Kilmar Abrego Garcia (alongside hundreds of other people) was kidnapped by the Trump Administration and deported illegally to a foreign prison camp without even a flimsy show of due process. This is so blatantly illegal that the heavily conservative Supreme Court has ruled 9-0 that the administration must facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States: a ruling that the administration is not simply ignoring, but actively denying, while they attempt to smear Abrego Garcia in the court of public opinion. I don’t know the man, he may be a horrible human being who deserves to rot in a gulag, but in my country that decision is not made by a president, a cabinet member, or any individual. It must be proven in a court of law, and the defendant must be provided with a competent legal defense.

The 10 Law Firms who have capitulated to the administration without even putting up a fight are 100% complicit with this administration’s illegal activity. Their cowardice and failure to stand for the rule of law, makes them an accessory to its destruction in the United States. It’s not yet too late for any of these firms to “right the ship” and “return to the light”, but failure to act decisively now, to demand due process for all people in this country, regardless of demographics, is beyond the pale. These firms and any who follow their lead from today forward, have passed a point of no return.

If you are a partner at one of these firms, and you choose to continue your affiliation, then you are a baseless coward who has chosen lucre over law and are therefore unfit to practice.

If you are a non-partner lawyer practicing at one of these firms, I’m sorry. You have worked very hard to gain a position at one of the formerly best firms in the country, but that firm’s partnership has failed you and your profession. Further association with the firm will reflect poorly on your future career. Leave now.

If you are a non-billing employee at one of these firms, you are not responsible for your firm’s cowardice. If you have opportunities to work other places, then take them. If you don’t, or if you are comfortable with a little subterfuge in the name of liberty, then continue to do the great work you have done in the past, just do it a little more slowly. Use the firm’s bureaucracy, risk aversion, and internal politics to raise its costs and further tarnish its reputation (which may not be possible.)

If you are a client of one of these firms and continue to purchase their legal services, history will judge you harshly. There are plenty of other firms that can handle your matters, choose one that believes in the rule of law and is not willing to look the other way for a few dollars more. If you continue to hire these firms, we can safely assume that their being unencumbered by ethics or professional obligations likely holds substantial appeal for your business.

If you are a vendor who is not currently selling to one of these firms, good. Don’t market to them. Don’t take meetings with them. Don’t try to sell to them. You have nothing to lose by not selling to a particular firm, this should be easy.

If you are a vendor who sells to one of these firms already, do not renew their contracts when they come up for renewal. Your company will probably not survive living in a country without the rule of law anyway. Do not hasten that reality by supporting firms that are actively trying to bring it about.

If you are a consultant, and this one is near and dear to me personally, you choose your clients as surely as they choose you. If you are working with these firms, you are likely working with individuals you love. Those people are probably not partners and had no influence on the firm’s decision to capitulate to an authoritarian regime. Still, upon completing your current projects — or at the very first opportunity to withdraw according to your MSA — stop working with these firms. They have failed us as an industry, as a profession, and as a country.

This is not personal. It’s not business. It’s liberty.

And it doesn’t come cheap.

If you think the price is too high, then be sure to explain that to Kilmar Abrego Garcia when you meet him in El Salvador.

In this week’s Geek in Review, we sit down with Patrick Waldo, CEO of Unicorn Forms and proud Houstonian, to explore the intersections of data, document automation, and legal tech innovation. From the vibrant startup culture at Houston’s ION and the Capital Factory’s SXSW House event to the regulatory grind of form design, Waldo shares how his journey—from working in compliance-heavy industries to launching a playfully named but technically serious platform—is reshaping how we think about document-driven workflows.

Waldo pulls back the curtain on Unicorn Forms’ approach to digitizing and structuring data trapped in PDFs. With a background in regulatory intelligence, he understands firsthand how critical, yet painfully inefficient, static documents can be. Unicorn Forms aims to transform the “eight-and-a-half-by-eleven world” into structured, field-driven digital tools. By mimicking the look and feel of familiar e-sign interfaces while embedding structured fields and integrations like Calendly or Stripe, the platform bridges the gap between legal formality and technical interoperability.

Security and compliance are at the heart of the conversation as Waldo outlines the different levels of electronic trust, explaining how Unicorn Forms distinguishes itself with hashed documents, timestamp authorities, and encryption standards that exceed many traditional e-signature solutions. He highlights how many professionals—especially in legal, healthcare, and finance—aren’t aware of the risks they take when using non-secure PDFs for sensitive data like social security numbers or payment details.

The episode also dives into the often-overlooked role of data ontologies in making government and enterprise forms interoperable. Waldo describes the complexity behind something as seemingly simple as a name or address field and how lack of standardization leads to inefficiencies and errors. By applying his years of ontology-building experience, Unicorn Forms aims to enable more intuitive, human-readable, and system-compatible data capture, with real-world use cases already in place—like improving film permitting processes for the Houston Film Commission.

From a startup perspective, Waldo gets candid about fundraising challenges, the paradox of needing metrics to raise money and needing money to build metrics, and how early-stage companies must balance marketing, sales, and product development. He emphasizes the value of angel investors and local ecosystems like the ION and the Canon, while acknowledging the rising bar of investor expectations in today’s post-2023 funding environment.

Finally, Waldo shares his philosophy behind the Unicorn Forms brand—born as an April Fool’s joke but grown into a conversation starter and signal for early adopters. With Party City swag, a pink logo, and a message that draws in the curious and the creative, Unicorn Forms is redefining legal tech not just through software, but through an intentional, approachable identity. As Waldo looks ahead, he sees opportunity in pairing strong data engineering with AI tools—not just to automate, but to make legal and regulatory processes smarter, faster, and more human-centered.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠
⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript

Continue Reading Beyond the PDF: Patrick Waldo on Structuring Data for Security and Efficiency

This week, we sit down with Sam Flynn, COO and co-founder of Josef, to separate substance from hype in the rapidly evolving world of legal tech. Sam shares his passionate stance that “RAG is not dead,” defending Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) as a foundational and still deeply relevant method for deploying AI in the legal industry—despite the flashy allure of agentic AI. His nuanced take reminds listeners that success in this space depends not only on the sophistication of the technology, but on doing the “boring” foundational work: ensuring data integrity, context-aware chunking, and responsible workflows.

Throughout the discussion, Sam champions the idea that great legal technology should not just enhance expert workflows but make legal information accessible to non-experts. With examples from Josef’s clients like L’Oréal, Bumble, and Bupa, Sam illustrates how Josef’s tools allow legal departments to offload routine work through reliable self-service systems—freeing up time for more strategic thinking while improving speed, compliance, and consistency across organizations. He makes the case that empowering end users with trustworthy tools isn’t just good tech—it’s a new model for scaling legal and compliance services.

A key highlight is Josef’s Roxanne project, developed in collaboration with Housing Court Answers and NYU. Roxanne is an AI-powered tool designed to help tenants in New York navigate the complexities of housing law. Sam outlines the safeguards that ensure Roxanne’s answers are accurate and compliant, such as closed-domain data sources, human-in-the-loop validation, and smart escalation workflows. The conversation touches on the broader access to justice (A2J) implications of this technology—arguing that when designed carefully, AI can amplify the reach and impact of legal aid organizations by orders of magnitude.

The episode doesn’t shy away from the tensions legal professionals feel when automation enters their domain. Sam offers a powerful reframing: instead of seeing these tools as a threat, lawyers should view them as opportunities to offload low-value tasks and expand their influence. The goal, he says, is not to cut jobs—but to redefine the kind of work legal professionals do, making space for more proactive, strategic, and meaningful engagements within organizations and communities.

As the conversation wraps, Sam shares his optimism about the future—tempered by a clear-eyed understanding of the human factors that will determine success. While the technology is ready, the question is whether legal professionals will step up and take the lead. His call to action is clear: focus less on the hype, and more on the systems, safety, and trust that make tech transformative. Whether you’re a legal technologist, innovator, or cautious observer, this episode offers a grounded and inspiring look at what it takes to build legal tech that actually works.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

\

Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠
⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript

Continue Reading RAG is Not Dead: Josef’s Sam Flynn on Legal Tech That Works

This week we sit down with Sean West—co-founder of Hence Technologies and author of Unruly: Fighting Back When Politics and Law Upend the Rules of Business. Together, they explore the shifting fault lines where law, technology, and geopolitics collide. From the growing reliance on generative AI in legal work to the erosion of rule of law and the emerging threats (and opportunities) facing knowledge workers, Sean offers a strikingly global—and at times unsettling—view of the legal profession’s next frontier.

The conversation kicks off with a discussion on the Law360 survey showing that 62% of lawyers are using ChatGPT in some aspect of their work. Sean explains the popularity of general-purpose AI tools over legal-specific ones as a matter of price, accessibility, and perceived innovation. While lawyers trust themselves to edit AI outputs, Sean warns that this passive use of AI could slowly and invisibly displace traditional legal roles, without firms consciously realizing what’s been lost.

The discussion deepens as Sean introduces the idea of passive job displacement—where tasks once assigned to junior lawyers, interns, or external vendors are quietly absorbed by AI tools. He likens it to carrying “a quarter of a human brain in your pocket” for $20 a month. What starts as convenience becomes infrastructure, and over time, demand for human input declines. He also questions the long-term viability of legal tech products that can’t clearly outperform generalist AIs like ChatGPT or Claude.

Sean then draws on his geopolitical expertise to underscore the urgent need for situational awareness in law firms and businesses alike. He explains how political volatility—from China and Taiwan to Europe’s regulatory tactics—can suddenly reshape the legal landscape. Rather than relying on traditional prediction models or complex advisory plans that get shelved, Sean emphasizes proactive legal scenario planning. His new product, Hence Global, offers a “geo-legal” lens on global news, customized for specific legal practice areas to help firms act instead of react.

We push further into the implications of “front-stabbing” politics, where once-hidden power plays are now openly transactional. Sean describes a world where AI-driven lobbying, mass arbitration spam, and “robot lawyers” can reshape public policy or flood companies with legal claims at scale. He argues that when the rules are ambiguous, large players will push boundaries—and smaller players may get squeezed out. In a world without a clear referee, the game favors those who can afford better tools and faster moves.

Finally, Sean challenges legal and corporate leaders to stop avoiding the hard conversations. Whether embracing AI to boost productivity or choosing to protect jobs, organizations must be transparent. “Let’s front-stab about it,” he says. Make your commitments public—whether you’re retraining your workforce or doubling down on AI-driven efficiency. Because in a world where legal, political, and technological lines blur, silence isn’t just unhelpful—it’s a risk.

Links and Mentions:

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠
⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript

Continue Reading Front-Stabbing the Future: AI, Law, and the Global Unraveling of Rules with Sean West

Alright, folks, buckle up your legal tech seatbelts, because something interesting just landed on the tarmac. You know how we geeks over here at 3 Geeks and the Geek in Review love to dissect the latest moves in the legal innovation world? Well, Cleary Gottlieb, yes that Cleary Gottlieb, just went out and acquired Springbok AI. Not partnered, not invested, but straight-up acquired. That’s like a BigLaw firm deciding they’re not just going to order pizza, but that they’re buying the whole pizza chain!

Now, for those of you who may not know, Springbok AI is a company out of London focused on building generative AI tools specifically for legal workflows. Their flagship platform, SpringLaw, aims to help firms create their own custom AI solutions, from automating workflows to whipping up documents. Think of it as a legal tech Lego set powered by large language models (LLMs).

So, what does this mean for the actual delivery of legal services? For too long, legal tech felt like an add-on, a separate layer. But Cleary’s move signals a deeper integration, a recognition that AI isn’t just a tool, it’s becoming fundamental to how premium legal work gets done. As Cleary Managing Partner Michael Gerstenzang put it, their innovation strategy is all about “the integration of AI and data analytics into our workflows, as a means to elevate our delivery of legal services to clients”. It’s about making things faster, smarter, and more transparent.

What about cheaper? Maybe (probably not)??

One of the key takeaways here is the focus on custom AI-powered solutions. Instead of relying solely on off-the-shelf products, Cleary is bringing in the expertise to build tools tailored to their specific practice areas and client needs. Victoria Albrecht, Springbok’s co-founder and CEO (who is joining Cleary, by the way, along with a team of 10 data scientists and AI engineers), hit the nail on the head: “Cleary has never been one to follow trends – they set them”. This acquisition gives them the immediate horsepower to create that differentiated offering.

Now, let’s talk about the “AI Acceleration team”. This isn’t just about buying some software; it’s about embedding an entire team of experts directly into the firm. Why is this important? Because building and deploying effective AI in a legal context requires a deep understanding of both the technology and the intricacies of legal practice. You can’t just throw a generic AI at a complex legal problem and expect magic. This team, with their “proven track record in creating bespoke AI builds and products”, will be working directly with different practice groups and even clients to identify where AI can provide the most value – things like “data analytics, AI-powered summarization, automation in data gathering, and insights on that data”. It’s about strategic implementation, not just adoption.

And speaking of strategy, the planned close collaboration between the AI Acceleration team and the practicing lawyers is crucial. This ensures that the AI solutions being developed are practical and address real-world legal challenges. As Ilona Logvinova, Cleary’s Director of Practice Innovation, emphasized, this move is deeply rooted in client centricity. They’re not just innovating for the sake of innovation; they’re aiming to serve their clients in a “differentiated, elevated way”.

Now, let’s pivot to something equally significant, at least in my book: the leadership. This “AI Acceleration team” is essentially being co-led by two women, Victoria Albrecht and Ilona Logvinova. In a legal tech world that still sometimes feels a bit like a boys’ club, this is a noteworthy development. Victoria, as the co-founder and CEO of Springbok, brings the deep technical expertise and entrepreneurial drive. Ilona, as the Director of Practice Innovation at a major firm like Cleary, brings the crucial understanding of the firm’s culture, client needs, and how to integrate new technologies effectively.

While the sources I’ve read don’t explicitly discuss the gender dynamics of this acquisition, but in my opinion, having women in these key leadership roles sends a powerful message. It suggests a forward-thinking approach not just to technology but also to who is shaping that technology within the legal industry. Diverse leadership often leads to more innovative and well-rounded solutions, as different perspectives are brought to the table. Seeing women at the helm of such a significant AI initiative within a top-tier law firm can hopefully inspire more diverse leadership roles in legal tech.

This move by Cleary isn’t happening in a vacuum. The legal industry is increasingly recognizing the transformative potential of AI. While many firms have been dipping their toes in through partnerships or gradual internal development, Cleary’s acquisition represents a bold and definitely a more direct approach. Some analysts have even drawn comparisons to Simmons & Simmons’ acquisition of Wavelength in the UK, suggesting a similar strategic intent to rapidly build expertise.

Ultimately, Cleary Gottlieb’s acquisition of Springbok AI and the formation of their AI Acceleration team, led by a talented duo, signals a significant shift. It’s not just about adopting AI; it’s about owning the development and integration of AI to fundamentally reshape how legal services are delivered. This could very well be a harbinger of things to come, and I’ll be watching closely to see how this bold move plays out.

What do you all think? Is this the future of BigLaw and AI?

This week we welcome Chan Hee-Koh, CEO and co-founder, and Justin Brownstone, Strategic Partnership Lead at FileRead. As legal professionals and tech enthusiasts gear up for LegalWeek, the conversation starts with some lighthearted banter about the best places to visit in New York—including a passionate endorsement of Angelina in Paris’ hot chocolate. However, the discussion quickly turns toward the evolving role of AI in the legal industry and how FileRead is shaping the future of litigation technology.

Chan shares the deeply personal story that inspired FileRead’s creation: his immigrant family’s experience during the 2008 housing crisis. Seeing how legal services were out of reach for many due to the complexity and cost of litigation, he set out to develop a platform that could make legal discovery and fact-finding more accessible and efficient. FileRead focuses on litigation-specific AI applications, aiming to streamline document review, build stronger factual narratives, and uncover hidden stories within vast amounts of case data. The discussion also touches on the industry’s skepticism toward AI and the need for legal tech companies to build trust and demonstrate real value.

The conversation then turns to FileRead’s recent growth and roadmap for 2025. Having secured a $6 million seed funding round and a strategic partnership with Simplify, the company is expanding its capabilities beyond Relativity to offer a standalone AI-powered litigation analysis platform. Justin highlights how FileRead’s technology goes beyond standard eDiscovery tools by enabling instant document analysis, chronology building, and memo drafting—tasks that traditionally take weeks of manual work. The team is also working on developing litigation workflows that will automate complex fact-checking processes, helping lawyers assess case strengths and identify missing evidence more efficiently.

A key theme of the episode is the legal industry’s slow but inevitable adoption of AI. Chan and Justin discuss how legal workflows are fundamentally different from those in other industries due to the uncertainty and unpredictability of litigation. Unlike transactional law, where contracts and compliance processes are more standardized, litigation involves a constantly shifting landscape where new evidence and legal arguments can completely change the direction of a case. The hosts and guests explore how AI is beginning to bridge the gap between human expertise and technological efficiency, making legal work more strategic and less burdened by repetitive document review.

As the episode wraps up, the hosts reflect on the rapid evolution of legal technology. Greg and Marlene note that while AI has been discussed in legal tech for years, the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have dramatically accelerated in just the last two years. Chan and Justin acknowledge that staying ahead in this fast-moving space requires constant experimentation and adaptation. However, they emphasize that while technology can enhance legal work, people remain at the center of the industry. AI should be seen as a tool that empowers attorneys rather than replaces them. To learn more about FileRead, visit FileRead.com, or reach out directly to Chan and Justin via email.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

 

Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠
⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript

Continue Reading Exploring AI-Powered Litigation with FileRead’s Chan Koh and Justin Brownstone

DS

Yay!  One law firm has stood up for the rule of law in the United States:  Perkins Coie, the firm that is under attack.  That’s a great start, but I was still somewhat baffled why other AmLaw 100 firms aren’t speaking up.  Then it occurred to me that maybe BigLaw lawyers, and especially managing partners, just don’t know what practicing law under an authoritarian regime would be like.  If only I could talk to someone who could explain it to them.

Several weeks ago, I met someone who had recently immigrated from China.  I’ll call them DS to protect their privacy.  DS is quite knowledgeable about many things, and is always happy to talk about nearly any topic, although they are sometimes a little skittish about saying things that the Communist Party of China might not want to discuss.  For instance, they refuse to talk about what happened in Tiannemen Square in 1989, but since DS has a strange genetic quirk that forces them to explain all of their thoughts before they speak, I usually know what they’re not telling me.  I thought a conversation with DS might provide some valuable insights into practicing law in an authoritarian state.  The interview is very eye opening.  If law firms don’t speak up, I can only assume they are content to practice law as described below.

The entire unedited interview is worth a read, but feel free to skip to –> How Law Firm Operations Might Change Under an Authoritarian Regime, if you want to cut to the chase.

DS’s thoughts are formatted in italics.

Me:

Hello DS, thank you for joining me today.

DS:

Hello! It’s a pleasure to be here and assist you with anything you need. How can I help you today?

Me: 

I’d like to ask you a bit about life inside a totalitarian regime. Is that okay?

DS:

<<Thought for a minute>>

Okay, so the user asked if it’s okay to inquire about life in a totalitarian regime. They started with a friendly greeting and then got into their question. I need to respond positively but also set clear boundaries.

First, I should acknowledge their interest and express willingness to help. It’s important to let them know that their curiosity is valid. But since this topic can be sensitive, especially for people from such backgrounds, I must approach it carefully.

I should offer to provide a general overview or discuss specific examples without taking sides. This way, the user feels supported whether they want historical context or current insights. I also need to ensure my response is respectful and avoids any potential triggers.

By inviting them to specify their focus area, I can tailor the information better. It’s about balancing helpfulness with sensitivity.

Absolutely, that’s a valid and important topic. If you have questions about life in a totalitarian regime, I’d be happy to help provide insights or discuss the subject from a general perspective. Just let me know how you’d like to focus your inquiry!

Me: 

I have some questions about how large law firms work in an authoritarian state, but I’d first like to ask you about law firms in the United States to ensure that you know how our US law firms operate.

Continue Reading Practicing Law Authoritarian Style

Covington & Burling LLP and Perkins Coie LLP have been attacked by the current administration and I have seen almost no commentary on this from the LegalTech community.  As I look through my LinkedIn feed, I see Heather Morse and Jordan Furlong (a Canadian) are the only 1st level contacts of mine that have posted anything about these attacks.  I don’t blame anyone for not speaking out, it’s a scary time.  Also I don’t spend a lot of time on LinkedIn, either reading or posting, and I don’t use any other social media any more. It is entirely possible that I’ve just missed content from my friends and colleagues in BigLaw and LegalTech, if so I apologize profusely to those who have stood in support of these firms. I am scared, but that is exactly why I feel it’s necessary to speak out now.

I was questioned by a friend last week for posting on LinkedIn about my decision to not spend money on Amazon anymore.  “Does partisanship really need to invade LinkedIn, too?”, he lamented.

As I said to him, I am not partisan, unless you consider basic dignity for all human beings, support for democratic principles, and taking a stand for the rule of law to be partisan positions.  I do not.

Working in a law firm, or the legal environment in general, sometimes means accepting that your firm or your clients will do things that you don’t agree with politically. I have worked with firms that I disagree with their public political positions or their clients’ politics. I have worked on projects for organizations that I personally find reprehensible, although, I have never worked on projects that I found immoral, unethical, or that were otherwise at odds with my personal sensibilities. It may be splitting hairs, but it’s a split that everyone in this industry has had to make at one time or another.  To work in the legal industry is to believe that even those you dislike, or disagree with, deserve the best legal representation they can get and for the justice system to deal with them fairly. I have always held fast to the truth that my firms and my clients, no matter their political leanings, believed in the rule of law and basic principles of democracy above all.

I completely understand not wanting “politics” or “partisanship” to invade our little LegalTech enclave.  And I know that many of you are outside the United States, looking at the crazy happening in our country with fear and suspicion, but also not feeling it’s your place to say anything. I too would rather be reading and writing about the latest developments in AI, and which startup got massive investment from which investors, and which law firm is currently sending out press releases announcing their latest software purchase, as if they just discovered fire.

You may think that Trump and Musk’s systematic (if haphazard) dismantling of the US Federal Government is long overdue.  You may be cheering the round up of immigrants, documented and not, for expedited removal from the United States.  You may not like Jack Smith, or Hillary Clinton, or DEI initiatives in general (all reasons given for the executive orders attacking Covington and Perkins).  But at the very least — and I truly mean the VERY least — if none of his other actions give you pause, the president is now attacking lawyers and law firms for doing their jobs on behalf of people he doesn’t personally like. That is intended to intimidate others who have the temerity to stand up for rule of law against a tyrannical leader. If he is successful, there is no “rule of law” in the United States of America.

What value our Legal Technology Innovation initiatives, if there is no rule of law?

What value our LegalTech startup ARR, if there is no rule of law?

What value our Law Firms, if there is no rule of law?

I stand with Covington & Burling LLP and Perkins Coie LLP (neither of whom pay me) and with everyone else who gives a damn about the rule of law, whether I otherwise agree with your politics or not.

I will take my political stand to the ballot box, to my representatives, and to the streets in peaceful protest, if need be, but the rule of law is not negotiable… not political… certainly not partisan… and is absolutely imperative for the continuing existence of our little niche industry.

#LegalTechOutrage

 

Edit: March 10, 2025 6:30 PM ET – Added reference to Jordan and his post.

 

Additional Posts calling for defense of the rule of law (added as I become aware):

Why This “Non-Lawyer” Stands with the ABA – Jasmine Trillos-Decarie

This week, we welcome back Ed Walters, Chief Strategy Officer at vLex, to discuss the latest advancements in legal AI. The conversation covers the evolving role of AI in legal research, the integration of multimodal AI capabilities, and the ethical considerations surrounding the technology. With the rapid pace of innovation in AI-powered tools, Walters provides insights into how vLex is adapting and pushing the boundaries of legal technology. His perspective underscores the importance of structured legal data, security measures, and law firms leveraging their proprietary data for competitive advantage.

One of the key topics discussed is the impact of reasoning models in AI-powered legal research. Walters notes how tools such as OpenAI, Gemini, and Anthropic’s latest models are transforming legal workflows by enabling more sophisticated research capabilities. These tools allow for more human-like interactions with AI, increasing efficiency in knowledge work by reducing non-billable research time. Walters emphasizes that while these advancements are impressive, legal professionals should always verify AI-generated content, ensuring that human judgment remains the final step in legal analysis.

A particularly exciting development discussed in the interview is vLex’s recent integration of multimodal AI capabilities, enabling the analysis of audio and video files. Walters explains how this feature allows lawyers to transcribe and analyze depositions, oral arguments, and client intake interviews securely within Vincent AI’s SOC 2 Type 2 compliant environment. This breakthrough provides legal professionals with enhanced efficiency in document review and litigation preparation, reinforcing vLex’s commitment to transparency and usability. The discussion highlights how these features bridge the gap between traditional and AI-powered legal workflows, streamlining processes while maintaining high-security standards.

The conversation also explores vLex’s integration of docket alarms into litigation workflows, allowing legal professionals to generate comprehensive profiles of opposing counsel and judges. This tool enables lawyers to analyze patterns in case filings, settlement tendencies, and motion success rates. Walters emphasizes that the ability to synthesize vast amounts of structured litigation data provides firms with a strategic advantage. However, he also acknowledges the ethical implications, stressing the need for transparency in AI-generated insights to maintain the integrity of legal practice.

Finally, Walters shares his thoughts on the future of legal AI, predicting a shift toward the integration of law firms’ proprietary data with public datasets. He highlights vLex’s new initiative, Vincent Studio, which allows firms to create bespoke AI-driven workflows tailored to their specific needs. This, he argues, is the next frontier in legal tech, where law firms transition from passive AI adoption to active AI-driven innovation. As the industry continues to evolve, Walters reinforces the idea that while AI enhances legal practice, human expertise and oversight remain irreplaceable. His insights provide a compelling vision of how legal professionals can leverage AI to augment, rather than replace, their legal expertise.

  • Vincent Studio Request: beta@vlex.com

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠
⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript

Continue Reading Beyond Legal Research: Ed Walters on vLex’s Next Big Leap in Law

This week on The Geek in Review, we welcome Zach Posner, co-founder and managing director of The Legal Tech Fund. Zach brings a dynamic mix of first‐hand experience and visionary insight into the world of legal tech investments. The conversation kicks off with a discussion of recent high-profile funding rounds—such as Harvey’s $300 million raise—and the growing influx of generalist VC interest in the legal space. This episode sets the stage by framing legal tech as a rapidly evolving market that’s finally getting the spotlight it deserves.

Decoding Funding Dynamics and Early-Stage Challenges
A key portion of the discussion centers on the inefficiencies of early-stage funding in the legal tech arena. Zach explains that, unlike public markets with readily available metrics, early-stage investments rely heavily on personal relationships and entrepreneurial trust. He highlights how the lack of data and public comparables makes each handshake a significant moment of risk and opportunity. The dialogue provides listeners with an insider’s perspective on why leadership credibility and entrepreneurial vision are often more critical than raw business metrics in legal tech startups.

Community Building and Collaborative Innovation
Another major theme in the conversation is the importance of community and collaboration. Zach underscores that the Legal Tech Fund isn’t just about injecting capital—it’s about cultivating an ecosystem where startups, law firms, and legal departments work hand-in-hand. The fund’s unique approach of engaging with 65 different portfolio companies daily has fostered a network that benefits from shared insights and strategic partnerships. This community-first approach, according to Zach, is instrumental in driving both innovation and seamless product integration for legal professionals.

Embracing AI and User-Centric Solutions
The conversation takes a forward-looking turn as Zach discusses how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing legal workflows. While many legal tech innovations focus on enhancing efficiency, he stresses that creating an exceptional user experience is paramount. Zach notes that the rapidly evolving AI landscape demands that legal tech startups not only keep pace with technological advancements but also prioritize intuitive design and seamless integration. This approach helps ensure that even as technology becomes more powerful, it remains accessible and directly relevant to the end user.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Legal Tech
Wrapping up the episode, Zach offers a crystal ball view of the future, predicting that the next few years will see even more dramatic changes in legal tech. From AI-driven workflow automation to innovative partnerships between law firms and startups, the sector is poised for transformative growth. He encourages legal professionals to experiment, learn continuously, and stay curious about emerging technologies. For listeners eager to explore further, Zach directs them to legaltech.com and TLTFsummit.com, promising more insights and upcoming announcements. This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the convergence of law, technology, and innovation.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript

Continue Reading A Deep Dive into Legal Tech Investment with TLTF’s Zach Posner