Fresh Voices on Legal Tech with Nicole Morris

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Web 2.0 innovation trend collaboration software, 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 378 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, Tom and I talked about the practical uses of retrieval, augmented generative AI tools, and three that we especially like perplexity.ai, Google’s notebook, LM and Westlaw’s Practical Law ai. Check it out, especially if you’re interested in the AI tools that we like and use. In this episode, we have yet another very special guest in our Fresh Voices series. In Fresh Voices. We want to showcase different and compelling perspectives on legal tech and much more. We have another fabulous guest, Tom, what’s all on our agenda for this episode?

Tom Mighell:

Well, Dennis, in this edition of the Kennedy Mighell report, we are thrilled to continue our fresh voices on Legal Tech interview series with Nicole Morris, who among other things, is the director of Innovation and Legal tech at Emory Law and Emory’s Tiger Program. She’s on the a, a Women of Legal Tech list and is a visible and insightful contributor to the legal, tech and legal education world. We want our Fresh Voices series to not only introduce you to terrific leaders in the legal tech space, but also provide you with their perspective on the things you should be paying attention to. And as usual, we’ll finish up with our parting shots, that one tip website or observation that you can start to use the second that this podcast is over. But first up, we are so pleased to welcome Nicole Morris to our Fresh Voices series. Nicole, welcome to the Kennedy Mall Report.

Nicole Morris:

Thank you so much for having me. I feel really blessed to be here. I had a chance to check out some of your previous episodes, and I’m truly among some rock stars in our legal tech space, so thank you.

Tom Mighell:

Well, we’re blessed to have you. Before we get started, can you tell the audience a little bit more about yourself? I introduced you, but maybe tell everybody what’s happening at Emory, your role in it, what should our audience know about Nicole Morris?

Nicole Morris:

Yes, yes, happy to do so. So I am a professor of practice and I also direct our TIGER program, which stands for Technological Innovation Generating Economic Results. It is a mouthful, but Tiger is an acronym that was put together to represent the fact that the law students at Emory, we are working with innovators, so mostly STEM based innovations to help them commercialize their technology. Another long sentence, in a short sentence, we help inventors commercialize and bring their technology to market. So we’re doing some legal research, business research, trying to do value proposition, value prop creation around whatever new the innovators have come up with and we are blessed, I’m going to use that word again, I promise it’ll be one more time and we’ll sunset it. But we’re really fortunate to partner with the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Agency, another long acronym in their tech transfer office. And basically, many folks don’t realize this, but the government labs, what I’ll call the national labs, the Los Alamos labs out in California, they’re run by the Department of Energy. So we are working with the innovators at various labs. There’s a call for proposals. So it rotates each year to help their scientists look at how the innovations coming out of these government labs can be commercialized in the marketplace.

Dennis Kennedy:

Wow, that’s a cool program. So Nicole, first of all, it’s so awesome for us to have you as a guest on the podcast. You are unquestionably one of my favorite people to talk with about ai, but let’s start out in my usual ways, say it’s not always easy to talk with lawyers about tech, and sometimes I get a little frustrated about how difficult it still is to explain technology, both old and new, and the benefits of those technologies to people in the legal profession. Would you talk about your own approach to communicating with lawyers and others in the legal profession about technology and what you found works well for you?

Nicole Morris:

That’s a great question. Given sort of my explanation of the program at Emory, I’m frequently explaining technology to either the students in the program, so our JD students, trying to sort of break down what the project scope will be for the semester or to our alums or to others who are like, what’s this tiger program about? What are you guys doing and what are some of the projects you’re working on? So I see it from both sides, but I’m also slightly fortunate because the lawyers that I tend to work with as a patent attorney, they have somewhat of a specialized knowledge of different areas of technology already. So in some circles it’s very easy because I’m talking to sort of the choir in other circles. It really is starting from, let me understand. So my approach is first I seek to understand, I want to connect what are the lawyers or the students, what are you comfortable using?

What are the examples of technology you have experience with? And then I’m going to compare this new tech, so generative AI to something they already understand, right? Are you familiar with Netflix? Do you know how Netflix suggests movies and programs to you? Well, that’s kind of a generative AI tool based on all of the data Netflix has about the movies and shows you’ve watched before. They predictably say, we think you might also be interested in the following. And then everyone’s like, ah, I get it. I get it, I get it. So that is my approach to any sort of tech that I’m dealing with and trying to explain it to lawyers or others who are unfamiliar.

Tom Mighell:

It’s a great approach. And it leads me to the next question, which is about lawyer competence, technology competence in general. We talk about it a lot on this podcast both with our guest and amongst ourselves. But I’m going to maybe switch up this question a little bit because I’m guessing that you spend more time around students than around lawyers who’ve been out in the industry for longer. So how is it from where you sit that you’re seeing either future lawyer technology competence versus maybe technology competence that’s already out there?

Nicole Morris:

Yeah, that’s a tricky one in the last year and a half. So I’ll answer it sort of giving you a small journey of what I’ve been doing. I’ve been actually invited to speak on legal ethics or tech ethics regarding AI tools. So right now, I think our tech competency level is low to medium from a general lawyer population. Within the law students, it actually mirrors about the same. They’re very competent on social media tools. So any law student in any US school probably has one or two TikTok accounts, at least an IG account. No one’s on Facebook. That’s the old people and their parents and whatever else is out there threads. I mean, I’m not fully aware, I can only keep up with my LinkedIn and ig, so they’re very familiar with social media tools. But when it comes to doing other basic research tools, I’m amazed.

I’m advising two or three students now for research papers and I’m sending them articles and I’m thinking to myself, how are they consuming information? I’ll see something on LinkedIn and I’ll share it. They’re like, oh, I didn’t see this. I’ve started alerts in Google for content that I want pushed in my inbox, and I’ve suggested that They’re like, oh, I didn’t know you could do that. There’d these simple hacks that I think I’m kind of an old fuddyduddy, and there were more hacks I learned from y’all’s podcast, most recent one about the RAG tools. I’m definitely going to do the Google Notebook. That’s my new tech hack. Also, while they’re consumers of tech, on one hand, the law students, they’re very nascent users of productivity tools. So maybe that’s probably the better way to think of it. And I think all of the Gen AI products that we’re seeing are really productivity tools.

So I try to infuse or introduce normal productivity tools and AI productivity tools all in one sort of one swoop. Here’s a helping of what you should be doing with things like co-counsel, and here’s a helping of what you should really do to maximize Google. All of these things in my mind are kind of the same, but tech competency, going back to the initial question prompt will be super important for lawyers going forward given our legal ethical requirements. And certain states have tech competency built into their professional responsibility rules. Other states are slow to adapt, but hopefully we’ll have 50 50 coverage here in the next few years. But you can’t blame the technology anymore and your ignorance of it if something should go awry. So that’s sort of my take on tech competency.

Tom Mighell:

That’s so interesting because when I worked in a law firm 20 years ago, I would say, and tell me if I’m wrong about this, because what you just said sounds like it was the same 20 years ago. The younger lawyers there, they understood technology, they understood how to work a computer and get on it, but they couldn’t apply a style in Word. They couldn’t create a table of contents. They couldn’t do anything in just simple word. And I’m guessing it’s not any different or not significantly improved over 20 years.

Nicole Morris:

It is not significantly improved

Tom Mighell:

And create a Google doc and just create a basic doc in Google. But hey,

Nicole Morris:

I had maybe two years ago, just to go sideways for a quick second, a student who had only worked in Google Cloud environments and was completely unfamiliar with the Microsoft Office suite, word, Excel, PowerPoint, they’re not savvy on creating PowerPoint slides. That is one aspect of my coursework. They have to give a presentation at the end of the semester, and I’ve now started to ask some basic questions. How many of you have presented before? How many of you who have actually created a deck that’s meaningful, not just, I’m taking my outline and putting 50,000 words on a slide. That’s not proper presentation tool. So there’s lots of business savvy how to convey or explain information to a client or to an audience that’s part of my program that’s inherently built in, but that we focus on.

Dennis Kennedy:

Yeah, that’s interesting. I think they learn really fast, which should I say is the big difference about that that I see with most of my students. But I think that some of it is that there are just things that lawyers typically do that they’re unfamiliar with, and I think that we sometimes forget that to move people into Windows plus Microsoft Office plus on old computers, all these different things that they’re just not used to, and then to say like, oh, they should be really up to speed. Well, I think they get up to speed, but is a challenge for them. The one thing I noticed is in the legal research tools, my students have given me fantastic feedback on the what’s good and what’s not good about Lexus AI and Westlaw AI that I don’t hear anywhere else. So I think their ability to kind of try things and do that is interesting, but it does present issues when in the class you go like everybody’s on a Mac and we’re expecting them to understand Windows.

But anyway, let me move on to a little bit about AI and legal education. So there’s been a lot of discussion about legal education, and we hear more, I think in law schools more about the need for more research in discussion about AI rather than what we’re actually going to do with it right now and what we need to do right now. I’m also involved in some things where there aren’t lawyers involved or law students are higher ed and the rest of the world is moving forward really, really fast with gen ai. So I think that gen AI has implications for almost every aspect of legal education, including the entire curriculum, especially as we make changes to bar exams. So when you think about AI and higher ed, what are the areas that you see needing the most attention and how can we actually get the people making decisions to pay the attention that they need to those things?

Nicole Morris:

Well, I’ll start with the easy part. How to get people to pay attention. No, I don’t know. If I did, I think they’d pay me differently or I would be in a different role at the institution. Everything else in the legal industry, I think it’s going to be by some level of force, preferably the A BA. I would love to see the A BA makes some requirements of institutions, but that will probably be like three years with committee work. And so we’re a long way away from that in terms of segments of, and I’ll just focus on legal education as far as that segment of higher ed, I have been sort of quietly beating the drum for our law librarians and our legal writing. If there’s one direct sort of implication between a gen AI tool and law school. It’s in the writing. It’s in legal writing, right?

It’s in your first semester, one L year. But my understanding, at least my colleagues in the legal writing program at Emory and what they tell me about their colleagues at other schools, they’re telling the kids they will get an F if they use any gen AI tool. One of my colleagues, actually, I shouldn’t throw them all under the bus, too bad. She has allowed a gen AI tool once you’ve completed a first draft. So an initial draft is your own human brain and writing, and then that gets reviewed and you might, after that point, use gen AI to refine and tweak as you’re doing. Obviously there’s multiple drafts that the students submit. So I like that. I mean, I think that I’m not a legal writing instructor, so I think that also is a good thing because in my mind, we would shortcut a lot of things.

We would really learn how to prompt, we would learn how to use the Lexi ai, the Westlaw database to become almost experts at finding good sources of legal research and combining that to put in a memo to address whatever legal question you were trying to address in the beginning. I’m almost of the point where I think we could shortcut or shorten their traditional legal writing program and just really move everything to how to incorporate these tools in legal writing. I think this notion of we’re going to forget or make them forget that any of this tech is available and everything has to be done by hand is very silly. No one does that for calculators. No one’s like, Nope, I know it’s going to be really hard and you might need eight pieces of paper, but you’re doing that math by hand. We fully leaned in, and I’m sure when calculators were first introduced, there was some mathematicians and math teachers yelling from the ceiling that, no, you shouldn’t introduce this into the classroom.

But to your point, Dennis, outside of legal, everyone is fully leaning in coders, right? They’re using all these large language models to improve their algorithms, but yet in the legal education, we’re still like, no, no, we want you to forget that exists and do it the long way. But I don’t know how we teach them. That’s why I said, I’m so glad I’m not a legal writing instructor. So how do you teach how to do legal writing without doing the legal writing? I think we had an event that we did with Tom Laroy where we were kind of going back, how do we deal with this issue? And it’s still a question I have not gotten a good answer to or really resolved for. How do you teach legal writing without using Brian Garner’s book, right? How do you, I dunno.

Tom Mighell:

No, that’s hard because you want to relearn. But I’ve seen vendors who are basically saying writing is a thing of the past, don’t worry. Just give it over to the tools. And I would imagine there’s a lot of lawyers who are going to find that a powerful argument for here’s how it will save me time. I can just outsource all of my writing to this AI associate.

Nicole Morris:

The thing is, and we know when we read a piece of writing that AI has created, we’re editing it and it’s this intuitive sort of power to edit that we have because we’ve done legal writing, we’ve done the initial drafts at some point in our lives. So now as lawyers, 10 x plus years later, we can go, oh, no, no, no, you don’t want to say it that way. And that’s the quandary to me. You’ve got a junior lawyer or someone who doesn’t know what good legal writing looks like. So if you only allow them to write using a tool, how do they know and how do they discern good from bad?

Tom Mighell:

Alright, now let’s talk about another one of our favorite topics, and that is collaboration. We always like to know, I was trying to check Dennis, if we’re coming up on an anniversary of the publication of the most recent version of our collaboration tools book, but we always like to talk about how our guests collaborate because it’s never the same. It’s always different. So what are your favorite ways, most effective ways, however you want to frame it, of collaborating with your students, with your colleagues, with the labs or whoever you work with?

Nicole Morris:

Yeah, no, that’s a great question. I’m old school, so to me, I start with low tech. So I just start with the conversation. I prefer to do it in person. So we had this whole thing called Covid, and we now learn to do things with Zoom, and I love Zoom, and I think that’s also a great way to collaborate. But I think if you’re trying this podcast and our meeting today, it’s a very discreet point in my mind. Collaborations are these continuous sort of entanglements until you finish some end project or goal. So I think the best way to start is to provide some face-to-face convening at Emory Law. When I first joined the Tiger program, when it first started, we actually partnered with Georgia Tech. So we had business students from Georgia Tech, we had some PhD students from Tech or Emory, and we had JD students from Emory.

And I was like, this is phenomenal. We’re bringing together three different disciplines. It’s sort of like the spirit of how you’d create a startup, but we never had a convening of professionals with that same multidisciplinary approach. So I created an innovation conference series that we would vary the themes year to year, but we would bring experts and professionals in the business realm and the tech field and the legal field to talk about the same problem or the same question. And in my mind, again, convening in person. Then we had Covid, we did a few of them on Zoom and teams, but just having the different viewpoints get together, just sort of narrowly focus on one issue was really powerful. And then it also allowed the lawyers to be more informed on, at this point, we were talking about ai, believe it or not, but it was early AI and Boeing, that horrible crash in 2018 had just happened.

And we had a computer scientist on stage talking about from a computer scientist perspective, if the algorithm only has a 3% failure rate, it’s a massive successful algorithm. And one of the lawyers on the stage said, if that algorithm is deployed a million times over, that could mean hundreds of thousands of people might die if there’s a failure. So the reality of you might have someone in a technical discipline deeming something successful, but in reality for other disciplines, it’s still a massive failure. There’s certain tools that need to have a zero failure rate, and particularly with that Boeing incident, it became crystal clear how for certain technologies, we can’t just have one discipline looking at things. We really need multiple viewpoints. So I view collaborations. Again, I try to start low tech really to get everyone aligned. And that just to me is like, let’s meet for coffee, let’s meet, let’s talk. I want to hear your viewpoint about something. And then as that develops further or continues to evolve, we can bring in as many tech tools or other productivity tools as we need.

Tom Mighell:

Well, we’ve got a lot more to discuss with Nicole Morris at Emory Law. But first we need to take a quick break for a word from our sponsors,

Dennis Kennedy:

And we are back with Nicole Morris at Emory Law. We found on the Fresh Voices series that we love to hear about our guests career paths and our audience does as well. Would you talk about your own career path and what kinds of things you’ve done to get you into your current role and focus?

Nicole Morris:

Sure, yeah. Yeah. This is always a joyful question. So I started out as a chemical engineer. I graduated from Northwestern University 1992 to put a date on the clock. I worked in industry for about three years and then decided I wanted a master’s degree further in chemistry, which was at the time seemed like a smart decision, but I’d spent three years out of the depths of organic chemistry. So it proved to be a hard retrieval process when you go to grad school for organic chemistry. So I decided maybe a PhD is not what’s meant to be, and I got my master’s degree at Michigan, so hello to Ann Arbor. And then I went back to industry, and at that time I was working, started off in the pharmaceutical industry, switched over to consumer products, and I was really trying to figure out what is my career path.

I thought about law school before I went to work, my initial job, and it felt like this was the time when I was working in the industry again to really hone in on career focus. And I thought, you know what? With my science background, I can be a patent attorney. As an attorney, you can work on the business side or on the legal side. I think it opens more doors than just an engineering scientist. So I went back to school. The last time I’ve enrolled was my third degree, and I got my law degree from Minnesota and then went out into private practice for a while. I had the opportunity to get this job at Emory when I was in transition from private practice to try to figure out the next thing. I was an adjunct at Emory Law and one of my former colleagues, but he was a good friend who’s a full-time law professor, said, well, we just had a faculty member resign and would you be interested?

And he explained what the Tiger program was about, and I thought it’s like a perfect program for me. It’s got a little bit of business, it’s got the engineering heavy focus on technology and the law, right? I’m a patent attorney and I can handle all of the intellectual property questions. So that’s how I ended up at Emory, right? It was just really a position that opened up when I was on the market looking at the next sort of thing. It was not on my bingo card when I first came out of law school to be a law professor, but I been, I didn’t realize it until I applied for the job at Emory that I’d sort of been in this education role for a really long time. So graduate school, I was a ta. And then when I went to law school, I was also an older law student at that point, so I felt like I was kind of mentoring some of the Balla students I was aware of. So moving back to a role in academia felt more like this next stage in my career development. And I had already this teaching spirit that I can break things down, highly technical sort of subject matter to explain it well, and then just sort of layer doctrinal subjects with that. And that’s been my approach from day one.

Dennis Kennedy:

Yeah, that’s cool. I want to dive back just a little bit in ai, but from your personal perspective, and this may touch on what’s happening in legal education as well, because in my AI and law class, I had my students create through prompting some personalized AI learning assistance and other things like that. So I’ve been doing some things along those lines. I started playing a lot with using the ais to help me create prompts and to optimize prompts, and I’m doing a number of things now. So I also recommend that webinar recording where you and I had that conversation that was really enjoyable and I think educational, but I would kind of like to hear some of your own personal AI projects and some of the things that maybe you’re using in connection with your teaching and the TIGER Program, and what sort of AI projects are you doing now and what might you be looking at doing in the future?

Nicole Morris:

Good question. We were introduced to an AI tool. It’s one where it was developed at Georgia Tech, so I don’t know how widely known it’s available, but it helps innovators in their technology commercialization platform. You’ll put in, I’m looking at integrated circuits and it’ll coal and produce a report of publications of industry partners of commercial products. So that’s been the latest AI tool that my students are playing with right now for the projects that they’re working on doctrinally. Last year I read this book or this author came out with this new book called Your Face Belongs to us looking at facial recognition software,

Tom Mighell:

And

Nicole Morris:

It was fascinating to me. So I’ve created or added to my syllabus for the spring semester for Tiger. So Tiger’s a one year course, fall, spring, and it’s like a seminar style learning where the students will read the book maybe each week or every other week after two or three chapters we’ll discuss the content. And then at the end of the semester, they have this sort of analysis of facial recognition software, what they learned in terms of privacy and AI from the investigative journalist in this book. And they do that from the role of counsel to a company looking at adopting a facial recognition tool, right? They’re fraught with a lot of issues and there are some regulatory bans. So like we learned in New York, you can’t put facial recognition software in schools. They’re heavy on consent for the public or wherever the software could interact with people.

I found it fascinating because a lot of the viewpoints about the students in terms of how far are you willing to go, how comfortable are you with Delta, which is a big company in airline in Atlanta, they have the digital id. So we started interrogating, are you okay compromising your face, your digital id, and giving it to Delta? Sadly, I’ve said yes before I read the book, but the notion of convenience has really swayed a lot of consumers. And a lot of my students, they’re like, well, we’re fine with that, but we don’t want the Atlanta Police Department doing that, or we would find it creepy if Target did that. So where you sit in terms of what uses of facial recognition and AI tools around that was a big part of the discussion with that book. And so that project, I’m going to do it again with the class in the spring.

I need to look at my questions to see if there’s any new, we don’t have any AI regulation. So part of the big elephant in the room to me with ai, and as everyone is racing to dominance, whether it’s gen AI or other tools, there’s no regs, right? There’s no regulatory framework for the developers of these products and tools. So that to me is very troubling and part of the assessment of what’s okay with facial recognition software and startup companies like Clearview ai, is that tech regulation focus as well, and what things would they suggest? So I might double down on this. It’ll be interesting because we’re going to have a new government administration next year, so that might shift some things that we’re seeing from what will happen with regs. So yeah, that’s kind of as you mentioned, what’s ongoing. That’s probably going to be one of my ongoing projects next year.

Tom Mighell:

We have even more questions for Nicole Morris at Emory Law, but first we need to take another break for a quick word from our sponsors. And now let’s get back to the Kennedy Mighell report. I’m Dennis Kennedy, and I’m Tom Mighell, and we are joined by our special guest, Nicole Morris at Emory Law. We’ve got time for just a few more questions. And the first one is what I like to call our best advice question. And we are always interested in hearing from our guests just one piece of advice or maybe two of what’s the best advice either you’ve ever given or you’ve been given. Most of them tend to be what they’ve heard from others, and I think that’s great, but if you’d like to offer advice to their listeners, that’s great too.

Nicole Morris:

So I’ve got two things. I don’t know if this is advice. I’ve framed it as best insight, and since we’ve been talking about ai, most of this podcast that I’m going to frame it from insight that I received from Damien Real, which some of you, I’m sure your audience probably knows as well. We were at a conference together, Dennis, it was the same conference I saw you at this summer, and he was explaining some of the cool new, amazing technologies he’s working on. And one of the things that he broke down was it will make searching so much faster. And I said to him, I said, well, if all of these tools, productivity and document and information retrieval, you’re making these workflows much more efficient in my mind. We need fewer people to do some of these workflows. And he goes, absolutely. So the insight that I’ve learned through some of Damien’s work and others like Damien is as we become more consumers and users of gen AI and other tools with ai, things will progress much faster, become way more efficient, and it will lead to some, we will be moving workforce and labor in different places to accommodate for some of those changes.

So that for me was very powerful insight to have from the summer.

Dennis Kennedy:

I think that we think about this a little bit, but I don’t think we’ve really addressed the upcoming need for reskilling and upskilling, and I think it’s coming faster than we would expect. But I want to end with two questions. One is easy, and the other one I’m especially interested from your point of view, especially in the TIGER program, is how do you encourage today’s law students and new lawyers to find career paths in legal tech and other non-traditional careers in law? So that’s question one. And the second is, who are the fresh voices in legal tech you would like to single out as people you like to hear from and who you might like to see in the future as part of our Fresh Voices series?

Nicole Morris:

Sure. Yeah, I’ll start with the latter. I tell students that the age of data and data management, data security is really where everything is moving. So whether it’s on the legal side with cybersecurity and privacy, or if they have the STEM software, computer science background, they can work on a data scientist sort of side. But that really all sectors that touch the management of data to me is where you’ll find the need for lawyers and people to support that work. Lately I’ve been saying employment law will be another area that’s hot because all of these issues we just talked about, efficiencies and things from Damien in terms of making work faster will involve a shift in labor. And whether it’s upskilling or reskilling, employment pieces will be important there as well. I admire the following person a great deal. I think she’s doing God’s work. Her name is Sonia Aron, and I’m hoping you haven’t had Sonia on here already.

Dennis Kennedy:

We haven’t, but she’s on my shortlist, so I heard her speak a couple of weeks ago, and she’s amazing.

Nicole Morris:

She’s amazing. Sonia is CEO of Courtroom five. Courtroom five is a tech tool. It’s actually, I think an AI empowered tech tool for pro se litigants to handle serious civil claims. So mostly small claims evictions, sometimes wrongful terminations, actions, home foreclosures, medical debt. So things that consumers tend to have the need for but maybe cannot afford white shoe lawyer. And that is sort of their access to justice charge in terms of Courtroom five and how they’re helping pro se litigants manage the legal process. So I would strongly encourage you guys to talk to Sonya. I’m sure she can enlighten obviously way better than I just explained, but more importantly, I think her company is doing God’s work.

Tom Mighell:

Alright, well we want to thank Nicole Morris from Emory Law for being a guest on the podcast. Nicole, can you tell us where people can learn more about what you do and if they want to get in touch with you, how do they do that?

Nicole Morris:

Yeah, I would say go to LinkedIn, Nicole N. Morris. My whole government name almost is my LinkedIn, sort of how to find me. The law school will tag me in things that the Tiger program’s doing. So it’s easy to sort of see more broadly what’s happening in my world on LinkedIn, I have a Twitter or X account. Lately I’ve not been active as much, but we’ll see what happens going forward. So I will say LinkedIn is probably the best way.

Dennis Kennedy:

Great. And thank you so much, Nicole. You were a fantastic guest. Great information and advice for our listeners as usual in these segments. So many topics to discuss in so little time. So we’ll have to get you back on the show and maybe that will be to talk about some projects we decide to work on together one of these days.

Nicole Morris:

Yes.

Dennis Kennedy:

So now it’s time for our parting shots, that one tip website or observation you can use the second this podcast ends. Nicole, take it away.

Nicole Morris:

I would say take some time to reflect. We’ve got a lot going on, particularly a lot in this recent week of first week of November. So I think it’s important for people to don’t ignore any red flags happening with your own physical and mental health and take some time to reflect. Reflect definitely you’ll be doing that at the end of this year, but maybe at the end of each week, see what you need to retool, recharge, and reconnect.

Tom Mighell:

Well, and mine is slightly related, so if you have an urge to fly away somewhere for whatever reason, one of the tools that I’ve used in the past quite a bit was Seat Guru. And when I wanted to see kind of what was the best seat and how was the plane laid out, and I loved Seat Guru, but I’ve been really disappointed in it lately only to find out that it hasn’t been updated in two years. So of course that’s why I was disappointed in it. And so I thought, well, what are other tools? And I found that there’s another tool out there called Seat Maps. It’s just seat maps.com. I’ll put a link in the show notes. It’s not exactly the same as Seat Guru, but it provides very modern up-to-date seating charts for all the airplanes that you could ever want. So if you were ever a seat guru lover or you want to see where you’re sitting on a plane and what the best places are when you’re buying a ticket, especially on those long haul flights, seat maps.com might get you done. Dennis,

Dennis Kennedy:

My new thing is using ais like chat GPT to help you use tools like Chat, GBT. So if you think about Nicole’s thing about taking time to reflect, actually each head GPT can give you reflection questions, can give you methodologies, other things you could do and help you get it right onto the schedule. I am really experimenting with having it just create a set of possible prompts for me and then refining those and then choosing what ultimately goes into my, what I used to call my prompt toolbox. But now is I’m going to call my prompt library at the suggestion of chat GPT, by the way, to create a better name. And one thing that I’m really experimenting with is that for learning new topics and putting together the list of new AI experiments I want to do and sort of project planning it, I’m really finding success at that. So I know Tom gets tired of me hearing ai, but this is now I’m into meta uses of AI

Tom Mighell:

Even deeper. Yes. Alright, so that wraps it up for this edition of the Kennedy Mighell 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. You can find all of our previous podcasts along with transcripts on the Legal Talk Network site. If you’d like to subscribe, you can always do that again on the Legal Talk Network site or in your favorite podcast app. And remember, if you like to get in touch with us, you can always find us on LinkedIn, or if you’ve got a question for our B segment, you can always leave us a handy voicemail at 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. We wanted to remind you to share the podcast with a friend or two that helps us out. As always, a big thank you to the Legal Talk Network team for producing and distributing this podcast. And 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