Here is a link to my Above the Law post on the how safe your data is in the cloud.While cloud adoption rates by law firms keeps climbing, there’s little discussion about who’s actually responsible when that data disappears.
New research suggests 85% of law firms don’t understand that cloud providers like Microsoft and Google protect the infrastructure but that data backup and recovery is on the customer.
The shared responsibility model isn’t just a tech concept. It’s an ethical obligation. When client data vanishes, you’re the one making that awkward phone call.
Here’s what law firms really need to know about cloud responsibility – and why someone else’s computer isn’t necessarily a complete backup strategy.

NetDocuments recently launched a Judge Analytics App that mines your firm’s files to create profiles of judges, their tendencies, ruling patterns, and preferences. Good use of AI to turn past case data into practical intelligence. But will this widen the gap between big firms with massive databases and smaller practices? Maybe. Maybe not.

Here is a link to my Above the Law post on the product. 

8am (formerly AffiniPay ) is pulling off something ambitious: launching its first Kaleidoscope conference while simultaneously rebranding.
What caught my attention isn’t the new name (though yes, some people are scratching their heads due to lack of knowledge). It’s the format: 30-45 minute panels with expert panelists tackling hard questions. No softballs.
After attending too many conferences where speaker intros run 10+ minutes and then presenters drone on with unimaginative lectures while audiences check email, this approach is refreshing. When panelists only have 30 minutes to make their points, it forces you to be concise AND informative. Here is a link to my Above the Law post on the Conferance.

A nuclear verdict represents every defense attorney’s nightmare scenario: a jury award that far exceeds what was considered a reasonable expectation of the case’s apparent value, often reaching into the tens of millions of dollars for cases that traditionally would have settled for far less. 

From the defense perspective, these verdicts are particularly devastating because they often emerge from an exposure that appeared manageable during pre-trial evaluation. A case with what is believed to have modest damages can explode into a massive liability, destroying budgets, exceeding policy limits, and creating personal exposure for defendants.

As one of my clients used to say when we discussed strategy for a case, “let’s be careful lest we find ourselves in a closet talking to ourselves too much”. Meaning, of course, you need to have divergent voices in the room from time to time to ensure the best outcomes.

Back To Basics

I thought about this when attending a recent national conference of litigation lawyers. Many of us who cover legal tech attend all sorts of tech conferences where, of late, the discussion have dominated by AI and its impact. That subject was certainly discussed at my lawyer conference. But lots of other topics were discussed as well. The presenters discussed and offered insights into what litigators do every day. Here’s a sample of what was talked about: