When Expert AI Prompts Become Discoverable
A D. Conn. order in CLF v. Shell, as reported by Mayer Brown, frames expert AI prompts as potentially discoverable methodology material under Rule 26, with a Rule 72(a) objection now pending.
Read post →Research & Insights
Deep dives on legal exceptions, exemptions, and what AI-powered research can surface.
ABA Rule 3.3 and AI Citations: What "Knowingly" Means When Your Research Comes From a Language Model
Rule 3.3(a)(1) requires actual knowledge, not mere negligence — but when AI generates a fabricated citation that an attorney files unverified, the line between ignorance and constructive knowledge is far thinner than most practitioners assume.
Read post →The Work Product Doctrine and AI Legal Research: What FRCP 26(b)(3) Protects—and What It Doesn't
Attorney prompts and AI-generated research outputs likely qualify as work product — but protection is not automatic. Here is how FRCP 26(b)(3)'s two-tier framework applies to AI-assisted practice, and where the waiver risk lurks.
Read post →AI Disclosure Is Becoming a Process Problem, Not a Footnote Problem
New 2026 ABA practice guidance pushes firms toward repeatable AI-disclosure and verification workflows. The core risk is no longer missing one disclaimer — it is missing supervision infrastructure.
Read post →FRE 901 and AI-Generated Content: Authentication Challenges When Evidence Comes From a Language Model
FRE 901(b)(9) — the process-or-system authentication method — is the provision best suited to AI-generated content. But "showing that it produces an accurate result" is exactly where large language models create the hardest questions.
Read post →Federal Judges and AI Disclosure: How Local Rules and Standing Orders Fill Gaps in FRCP
FRCP Rule 83 authorizes district courts to layer AI-disclosure requirements on top of the federal baseline — and many judges have done exactly that through standing orders. Here is how to check what applies in your court before you file.
Read post →The Next AI Filing Failure Will Be a Supervision Failure
Recent ABA ethics coverage and a recent court order point to the same lesson: lawyers using generative AI do not just need better prompts. They need a verification and supervision workflow that keeps human judgment in charge.
Read post →Missed the Tax Filing Deadline? The IRS Says You Still Have a Lawful Path to File Free.
IRS News Release IR-2026-71 (June 2, 2026) says taxpayers who missed the filing deadline can still file 2025 returns and, if eligible, use IRS Free File through Oct. 15. Here's the compliance-exception pattern.
Read post →Federal Courts Are Splitting on AI Sanctions. The Circuit You're In May Determine Whether You Keep Your License.
Courts awarded more than $145,000 in sanctions for AI hallucination in Q1 2026 alone. But the 5th Circuit, Oregon District, and SDNY applied very different standards. Here is what the emerging split means for practitioners using AI research tools.
Read post →Courts Are Sanctioning Lawyers for AI Citations. The Fix Isn't Better AI — It's Honest AI.
Federal courts imposed sanctions for AI-hallucinated brief citations. ABA Formal Opinion 512 requires independent verification of all AI legal research. The real design flaw is overconfidence — and the fix is a tool that knows when to stop.
Read post →ABA Rule 1.6 and AI Tools: The Confidentiality Obligation Before You Upload Client Data
Before an attorney submits client information to a third-party AI service, ABA Model Rule 1.6(c) requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure. ABA Formal Opinion 512 specifies exactly what reviewing that service's data practices requires.
Read post →Every Major Law Has Exceptions. Here's Why That Matters to You.
Legal exceptions and exemptions exist in every major area of law — tax, healthcare, employment, environmental. Most people never find them. AI-powered research changes what's possible to surface in plain language.
Read post →