When it comes to AI, all to often law firm management freeze up from too many choices and do nothing, or overcorrect and buy everything in sight. 8am’s Legal Industry Report, for example, shows nearly 75% of legal professionals are already using general-purpose AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude for work, while 71% say their firms offer zero training on responsible use and not many firms offer guidance. Firms that over correct, on the other hand, risk over exposure and non use of expensive legal specific tools they have purchased. Either way, firms need to understand what lawyers want and need before making AI decisions. And no matter what they need to provide realistic guidelines and training. My post for Above the Law.

Here’s my 2026 Legalweek recap for Above the Law: good show and good new venue (Javits instead of the Hilton). And the complaints were predictable, especially from the crowd that usually champions change. The exhibit space was a genuine improvement. The judges keynote was outstanding. The commercialization of sessions a little less so.

And btw, after summer like weather all week, on the last day, it snowed.

At Legalweek, while everyone else was talking about AI features, I sat down with Michel Sahyoun of NopalCyber to talk about something the legal profession isn’t paying nearly enough attention to: cybersecurity in the age of GenAI.

Some facts: the average time to exploit a breach is 29 minutes. AI tools can automatically and repeatedly probe for vulnerabilities. Cyber insurance that may not cover what you think it does. Backup systems that aren’t contractually required.

Law firms are particularly exposed and particularly complacent. Lawyers are bored by cybersecurity discussions. That’s a dangerous combination.

Here is my post for Above the Law.

The final Legalweek keynote made the argument that law firms need to do what Apple and Netflix did in the early 2000s: blow up a their existing business model for a better one. Hard to argue with that. But it’s hard to see that it’s happening in legal.

Here’s the data: only 19% of firms have modified fee arrangements aligned with AI adoption. 72% have no plans to change attorney compensation structures. And less than two-thirds are hiring specialists to actually train their lawyers.

In the late 90s I did a national flat fee engagement. The client loved it. The partners hated it. Culture ate strategy for breakfast then. Not sure that much has changed:

the industry may be whistling past the graveyard.

My post for Above the Law.

I attended Legalweek’s annual judicial panel expecting the usual e-discovery update. What I heard instead was a sobering account of murder, death threats, swatting, and doxing directed at sitting federal judges and a stark warning about what it means for the rule of law and our profession. Four sitting federal judges spoke with remarkable candor and courage. We have a collective obligation to listen, support them and educate everyone about the threat. Here is my post for Above the Law.

Some hard questions coming out of this year’s Legalweek: are we focusing on training better lawyers or just better prompters? And how do we create good lawyers for the future? Here’s my post for Above the Law

8am’s Smart Spend enhancement: solving real practice management problems with real solutions. Here is my post for Above the Law.

Two federal judges with  seemingly opposite rulings on whether using GenAI tools waives the work product privilege. But the cases present facts that differ in important ways.

Here’s what reading them together can tell us about discovery risk, waiver, and pro se status. The bottom line is that privilege issues can still be minefield, and neither ruling necessarily gives you a safe harbor.

Here’s my post for Above the Law.