Bloomberg Law Trains Machine to Highlight Legal Points

On September 26, 2017, Bloomberg Law unveiled an AI program called “Points of Law,” a service that allows users to quickly identify and analyze language in a judicial opinion. The program uses a machine learning algorithm that indexes its opinions, making it easier for users to find legal points and precedents that strengthen their own legal arguments. When the feature is turned on, language is highlighted in the text, and citations are linked from the margin. The program is one of a wave of automated legal research and analysis engines that are raising significant ethical questions regarding attorney competence and confidentiality.

As reported by the ABA, attorneys are increasingly turning to AI-generated work product to increase their legal research and drafting efficiency. In fact, attorneys participate in training these machine learning algorithms, as each query entered into the system helps to expand and refine the legal analysis the algorithm returns. But, when delegating work to AI programs, attorneys should be wary of their ethical obligations under the competence rules. Significantly, lawyers must understand how AI programs function in order to fulfill their duty of technological competence.

This means that a lawyer using Bloomberg’s Points of Law service must understand how the program’s indexing works and how it selects which language to highlight. For example, though AI programs continuously “learn,” they may not find every supporting precedent for a client’s case. As such, a lawyer entering a query into programs like Points of Law must ensure the accuracy of the research returned in order to satisfy their duty under the ethical rules. AI programs likely pose concerns regarding lawyers ethical duties of confidentiality. Therefore, lawyers must take the appropriate steps to prevent inadvertent disclosure of confidential information by completely understanding the terms of service of the AI programs they are using, and ensuring there is a confidentiality agreement with the AI vendor.

Find the article discussing the unveiling of Bloomberg’s Points of Law here.

Philadelphia Law Firm Sues Morgan & Morgan Over Misleading Advertisements

Rosenbaum & Associates, a Philadelphia personal injury law firm, recently filed a complaint against Morgan & Morgan, a Florida-based personal injury law firm, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that Morgan & Morgan falsely advertises that it represents clients in the Philadelphia area.

Among other things, Rosenbaum & Associates alleges that Morgan & Morgan’s ubiquitous advertisements in Philadelphia, which contain statements such as “[w]e’re all here for you,” lead consumers to believe that the firm actively litigates personal injury claims in Pennsylvania. However, the firm employs only one attorney in Philadelphia with “little or no experience in handling personal injury matters,” a fact which likely place the advertisements in violation of Pennsylvania Ethics Rule 7.2.

Rosenbaum & Associates’ false advertising claim is also buttressed by the allegation that Morgan & Morgan’s advertisements explicitly state that the firm is “not a referral service.” Yet, the firm allegedly refers nearly all of its cases to another law firm, and fails to inform consumers that their cases will be referred out—a clear violation of Rule 7.2(k), which prohibits advertising that is “a pretext to refer cases obtained from advertising to other lawyers.”

In addition to its false advertising claim, Rosenbaum & Associates also brings a claim against Morgan & Morgan for unfair competition under Pennsylvania common law. The complaint alleges that Morgan & Morgan outspends every Philadelphia personal injury firm in terms of advertising, and the purpose of its “significant advertising budget is to undermine the competition by overwhelming the consumers in the Philadelphia market with false and misleading information.” Rosenbaum & Associates attributes its declining influx of new clients to Morgan & Morgan’s misleading advertisements.

Read Rosenbaum & Associates’ complaint here.

Florida Contemplates Fee Sharing with Out of State NonLawyers

A proposed advisory opinion by The Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee addresses fee-splitting with out-of-state lawyers when the out-of-state lawyer practices in a law firm with nonlawyer ownership. In the opinion, the committee states that a Florida Bar member should not be subject to discipline simply because a nonlawyer owner of an out-of-state law firm could receive a portion of the legal fees.

Partnerships with out-of-state lawyers are hardly new, but tensions between Florida’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and the organization and ownership of out-of-state-firms led the Florida Bar to clarify the matter.

Under Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-5.4, lawyers are prohibited from partnering or sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. However, some U.S. jurisdictions—Washington, D.C. and Washington state—permit nonlawyer ownership of law firms.

The Florida Bar proposed advisory opinion follows in the footsteps of ABA Formal Opinion 464, and several other jurisdictions, in deciding that nonlawyer ownership of law firms in jurisdictions where permissible should not cause collaborating Florida lawyers to violate the prohibition against fee sharing set forth in Rule 4-5.4.

The underlying policy of Rule 4-5.4  concerns the improper influence of a nonlawyer may on a  lawyer’s professional judgment. However in the scenario analyzed in the proposed opinion, Florida Bar committee believes that a lawyer’s professional independence is not at risk simply because a nonlawyer owner receives a portion of an out-of-state lawyer’s fees.

Ultimately, the proposed opinion encourages attorneys to work with out-of-state lawyers despite differences in ownership structure, and allows clients to maintain flexibility in choosing counsel from other jurisdictions. 

To read the proposed opinion please click here.  

From the Florida Bar webpage:

Pursuant to Rule 4(c) and (d) of The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics, comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on the proposed opinion. The committee will consider any comments received at a meeting to be held in conjunction with The Florida Bar’s Fall Meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, October 13, 2017, at the Tampa Airport Marriott.Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than August 15, 2017.

In the Cloud? The Florida Bar Publishes Guidelines for Selecting a Cloud Service Provider

In the Cloud? The Florida Bar Publishes Guidelines for Selecting a Cloud Service Provider

The Florida Bar’s Technology Committee in collaboration with The Florida Bar’s Practice Resource Institute have published both a quick start guide to cloud computing and  more comprehensive due diligence guidelines to assist lawyers in selecting a cloud service provider.

The Florida Bar News reports:

“Two things are happening more than ever right now: Lawyers are using the cloud to store sensitive information; and lawyers are under attack from cyber criminals looking to steal sensitive information,” said Tech Committee Chair Al Saikali, who also chairs the Privacy and Data Security Practice area at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. “It was therefore important to develop a document that teaches lawyers about the cybersecurity and legal issues associated with the storage of cloud service providers.”

To read the article that contains links to the new guidelines click here

Up in the ‘Clouds’: Illinois Finds Duty of Competence Applies to Selection of Provider

This fall, the Illinois State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics reached two conclusions regarding use of cloud-based services. In Opin. 16-06, the Committee opined that:

(1) a lawyer may use cloud-based services to store confidential client information, so long as the attorney uses reasonable care to make sure that client confidentiality and client information is protected; and

(2) a lawyer is responsible for complying with her duties of competence in selecting a cloud-based services provider, assessing cloud-based services practices, and monitoring compliance with the lawyer’s professional obligations.

 This opinion expands Illinois’s prior opinion where a lawyer may work with a private vendor to monitor the law firm’s computer server, so long as the lawyer takes reasonable steps to ensure the vendor protects client’s confidential information. See, ISBA Op. 10-01 (2009).

Rule 1.1 Competence provides that lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. Illinois recently amended this rule to include that lawyers who use cloud-based services must have a sufficient understanding of the technology to properly consider the risks of disclosure of confidential information. See Illinois Rule 1.1 Comment 8. Lawyers must also make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, confidential information. See Rule 1.6(e) Confidentiality. Because lawyers hire third-party providers for cloud-based services, lawyers will be subject to the professional rules regarding employing and supervising subordinates. See Rule 5.3 Comment 3.

Due to technology constantly changing, Illinois does not provide any specific requirements for lawyers when choosing a provider. However, Illinois does provide some tips for lawyers when inquiring about a cloud-based services provider, which are:

  • Review cloud computing industry standards and what protections should be put in place when using a cloud-based service;
  • Investigate whether the provider has employed reasonable security measures to protect client data from unintentional disclosures;
  • Investigate the provider’s reputation and history;
  • Look into whether the provider has experiences any security breaches in the past;
  • Demand an agreement to reasonably safeguard that the provider will abide by the lawyer’s duties of confidentiality and will immediately notify the lawyer of any breaches of information;
  • Require that all data is backed up and under the lawyer’s control; and
  • To require reasonable recovery of information if the agreement with the provider is terminated, or if the provider goes out of business.

Several other states have allowed lawyers to use cloud-based services to help with storing client information. See e.g., Alabama Ethics Op. 2010-2; Iowa Ethics Op. 11-01; Tennessee Formal Ethics Op. 2015-F-159; see generally “Cloud Ethics Opinions Around the U.S.”, American Bar Association, Legal Technology Resource Center.

To read the full opinion, click here.