Minnesota’s new nudification law targets an urgent harm, but its “technical skill” exemption creates a troubling loophole: easy tools are banned, while the same nonconsensual image may escape liability if it took more work to create.

Prompt engineering isn’t dead—it has grown up, replacing tricks and flattery with a more thoughtful approach that helps lawyers give AI better context, set clearer boundaries, and produce more reliable results.

Solo and small-firm lawyers make up most of the U.S. bar, yet five structural barriers are slowing their AI adoption—and practical, focused tools may be the key to closing the gap.

Two recent federal court cases show that AI-generated fake citations are only the beginning—the most severe, career-altering consequences come when lawyers fail to verify, disclose, and own their mistakes.

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.