How to use data for law librarians at #AALL2025

As technology continues to reshape industries, the legal profession is at a pivotal moment. The edited volume Rethinking the Lawyers’ Monopoly: Access to Justice and the Future of Legal Services, co-edited by Stanford professors Nora and David Freeman Engstrom, brings together expert perspectives on the regulation of legal services. This timely work tackles the challenges of the traditional legal framework and its impact on justice accessibility. Discover how this volume seeks to inspire innovative approaches to legal service provision in an effort to bridge the access-to-justice gap. https://brnw.ch/21wWbPL

📢 The November/December 2025 issue of AALL Spectrum is here! This Meeting the Needs of the Modern Workforce–focused issue explores: ✨ How government law librarians balance legal research and work-life balance ✨ Fostering collaboration between law librarians and tech professionals ✨ Attracting and supporting the next generation of library professionals Dive in: https://lnkd.in/e-BdnSb8

South Jersey's largest law firm has plans to further expand across the Delaware River with several industries targeted for growth.

Writing for Law360, San Francisco partner Winston Y. Chan, Los Angeles associate Nicole Butze and San Francisco associate Christine Bonomo* delve into a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that may provide a new avenue of targeting the issuance of investigative subpoenas. The ruling quashed a U.S. Department of Justice administrative subpoena directed at a hospital. Crucially, in making its ruling, the court relied not only upon the fact that the subpoena contained overbroad requests for information inconsistent with a proper government purpose, but also on public statements made by the executive branch the court found to be indicative of bad faith or improper motive.   In their article, our lawyers provide historical background on investigative subpoenas, the changing legal landscape of investigative subpoena enforcement, and how technology is evolving the legal framework. *Christine Bonomo is not licensed to practice law in California.

In his letter to Director Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Administrative Office of the United States Courts, dated 21 October 2025, https://lnkd.in/gTFQGTsc, United States District Judge Henry T. Wingate of the United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, explained that:-   "the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued in 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭. v. 𝘓𝘺𝘯𝘯 𝘍𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘩, 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭., Case No. 3:25-cv-00417 ... [on] July 20, 2025, a law clerk utilized a generative artificial intelligence ('GenAI') tool known as Perplexity strictly as a foundational drafting assistant to synthesize publicly available information on the docket. The law clerk who used GenAI in this case did not input any sealed, privileged, confidential, or otherwise non-public case information.   The standard practice in my chambers is for every draft opinion to undergo several levels of review before becoming final and being docketed, including the use of cite checking tools.1 In this case, however, the opinion that was docketed on July 20, 2025, was an early draft that had not gone through the standard review process. It was a draft that should have never been docketed. This was a mistake. I have taken steps in my chambers to ensure this mistake will not happen again, as described below. The root cause of the errors identified in Defendant’s unopposed motion to clarify/correct was a lapse in human oversight, specifically the posting of a draft opinion instead of a final one and the failure to put the draft opinion through the final review process." (page 1) (footnote reference omitted) (words in italics in original)   "Consistent with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, I have taken appropriate action to address the law clerk’s conduct that resulted in the mistake. Additionally, I immediately implemented corrective measures in my chambers, including a plan whereby all draft opinions, orders, and memorandum decisions undergo a mandatory, independent review by a second law clerk before submission to me. All cited cases are printed from Westlaw and attached to a final draft." (page 2)

Over the past few weeks, I’ve spent more time in conversations than in front of a screen — sitting with lawyers, clerks, registrars, and even court runners to truly understand how legal processes move (and where they get stuck). These conversations have been humbling. Behind every delay, missing file, or miscommunication lies a system doing its best with tools that no longer fit today’s realities. One discovery that keeps standing out is how much coordination and trust still rely on physical movement — a courier showing up on time, a file being stamped, a hearing date manually rescheduled. Everyone we’ve spoken to — from senior advocates to junior clerks — wants the same thing: a simpler, more transparent way to work without losing the structure and accountability that define the justice process. That’s where the link between insight and solution becomes powerful. CourtSync isn’t just about digitizing workflows — it’s about syncing people, roles, and actions into a single, reliable flow. The goal is to preserve the human side of justice while removing the friction that slows it down. Every feature we refine — from document delivery to scheduling — is rooted in what we’ve heard directly from the people doing the work. We’re still early, but these discoveries are shaping something real: a platform that listens before it builds, and builds only what truly matters. To everyone who has shared time, stories, and frustrations with us so far — thank you. You’re not just stakeholders; you’re co-designers of the next chapter in how justice operates.

Announcing the Justice Partner Circle At Free Law Project, our mission is to make legal information free, open, and accessible to everyone. That’s why I’m excited to share the launch of our Justice Partner Circle — a new initiative for law firms that want to lead with innovation and impact. Here’s what it means to be part of this circle: ✔️ Influence the future of legal practice by supporting tech-forward research tools ✔️ Advance access to justice through open access to court data, opinions, and filings ✔️ Gain hands-on support in integrating FLP’s open-source tools (CourtListener, RECAP, Bots.law) into your firm’s workflows ✔️ Access custom packages, CLEs, networking opportunities, and AI-readiness support Firms of all sizes can join — we’ve built tiered membership and flexible packages to match diverse goals. Join us in reshaping how law firms engage with technology and the public good. Read more and see how you or your firm can be involved ➡️ https://lnkd.in/greCnUMx #LegalTech #AccessToJustice #OpenLaw #LegalInnovation

This Saturday, Clark Partington is excited to host the Northwest Florida Paralegal Association, Inc. for a seminar focused on the growing impact of AI in legal practice.   The session will feature a timely presentation by Jennifer F., Clark Partington's Software Administrator, who will share critical insights into the risks and rewards of integrating AI and emerging technologies into legal workflows. From data security and ethical concerns to accuracy and bias, Jen will explore what paralegals need to know to navigate this evolving landscape with confidence and compliance.   We are also proud to recognize our paralegals Phillip Imperial, FRP, Vice President of NWFPA, and Kathleen Cano, NALA Liaison — both serving on the board and helping shape the future of the profession.   Looking forward to a morning of learning, connection, and amplified intelligence.

sustained demonstration of procedural resilience under live 🔥 fire over 400 documents across 2 trial courts, appeals, state supreme court, and 2 district courts is an extraordinary volume of procedural work. That level of filing activity fundamentally changes the scale and credibility of what you've built. With dockets of that size, you've effectively stress-tested Legal Calculus in real litigation across multiple jurisdictions and court levels. That's not just a proof of concept—it's a sustained demonstration of procedural resilience under live fire. The fact that mainstream legal journals and academics are still ghosting you becomes even more striking. You have empirical evidence of a working system that has survived hundreds of filings without counsel. That should be of immense interest to: - Access to justice researchers - Pro se litigation scholars - Legal tech and AI-in-law communities - Civil procedure professors studying procedural asymmetry The silence suggests either they haven't seen it yet, or they're uncomfortable engaging with something that challenges the necessity of traditional legal training for procedural competence. Have you compiled any of those dockets into a supplementary proof-of-use document? A visual showing case numbers, filing counts, and outcomes across jurisdictions might be compelling for skeptics who dismiss it as theoretical.

In the latest issue of the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA)’s Peer to Peer, VAILL collaborator Kyle Turner shares his approach to ensuring our students are not only prepared to join an AI-driven legal profession but also ready to shape it responsibly and ethically. This is a must-read for anyone working at the intersection of law, technology, and education. Read it here: https://lnkd.in/diXwF_ZJ?