Online Unconferences and Virtual Get-Togethers for Legal Tech

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Web 2.0 innovation collaboration, metadata. Got the world turning as fast as it can hear how technology can help legally speaking with two of the top legal technology experts, authors and lawyers, Dennis, Kennedy, and Tom Mighell. Welcome to the Kennedy Mighell report here on the Legal Talk Network

Dennis Kennedy:

And welcome to episode 369 of the Kennedy Mighell Report. I’m Dennis Kennedy in Ann Arbor.

Tom Mighell:

And I’m Tom Mighell in Dallas.

Dennis Kennedy:

In our last episode, we visited with Jack Shepherd of iManage as part of our ongoing fresh voices in legal tech interview series. We highly recommend that episode as well as the other episodes in the Fresh Voices series. In this episode, Dennis, that’s me. One to talk about ways to bring together communities of interest in legal tech on an informal basis and discuss new developments and share ideas and approaches and perhaps even to have some fun doing that. What might an online unconference look like and who would be interested? Tom, what’s all on our agenda for this episode?

Tom Mighell:

Well, Dennis, in this edition of the Kennedy Mighell report, we will indeed be looking at ways to bring together communities of interest online in new ways. My script says in new ways, but I’m going to question whether that’s really in new ways the topic though that naturally fits in with our interest in collaboration and collaboration tools. In our second segment, we’ll have our new friend chat, GPT, ask us a question that suspiciously looks like questions that we’d ask ourselves that it’s generated from our audience’s point of view and it’s usual. We’ll finish up with our parting shot, that one tip website or observation that you can start to use the second that this podcast is over. But first up, Dennis wanted to talk about some ideas for regular collaboration in informal and compelling ways. Virtually we’ve talked about this in some form before, but Dennis seems to think the times and the tools have changed in ways that might make this approach more attractive and more doable. I’m curious. I’m intrigued. I’m a little skeptical and I will confess, I am so slammed at work right now. I’ve had no time to prepare myself for this podcast, so I’m going to spend some time interrogating Dennis A. Little more about what these new ideas might look like and how it might be successful or whether I give it a big thumbs down. Dennis, why are you thinking about this topic now? Well,

Dennis Kennedy:

First of all, I have a confession that unlike what a lot of people say these days, I actually really like talking with people on Zoom and participating in chat sessions and being part of Group Zoom things. So there I said it, people can deal with that. I’ve also been thinking a lot about the, it is a bit surprising me to the overwhelmingly positive feedback to the unconference we did at Michigan State College of Law, and I find that I want to join more groups and to do them online because they’re kind of fun and it seems like a great way to learn things and in a way feels like one of the best things we got out of the early years of the pandemic that we seem to be slipping away from. And I also say, Tom, that for our audience, this is going to be one of those shows where I come up with this idea that I’m all excited about, that I want to run by Tom. Tom then of course points out all the things I haven’t thought of and where I might be wrong. And then at the end, we either come up with a totally great idea that the two of us have come up with together or we conclude that I was all wrong. Anyway, so time is that about right?

Tom Mighell:

That’s about right. I have some questions about your initial premise that’s going to help me start to formulate my opinions because you like talking with people in Zoom and participating in groups. I only spend time in Zoom and participated in groups in meetings for work. Those are my meetings. So I don’t particularly like talking in Zoom and participating in groups. So my first question for you is that for this idea that you have to be successful, you have to count on a lot of other people thinking like you, that they like talking with people on Zoom and participating in groups, that they’re out there, that there is a critical mass that will be popular for this, right? Am I assuming right about that in order for this to be successful?

Dennis Kennedy:

Yeah, I mean exactly. But it is part of the thing where people say, I love going to in-person events, but I don’t necessarily actually want to go to any of the sessions. I am interested in the hallway conversations and talking with people and these informal things and I’m like, well, why would I go somewhere else for that when I can just schedule something on Zoom? And people have common interests, can have those hallway conversations and not be presented to and figure out different ways that they can talk to each other. And so yeah, that’s the fundamental premise.

Tom Mighell:

Again, assumes people like talking online in meetings like this, but let’s put that aside for a minute. Let’s park that. So my second question is more for you to help our audience out with the idea of an unconference. Can you give a quick definition of that for people? We’ve talked about it before on the podcast, but it’s been a minute. So define it so people know what you mean when you’re talking about an unconference.

Dennis Kennedy:

Yeah, we have a great podcast I think from a couple years ago where we talked about it at length. So I thoroughly recommend that people give that a listen, but the idea of it on conference is that you kind of turn the traditional conference approach on its head and you say, if the best part is people coming together and having these informal conversations about what they’re most interested in with people who are interested in the same things. What if you create an event where that’s exactly what happens and you just give it a little bit of structure and then let the audience or the attendees kind of design it and talk about the things they want and it’s a great way to meet people and stuff. And so that’s the basics of the Unconference approach. And there’s different ways to do it. You sometimes see it with design thinking events or brainstorming or I like the open space technology approach to conferencing, but you give it a little structure, but you kind of let the people attend, come and talk about the things that most interest them. I sort of think of it back if I were back in a couple hundred years ago. We think it is the notion of the salon sort of thing. Here’s, people get together, they have really interesting conversations and it’s fun and you learn things, you meet people and it’s a great thing. So to me is the Unconference notion

Tom Mighell:

And the unconference that you had at MSU was a virtual unconference.

Dennis Kennedy:

Yeah, that was totally in person. That’s sort of why I started to think about this is that I did that unconference as an in-person thing. And part of the reason is that when you do conferencing, and we talked about this in the early days of Covid when we were trying all sorts of different tools, is that there is this kind of upskilling that you need. And so people were throwing all these different tools like, oh, we’re going to do this whiteboard and mural, we’re going to do this. Here’s this thing where you have avatars. And so the learning curve got in the way of the actual interaction of people and there’ve been tools out there to address it. But sort of my thinking now is that maybe we’re so comfortable with Zoom and the way that Zoom works that it can actually work as an unconference. So that’s part of my thinking.

Tom Mighell:

Okay, so let’s dive into that. Why Zoom? What about Zoom makes it intriguing and what makes it something that you would use? I agree. I think that when you try to introduce new and different technologies to people, even though you’ve tried and you think they’re really cool and you think they’d really work, you’re having to go through a mini change management with people when they join something online and it almost never works out. So I agree. Keeping it simple when you do something like this is preferred. What about the Zoom platform makes you think that would be successful?

Dennis Kennedy:

Well, because is okay for me to say because I like it so much, but I think what’s intriguing to me is that we have our usability with it is good. And no matter how much people complain about it, you basically know how to use it. But what’s intriguing most to me is it’s what I call the multimodality of communication. So you could have a speaker, you could have a facilitator, you can have audience members either talk or contribute things. People can raise their hands and then you can have a really active chat that goes along with what’s going on in the conversation. So it can be when you have the right groups, and I have one example I’ll definitely talk about when you have the right people and the right groups, it’s just a really engaging experience for the period of time you’re doing it. So that is one of the things I like, but I think that sort of leveraging the familiarity that we have is one of the main things, but that multimodal approach to interacting with people I think fits the needs of different people, whether you’re an extrovert, an introvert, whether you want to be on camera off, that sort of thing. So that’s why Zoom is especially interesting to me.

Tom Mighell:

So what you’re talking about, granted, I think Zoom is a platform that ultimately would be useful for this, but when you talk about what you’re describing, it makes me go back to the pandemic and think about the Darling tool of the pandemic, which I very rarely see anybody on these days. I haven’t gone on it, I haven’t gone to look at it. And that’s Clubhouse. And for those of you who don’t remember Clubhouse, clubhouse was an app that came up when we weren’t able to meet in person and it was a place where anybody could start a room and they could have the room about any question and it would be joining a phone line, it would be joining a party line where everybody was able to talk and say things. But it was all audio, it was not video. I feel like once people got back in person after the pandemic Clubhouse suffered a massive withdrawal of users. But how is what you’re talking about different from just using a tool like Clubhouse?

Dennis Kennedy:

I kind of made fun of Clubhouse over time, but there really was a period of three weeks I think where it was the hottest thing in social media and it was going to be the biggest

Tom Mighell:

Thing like four or five. It was four or five weeks

Dennis Kennedy:

Longer

Tom Mighell:

Than that.

Dennis Kennedy:

And then what I didn’t like about it was that it felt like talk radio to me. And so the experience was a great, it was confusing to figure out and you had to have a moderator who knew you had to, you were in different categories and they could elevate you to talk or not. And it was just hard to figure out what was going on. And then the clubhouse things, events could be anytime of the day. So you didn’t have that kind of consistent place that you went to on a regular basis. There are obviously some exceptions to that where I think people really understood what Clubhouse could do and I saw that, but I just didn’t see it happen. And I think that what’s interesting about this and what Clubhouse gave the people who I think were successful with it was not so much that it was the social media tool, but it created this group and what they call what the anthropologists called the third place. I know Tom, you’re going to England soon, but it’s your pub, it’s a bowling alley, it’s that third place that you go that’s network or home that you hang out and you socialize. And so Clubhouse was interesting for that and I think that that element is what I would want to pull over to Zoom.

Tom Mighell:

So then let me keep challenging that. We’ve talked about Discord. Discord is a place where you can do the same thing. Is that just clubhouse in a different format?

Dennis Kennedy:

I don’t know. Are you using Discord these days time? I just thought that was too techy and it became one. And the other problem is, and this is a clubhouse thing and the experience that we often have, if you tell somebody they have to go to some new place and use some new tool, it’s really hard for them If you say like, oh, this is something you can do just in Zoom. It’s like the old thing where you say with email you have this tremendous collaboration tool and people still want to use email most familiar with it. So I don’t think you want to give people a new tool, a new URL, anything like that. And I think some of the things that I’ve tried that I think are really cool, like Mighty Networks and some of the other things we talked about is the fact that somebody has to go to a different place than they traditionally travel to on the internet. That becomes a problem if you just like, oh, this just shows up as a Zoom meeting and I click on one button and I’m in there. Got it. And they know what’s going to happen.

Tom Mighell:

We’re reverting to the lowest common denominator, the one that’s the easiest for everyone to use. And I guess that is the rule of good technology usage. Alright, so I’m assuming that, I know that we’ve talked before about your meetings with ILO, the innovation in large organizations group, and I’m assuming that when they meet, it sounds like they’re meeting via Zoom.

Dennis Kennedy:

Yeah, the Zoom thing started right at the beginning of the pandemic and every Thursday afternoon at one, there’s about 40 people ish. And it’s like a regular group of people who are innovators in other contexts in law. And it’s fascinating. I’ve met great people, there’s regular conversations and always learn stuff and there’s active chat going on and people are courteous and raise their hands and you have all these regulars and those things all become, and that notion of regulars, critical mass, people who play certain roles in this small community, that sort of thing, all those fit with that notion of third place. And so you say, I actually enjoy the fact that I know on Thursdays at one o’clock I’m going to have a really interesting conversation where I learn something with people I’ve gotten to know over the years.

Tom Mighell:

Okay. Alright. So we’ve defined the requirements, we define the criteria, a core community of interest, people who are interested in the same general topics or ideas and a platform that makes it easy to participate. Those are the two criteria. I think we have more to discuss about that, but I think that at least sets the table for the next part of the discussion. So we’re going to take a quick break for a message from our sponsors before we get on with it. And we’re back, Dennis, I can tell that you’re excited about this and we talked about one of the requirements being a core community of interest and not to cast aspersions on the fact that you are all AI all the time constantly. But would I be in the neighborhood of warm if I said that you’re thinking about an online community of interest around artificial intelligence in law?

Dennis Kennedy:

I think that artificial intelligence in law could be a driver for something like this. And so I had a conversation recently with Colin, the chance who is now has a special innovation role at the Ontario Bar Association. And we had a great conversation and we ended up talking like, oh, it would be great if we had a regular conversation and we could pull together people who are interested in this topic and do it on a regular basis and see if we could create this type of community. And so we spent some time discussing it and I said, the bottom line for me is that I would love to be part of this community, I just don’t want to run it. And that won’t surprise you, Tom, that that’s my approach. But Colin was really interested in saying like, oh, that’s something that I could see happening.

And so I guess I’ll ask you for feedback, Tom, if you knew that at a certain time, let’s say three in the afternoon on you, think of Bob Ambrogi legal tech journalism podcast. He says it’s three o’clock on Friday, people who show up and it has the following. So if you knew at three o’clock on Friday there’s going to be a group of people who were interested in AI and law and knew something about it, we’re just going to have regular conversation where people battered around ideas, talked about new developments, that sort of thing. And if you had time you could dip into that whenever you want. You could be a regular, you could chat, you could talk, you could listen whatever you wanted to do. Would that appeal to you, Tom?

Tom Mighell:

I mean there’s a lot of ifs in there. There’s a lot of ifs that I have to think about because where I struggle is that my days don’t belong to me. Full transparency. I used to listen to the Ambrogi cast all the time. I used to listen to that weekly legal tech update all the time until work got in the way. And now if you asked me if I could set aside an hour just to talk about things that weren’t related to work, I would say I can’t do it. I don’t have the time to do it. And my clients sometimes take that time away from me. So I can’t say it that that would happen. And I know that these types of communities are okay that you don’t show up every week. And that’s the purpose of a community is you drop in when you can, you drop into the pub whenever you see people, but they don’t expect you every time.

I think it would be if it was a topic that I was interested in and there were people that I was interested in talking to, then I would say yes. I will say that any organization like that draws individuals who tend to dominate the conversation and that’s not always the most pleasant environment to be in. So obviously I’d want to make sure that we, we were trusting of the people who were joining that we all were respectful and all, let everybody say the right things. But I mean I think that given a different job where I had all kinds of time in the world and my time was, my schedule was flexible, I could be very much interested in this.

Dennis Kennedy:

I know you listened to Bobby Ambros thing in the background sometimes, at least in the early days you did.

Tom Mighell:

I would listen to it all the time and it’s probably just a me thing, but I don’t know. There’s probably other lawyers out there who are equally busy and it’s hard to find time to get away to do stuff. So you really have to make a commitment. You have to say, this is going to be a regular part of my week. I’m going to want to make this a part of my week to do it because otherwise your calendar can get away from you.

Dennis Kennedy:

And I think you raised some important points. So in the ILO thing I do, it’s the Chatham House rules and then we also kick out anybody who tries to bring in an AI transcription bot

Tom Mighell:

Explain the Chatham House rules before we go further.

Dennis Kennedy:

You might have to explain ’em. I just know that basically what you say in the conversation doesn’t leave the conversation is the way I always think about that. So you can say, I can actually give you some of my opinions and it’s not going to be put out spread outside. That’s sort of the agreement we all have and it’s not recorded. And in that thing, like I said, the new chat bots that will do transcriptions are just basically shut down immediately. And so that gives you that sense of trust. Peter Tema who runs this is great. He’s a really interesting guy, interested in a lot of things, and he comes up with good seed topics and he’s a good moderator. And then we have this great civility so that you can say, oh, I want to say something. I raise my hand and I get called on and we understand the queue and the chat has its own purpose and things like that.

And so I think that if you have those fundamentals down, it can work. But you are with any social since the beginning of time back even before the web, you had all these issues with overly dominant people, lack of politeness, all those sorts of things. And so a moderator and making sure people do what if somebody says, I’m, I’m going to lead a discussion about this topic and they don’t show that’s a drag. And so I look at that and say, I don’t want to be the person who runs it. Interestingly, Colin was interested in running something like that. And so I’ve started to do a couple of other things where people had this idea, but I like the experiment of it. And then I think the key is this topic of interest. And so I look at AI and law as something that gives that, and I see when it works, it feels a lot to me like an unconference in the result because people say, this is one of my favorite things I’ve done. I can come and I can listen and I’m learning stuff and I’ve met great people. And so that’s the idea for me.

Tom Mighell:

Well, I think, and to clarify the Chatham House rule is that if you are participating in a meeting that has the rule, you may disclose or talk about any ideas or topics that were discussed at the meeting. You just cannot disclose who came up with it or who said it and it can’t be attributed to anybody. But that’s generally, you can use the information from a discussion, you just can’t say anything about where that information came from. And so I think, and that was led to my other question, are those rules, do you have ’em posted? Because I would think that if we were going to have a group like that, I’d want to have a set of five bullet pointed rules, very simple, very easy, but yet sitting there so that people understand if you’re going to be a member, you need to follow these very basic rules of etiquette to be part of the group.

Dennis Kennedy:

Yeah, I think it gets mentioned a lot. Yeah, I mean I guess there could be a thing where I wouldn’t want to overly formalize, but I could see something where you just do a reminder at the very beginning. And there was this question about, because it is becoming a more common question when somebody sends an AI chat bott to transcribe something, I expect the person who’s running the thing to kick those things off. But that doesn’t always happen,

Tom Mighell:

Right? Well, I mean I think that it feels like that’s something that is best to start out with. You and Colin had this idea, I’m sure that you have at least five or six or seven friends that might also be interested that you could invite, but it probably is something that would need to grow organically. It’s not something that you’re just going to advertise on LinkedIn and then that day you’re going to have a fully formed group. It’s going to be something that’s going to grow over time as people learn more about it. Any kind of social interaction online, it needs time to grow.

Dennis Kennedy:

Well, and I think you want to look at how other things that have worked did that. So clubhouse was invitation and then you got invitations and I could see something where you said like, oh, you kind of have this group you invite and then somebody’s part of the group has one invitation. And so you kind of keep control of the size and you potentially have a better community a bit more. And I use exclusive here in the best sense of the word, but it’s not a totally open thing. And so you’re saying we’re selecting people who we think will really contribute to this.

Tom Mighell:

Wait a second, you said really contribute to this, but you also said that it’s okay if you just sit back and listen. So which is it?

Dennis Kennedy:

So contribute into the sense of keeping it going by showing up, attending, and as opposed to saying, thank you for clarifying. I don’t think people should have any feeling that they’re obligated to provide content. I mean, that’s what all the other social media companies expect from us is deprive content so they can train their ais and make all kinds of money off us and place ads. So we want this to be something different. So it really is that sort of third place notion and I think the Unconference and whether it can be transferred online. And then I also want to look, we interviewed Nick Wan as part of our Fresh Voices and he did a really great job with Clubhouse and he just had this Wednesday evening thing that was like, no, basically the whole premise was this is a way to waste time. I think he called it something different that, and then you said like a regular core group of people and it’s kind of like if you took a look at some of these things that are successful and try to pull out some of those things and find some of the people who’ve been successful with this sort of thing, I think we could learn that.

I mean, I think for our audience, I would love to know what their interest level is in, but I think that Tom and I have both demonstrated that the idea of the Kennedy Mighell report online Unconference regular discussion group is not going to happen from the two of us, although I’m certainly happy to join things and in the right situations we might even be able to get you to show up to something from time to time.

Tom Mighell:

Well, let us see what happens. Alright, we have a lot more to talk about, but before we move on to our next segment, we need to take another break for our message from our sponsor. And now let’s get back to the Kennedy Mighell report. I’m Tom Mighell

Dennis Kennedy:

And I’m Dennis Kennedy and we wanted to remind you to share the podcast with a friend or two that really helps us out in our new B segment we, and that means me, our prompting chat, GT four and now for small zero in its bizarre naming small O in its bizarre and confusing naming convention in a sophisticated way to stand in for our audience and ask a question that the AI thinks our audience might want us to answer that would make us think and maybe push us a bit. So Tom was originally saying, my prompting was getting a little too specific and I’ve gone much more general and I got the following question, which Tom is already suspicious of. So we’ll see what he thinks. And here’s the question very simply, has the era of generative AI in law practice really arrived yet?

Tom Mighell:

Well, the nature of that question just makes me wonder why it would ask that specific question. It feels like it’s a question that’s begging for a specific story that is relevant to it. But that said, let me answer the question the best that I can, which is I will say yes, the era of generative AI in law practice has arrived for legal technology companies that they are actively making use of generative ai. They’re introducing it into their tools, whether it belongs in their tools or not, they are introducing it. So it is available, it is something that lawyers can take advantage of and use. But if you want to turn that question around and say, has the era of generative AI in law practice really arrived yet for the lawyers? I would say it still has some time to go. I mean, I think that there are those who are, I don’t know if we count the lawyers who have such poor decision-making skills of using chat GPT as a legal research tool if that counts as arriving in law practice yet, or is that just dipping their toes in the water or doing things in an unintelligent way.

But I would make the bet that the majority of lawyers are the same way that they are when any new technology is out. They are conservative, they are slow to adopt, they prefer not to deal with it. They’ve heard about it, they hear what it can do. They’ve also heard and seen the articles that say, beware of using chat GPT or generative AI in your law practice. So I would say that from that perspective, which really is the perspective that matters because if the lawyers aren’t using it, who cares what the vendors are doing? I would say it probably hasn’t fully arrived yet. Dennis, did I get close to the same answer you’re going to give?

Dennis Kennedy:

I think so. So this question reminded me of a story of something that happened to me recently. So I was speaking to a group of lawyers here in Michigan and 150 lawyers there, lots of in the room, very interested in the topic. So actually three things happened there that were kind of interesting. So I surveyed the room and to my surprise, almost the whole room were litigators. Then I asked him my traditional questions of how many have spent 10 hours working with an ai. It was like maybe in the 10% range, maybe a little bit more than that. And then I said, how many of you have actually worked with one of the GPT-4 level LLMs, the kind that you pay $20 a month for? And there were five hands went up in a room of 150 lawyers and one of the lawyers is a young lawyer, and we did a group session later that afternoon.

He was in my group. He said, I wanted to tell you this, when you ask who was using chat GPT for, he said, I raised my hand and I felt like I was the only one. And I wanted to say like, oh my God, am I doing something wrong? Nobody else is doing this. So I have some concerns. And that’s sort of what I see more commonly. Then also at the end of the session is one of the justices, Supreme Court of Michigan asks me this question at the end of the session of how long before we see AI having a really big impact in law? And I said, and my sense is two plus years, although I am hesitant now when I think about how little adoption there was in that room. So I might hedge and say two to five years. So I think generative AI is arriving in almost every area other than law practice.

I think we’re still, it’s surprising to me, it does feel like it’s making a lot of changes. It’s been around long time, but I really feel like we’re definitely in that very early adopter stage in terms of numbers. And so it’s good and bad things about that. I actually think it’s really bad for clients. But the thing that’s good is I had conversations with a couple of lawyers and I think it’s really easy for a lawyer now to become a thought leader, a first mover in AI and law. I think the competition is really light right now. And so you could see real opportunities open up for people. So bottom line, I still think we’re a couple years off in law, but I wouldn’t want to be the lawyer who’s wedding that couple of years. So now it’s time for our parting shots, that one tip website, our observation you can use the second this podcast ends, Tom, take it away.

Tom Mighell:

So this timem, I’m going to give an observation and that is I’m going to return back to a parting shot that I made a couple of months ago saying that I had decided to start looking at using perplexity or more particularly perplexity AI as a Google replacement, as a replacement for, and not really for a total Google replacement. But if I wanted to ask questions, for example, I will do some work where I need to know does my client, do they do this? Do they do that? There may be things that I want to know whether they engage in this business or that business. And there is research or information out on the internet that can give that answer. And I ask perplexity the question, it brings me back a number of results and it seems to be extremely accurate and I have grown to trust it, which makes me nervous when I see lots of stories come out over the past week about its lack of reliability.

Now, mostly the articles we’re talking about the fact that apparently perplexity has gotten into kind of the same trouble as some of the other tools have been, which is that they are finding ways to get around the guardrails that are in place to stop artificial intelligence tools, generate AI tools from scraping websites and parts of websites. But then one article went further to say that it’s giving inaccurate information. And while I can understand how chat GPT gives inaccurate information in response to a prompt, it feels like it’s going to be less likely when you are asking it a specific question that is kind of a search engine like question. And you are getting back references with links and documentation that you can go look at. All of this is to say that I’m taking a step back and paying more attention to the results that I get. I’m not stopping using perplexity, but I am taking it more seriously and not automatically accepting what I’m seeing because I still think we’re early days on getting accuracy from a lot of these things. I’m a little disappointed that a tool like Perplexity is not really any different from any of the others, but I’m going to be paying a lot more attention now, Dennis,

Dennis Kennedy:

We’re just so early in this stuff. You have to, it’s all experiment prompting right now is so significant. And then I always ask compared to what Google search engine results are so horrible right now, if I search for something, I have to figure out a way not to get the results that are paid for by SEO experts and stuff. So I just find the whole situation out there problematic. But the perplexity thing is something to watch to see whether it’s a real thing or it’s just the headline chasing click baiting thing that we see all the time now. So I have a really simple parting shot that I might’ve said before, but I feel like AI has taken a jump up into the next generations of its evolution in the last couple of weeks. And so there’s Claude 3.5, there’s chat, GPT-4 small zero. There’s something new that I just saw today and I’m really fascinated by and might be a subject for future podcast is the Claude Projects. I dunno whether it’s an application or how best to describe it. Very interesting. But I feel like if you’re using the free versions of AI is like where the tools are now and what you’re using is so vastly different. And I just keep coming back the same thing I told the lawyers in Michigan, your lawyers, right, just pay the $20 a month and you need to do that to understand where these tools are.

Tom Mighell:

And so that wraps it up for this edition of the Kennedy Mall report. Thanks for joining us on the podcast. You can find show notes for this episode on the Legal Talk Networks page for our show. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to our podcast in iTunes on the Legal Talk Network site or in your favorite podcast app. If you’d like to get in touch with us, remember you can always reach out to us on LinkedIn or I keep saying this and we keep not getting messages, but we’re going to hold out for a message for our B segments so that chat GPT can have a rest. Please leave us a voicemail if you’ve got a question for us. That number is 7 2 0 4 4 1 6 8 2 0. So until the next podcast, I’m Tom Mighell.

Dennis Kennedy:

And I’m Dennis Kennedy and you’ve been listening to the Kennedy Mighell report, a podcast on legal technology with an internet focus. If you like what you heard today, please rate us an Apple podcast and as always a big thank you to the Legal Talk Network team for producing and distributing this podcast. We’ll see you next time for another episode of the Kennedy Mighell Report on the Legal Talk Network.

Announcer:

Thanks for listening to the Kennedy Mighell report. Check out Dennis and Tom’s book, the Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies, smart Ways to Work Together from a Books or Amazon. And join us every other week for another edition of the Kennedy Mighell Report, only on the Legal Talk Network.

Continue Reading