI‑powered research—and how can today's practitioners follow that lead? In our conversation, we covered the following [00:00:00] Live from the ABA Spring Conference in San Diego, introducing Alan Klevan and the setting of the conversation 🌴[00:00:30] Alan's mirrored bi‑state setup: two Lenovo i7 laptops in Massachusetts and Florida, dual 24" HP HD monitors, two ScanSnap iX1600 scanners, laser printers, and Microsoft OneDrive syncing between offices 💻📠[00:01:10] Traveling with a third "road warrior" Lenovo laptop, iPhone as primary smart device, and using the reMarkable 2 tablet for handwritten notes that sync into client and ABA files ✍️[00:01:45] Early impressions of the Plaud (AI wearable) device, background-noise muting, and why Alan limits it to non‑critical meetings due to privilege concerns 🎧[00:02:20] Judicial skepticism about AI recording tools in court; motion practice, privilege issues, and a New York judge flatly banning AI recorders in the courtroom 🚫[00:03:10] AI hallucinations in legal practice, roughly 1,300 known hallucination incidents, and why the real problem is lawyers not checking citations—highlighted by a recent Oregon sanctions case 💸[00:04:00] The Oregon lawyer who tried to "fix" hallucinated citations with a motion to refile instead of candor to the court and opposing counsel, and how that became a fraud‑on‑the‑court issue under the Oregon Rules of Professional Responsibility[00:04:45] Using Google Scholar as an AI‑prompting "hack" to verify every citation and case suggested by AI tools 🔍[00:05:20] Question 1 restated: top three ways Alan uses AI and tech to (1) control discovery, (2) protect confidentiality and ethical duties, and (3) communicate complex case progress to clients[00:05:45] Drafting AI and social media policies directly into contingency‑fee agreements so clients do not post about their case or use open‑source AI on case‑related issues 📜[00:06:30] Hepner and Warner: open‑source vs enterprise AI, attorney–client privilege, work product concerns, and emerging discoverability questions for public‑facing AI platforms[00:07:20] Trap for the unwary: why Alan insists clients notify him before using AI on their case and why he prefers enterprise versions of AI for better protection and governance 🧠[00:08:10] The Nippon life Insurance case: client uploads attorney communications into ChatGPT, asks if her lawyer is gaslighting her, then files 44 AI‑drafted motions—raising product liability and disclaimer questions for AI vendors 🏛️[00:09:30] Court pushback on AI disclaimer language, defective product theories, and the infancy of AI‑related legal liability[00:10:10] Alan's big personal‑injury "Aaron Brockovich‑type" case with a deep‑pocket defendant and using AI to level the playing field on litigation management and motion practice ⚖️[00:11:00] Feeding facts, parties, defense counsel names, and pleadings into a case management system with a built‑in, highly accurate legal AI component (VL) and generating 50‑state case research for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims 📂[00:12:00] Running the same matter through two AI platforms (case management AI and Claude) to compare outputs, reduce hallucination risk, and mold responses to Alan's writing style and Massachusetts practice[00:13:00] Using Claude (enterprise tier) to draft an opposition to a motion to dismiss seven emotional‑distress claims, followed by manual review and cross‑checking in the case management AI—leading to the defendant's motion being denied ✅[00:14:15] Alan's process for verifying AI outputs: second set of "AI eyes," Google Scholar citation checks, and lawyer‑level review of every filing[00:15:00] Advice ...

まだレビューはありません