The first federal appellate argument on AI training and fair use, and how it sharpens the framework I laid out two years ago

The June 2026 AI Executive Order marks a major shift in U.S. AI oversight, but its greatest weakness is that it can be undone as easily as it was created.

Musk v. Altman Can Teach Lawyers A Lot About the “Just In Case” Rule of Document Retention

Misinformation about AI and client confidentiality persists in the legal profession, but the key question is whether lawyers know how to properly vet and govern the technology they use.

In Morgan v. V2X, Judge Braswell offers a thoughtful, practical take on AI use in litigation—reminding lawyers (and even pro se litigants like Morgan) that when it comes to confidential data, it’s less about the tool itself and more about how responsibly you handle what you put into it.

Early court decisions confirm that using AI does not automatically waive privilege—but failing to ensure confidentiality, proper settings, and attorney direction just might.

Using AI with confidential client information is not inherently riskier than the cloud tools lawyers already trust—provided it’s done with the same level of diligence, configuration, and vendor scrutiny.

“As AI tools become affordable, effective, and widely adopted, a lawyer’s failure to use them may soon be viewed not as caution—but as a breach of the duty of competence.”

Deploying an autonomous AI in your practice isn’t using a tool—it’s appointing an agent, and you’re liable for what it does within its authority.