This website uses cookies
Read our Privacy policy and Terms of use for more information.
Jul 9, 2026
•
4 min read
An AI vendor's copy of a client trade secret, held under confidentiality terms, does not lose the secret. What loses it is an obligation that expires while the copy lives on, or a copy you cannot require the vendor to delete.
Jun 30, 2026
Every enterprise AI tier promises not to train on your data. None of them promises not to keep it. Lawyers are treating the first as if it were the second.
Jun 23, 2026
You can delete your chat history. You cannot delete the copy the provider kept - and that copy, while it lasts, is the one legal process can reach.
Jun 18, 2026
5 min read
Everyone is reading United States v. Heppner as the case where a chatbot destroyed attorney-client protection. Read it beside a quieter ruling from the same weeks that came out the other way, and the real lesson is one lawyers already knew.
Jun 16, 2026
3 min read
There is no single answer to what the tool does with your inputs. The terms depend on how you reach the model and which one you pick - and they changed three times while you were not looking.
Jun 13, 2026
What the Fable shutdown actually teaches lawyers - and it is not the thing everyone is arguing about.
Jun 10, 2026
2 min read
Competence is shifting from "is the output correct" to "can you show where your judgment took control." A short record closes most of the gap.
Jun 9, 2026
For IP and patent lawyers especially, "redact the client's name" is not a confidentiality strategy. It barely touches the risk.
Jun 8, 2026
The AI mistakes that get pro se litigants mocked are happening inside expert legal work too. They are just better dressed, which is what makes them dangerous.
Jun 7, 2026
Why legal competence now requires lawyers to preserve friction, not just verify outputs.
