پن کیا گیا ٹویٹ
“I am a successful lawyer,” I whisper to myself as I stand in the dead-last boarding group awaiting my middle seat in the ass-end of the plane.
English
Bridget Smith 🚀
5.5K posts
Bridget Smith 🚀
@MagnumIP
hot takes on u.s. tech law and not much else | your favorite lawyer's favorite lawyer | opinions mine and not those of my employer
Cheyenne Mountain Complex شامل ہوئے Nisan 2019
1.5K فالونگ2.4K فالوورز
@McCoySmith That's my thought too. There was a guy at my old firm who taught me to say this when onboarding a new client + I've had 2 people say it to me. I don't recall ever saying this myself, but I wonder how it became ubiquitous and what it means. I should ask the next time it happens.
English
@MagnumIP OC. You can't always make the client look good*. Sometimes the best you can get is "good enough for a successful outcome."
[*Present company excepted of course 😉]
English
After onboarding a new outside counsel, the relationship partner often says to the lead in-house counsel, "We are going to make you look so good."
Private practitioners: Do you say this? Do you complete the sentence by providing the preposition "by" + an explanation?
English
@MagnumIP The only proper response is “I already look so good.” Hair flip is optional.
English
Unpopular opinion:
Posting on LinkedIn…
isn’t about content.
It’s about storytelling.
It’s about authenticity.
It’s about…
spacing your sentences like this.
Agree or disagree?
👇
English
@Bearded_Vet @mattvanswol Javelina smell horrible. Is that inside your house?
English
Uhhhhh… no one told me that fluffy, porcupine-looking pigs just walk RIGHT UP to your home out here in Arizona.
Did ya’ll know about this?!!!!!!
Was just eating a burrito and all of a sudden 8 of these bad boys just appeared out of nowhere and started eating grass!!!
English
From the transcript.
Can only imagine how many subpoenas these companies will receive in the future.
Moish Peltz@mpeltz
Your AI conversations aren't privileged. Yesterday, Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that 31 documents a defendant generated using an AI tool and later shared with his defense attorneys are not protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. The logic is simple: an AI tool is not an attorney. It has no law license, owes no duty of loyalty, and its terms of service explicitly disclaim any attorney-client relationship. Sharing case details with an AI platform is legally no different from talking through your legal situation with a friend (which is not privileged). You can't fix it after the fact, either. Sending unprivileged documents to your lawyer doesn't retroactively make them privileged. That's been settled law for years. It just hadn't been tested with AI until now. And here's what really hurt the defendant: the AI provider's privacy policy (Claude), in effect when he used the tool, expressly permits disclosure of user prompts and outputs to governmental authorities. There was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality. The core problem is the gap between how people experience AI and what's actually happening. The conversational interface feels private. It feels like talking to an advisor. But unless you negotiate for an enterprise agreement that says otherwise, you're inputting information into a third-party commercial platform that retains your data and reserves broad rights to disclose it. Judge Rakoff also flagged an interesting wrinkle: the defendant reportedly fed information from his attorneys into the AI tool. If prosecutors try to use these documents at trial, defense counsel could become a fact witness, potentially forcing a mistrial. Winning on privilege doesn't make the evidentiary picture simple. For anyone advising clients or managing legal risk, this is a wake-up call. AI tools are not a safe space for clients to process their counsel's advice and to regurgitate their legal strategy. Every prompt is a potential disclosure. Every output is a potentially discoverable document. So what do we do about it? First, attorneys need to be proactive. Advise clients explicitly that anything they put into an AI tool may be discoverable and is almost certainly not privileged. Put it in your engagement letters. Make it part of onboarding. Don't assume clients understand this, because most don't. Second, if clients want to use AI to help process legal issues (and they clearly will, increasingly), then let's give them a way to do it inside the privilege. Collaborative AI workspaces shared between attorney and client, where the AI interaction happens under counsel's direction and within the attorney-client relationship, can change the analysis entirely. I'm excited to be planning this kind of approach, and I think it's where the industry needs to head. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
English
Here, it seemed important to the USA that the AI tool was not integrated into the email agent. What if it were? What if he drafted an email in Outlook with Copilot involving communications between a client and a non-attorney computer before hitting send. Privilege or nah? /8
English
The ruling from the bench sided with the USA but I'm curious whether they explored this distinction. Has anyone seen the transcript? /7
English
I was reading the US Attorney's "Motion for a Ruling that Documents the Defendant Generated Through an Artificial Intelligence Tool Are Not Privileged" in United States v. Heppner, Doc. 22 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2026). /1
English
I thought I was having a stroke until I realized it's a sports headline. mlssoccer.com/news/san-jose-…
English
Being a parent of teen and pre-teen girls active in extra-curriculars means never getting to stay home and watch the Super Bowl.
English