Fresh Voices on Legal Tech with Megan Morrison and Laith Quasem

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Web 2.0. Innovation, trend, collaboration. 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 411 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 had the wonderful Chantel McNaught from people in legal join us to discuss the intersection of law as a profession and law as a business with a New Zealand perspective. Today’s episode is particularly special to me. Our recent guest, Bridget Carr, suggested it be interesting and fun to interview a former student of mine for the Fresh Voices Series. Well, we decided to go one better than that. We have two of them. 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 not one, but two of your former students from Michigan State University College of Law, Megan Morrison and Laith Quasem. We’re excited to hear their perspectives on legal technology, especially since they’re freshly out of law school, how legal education prepared them for today’s practice environment and what the next generation of lawyers is thinking about technology. 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 need to be paying attention to right now. 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 Megan Morrison and Laith Cosam to our Fresh Voices series.

Megan, Laith, welcome to the Kennedy Mighell Report.

Megan Morrison:

Thanks so much for having us.

Laith Quasem:

Thank you for having us, Professor Kennedy. Tom, pleasure to be here. We are honored.

Tom Mighell:

Before we get started, we want to tell us a little bit about you, the elevator pitch about yourselves, where you are now in your careers, what you’re doing, what should they know about you before we get started with the real questions.

Megan Morrison:

Sure. I will go ahead and go first. I’m Megan. I graduated from Michigan State College of Law in 2024, and now I’m a data privacy analyst at a media company in Seattle. And I’ve been doing this pretty much ever since graduating. I am on a much different path than a lot of my law school peers. I knew pretty early on in law school that I was not interested in the traditional law firm path. And so I kind of found myself with a dilemma because I wanted to finish law school, but was really interested in technology. And so that’s actually how I met Professor Kennedy. I took his data protection and cybersecurity class my second year, and that really introduced me to this whole new world. And so at a high level, for anyone who may not know what data privacy is really referring to, my job is to help organizations understand what personal data they’re collecting and how they’re using it and making sure that it complies with privacy laws like CCPA and the GDPR.

And so on a day-to-day level, this looks like reviewing new products, new tools, understanding how they work, what data they’re collecting, and then communicating any privacy requirements with the business and engineer teams. And so it’s been a really great place for me to be in. It is truly a bridge between law and technology, so it’s been really great.

Laith Quasem:

Enlight. Thanks again for having me. I am a second year associate, second year practice at Chapman Law Group, which is a national boutique firm focused exclusively on healthcare law. Most of what I do is in the healthcare regulatory and white collar defense space. So I work interdepartmentally in both our white collar practice group and our professional licensing and regulatory affairs practice group. We represent physicians, clinics, other healthcare providers in high stakes matters with both federal and state agencies, including, for example, Medicare, Medicaid, DEA, state level controlled substances issues, and sometimes when things escalate, and we hope they don’t, but parallel criminal proceedings as well. What I really love about my practice is it sits sort of at this crossroads of law, medicine, and compliance. I actually grew up in a family of doctors, so I’ve always had a lot of respect and admiration for healthcare professionals, and that’s really huge motivation for the work I do.

A lot of my job is just looking through local coverage determinations, national coverage determinations, other varieties of complex, dense regulation and translating that into workable and easily understandable advice again for those healthcare professionals, entities, et cetera. Just a quick somewhat nerdy point here. One of the things that also drew me to health laws, how seamlessly the administrative, regulatory, civil, and criminal worlds blend together. So you always have to be thinking about collateral consequences and just about everything you do in the healthcare space. And that, of course, encompasses both the federal and the state levels. So for example, single issue can trigger an audit, licensure action, reporting obligations, civil and/or criminal exposure all at once. So there’s a lot of proactive planning involved helping clients stay compliant and keeping them ahead of any potential issues. And I am incredibly interested in technologies that can streamline my day-to-day practice and just help our several practice groups here at CLG.

Great.

Dennis Kennedy:

I just have to say, and you know, obviously, this is just wonderful to have you both here. It’s great seeing you and hearing you again. So one of the things I’ve always been passionate about is helping law students understand the importance of technology and legal practice. So now you’re out in the real world. I’m curious, how has your view of legal technology evolved since law school? And what has surprised you most about the role technology plays in your actual work and practice?

Megan Morrison:

So now that I work in privacy, my whole job is pretty much looking at these tools and thinking about potential risks. So I find myself kind of conflicted when I learn about new technology, whether it’s legal related or not, because my mind kind of immediately goes to what data’s being collected, who has access to it, things of that sort. And so I find myself doing a risk and benefits analysis pretty much anytime I hear about anything new, and that’s definitely not something that I was doing in law school. I think in law school, the technology kind of seemed shiny and cool and kind of maybe not alien, but it just seemed magical like, oh my gosh, this is going to make my life so much easier. And so now my job is to break down what these tools are promising to do. So yeah, it’s not a very pretty answer, but that’s kind of how I view it now is a lot more critical.

Dennis Kennedy:

And Leith, how about you?

Laith Quasem:

Yeah, Megan, I think that was a really great answer. And speaking of Megan, Professor Kennedy, you asked specifically in terms of a timeframe here, how we view or how legal tech has evolved since law school specifically. Now looping Megan back in here, both of us actually graduated. We were both undergrads together as well. We both studied anthropology together. So I’d actually like to rewind a bit further back, if you will. So I still sort of think, of course, law school has indoctrinated us to think like lawyers, but I also still think like an anthropologist. So from my anthropological heyday to the present, I still take a very human first approach. And I always try to remember that we’re dealing with people who are trying to navigate complex systems, incredibly complex systems. And so with technology, especially what we call quote unquote progress, I think it’s a bit more complicated than it looks necessarily to always call it progress.

And I hope that makes sense. Over the course of human history, not to go on a major tangent here, but again, we’ve sort of continuously quote unquote progressed and we’ve tried to make things better or easier, but making things easier doesn’t always mean objectively better or objectively better results. So from a legal perspective now, again, I sort of blend my anthropological perspective and I tend to perceive legal technology, legal tech generally AI as really unique, powerful tools, but I still like to treat them and view them as just that, they’re tools. But in practice with respect to clients, I’ve found clients care a lot about empathy and judgment. They don’t want robotic or boilerplate language, especially when their livelihood is on the line as it often is, but they absolutely love technology specifically when it comes to making things faster and therefore cheaper. On the flip side, just a quick funny story.

I was recently talking to a friend attorney down in Texas, Tom, I know that’s where you are, and he just randomly at the end of the call, he expressed his frustration with the lack. Despite all of this technological advancement, he said there’s still no billing system that can really capture all of this time without him having to backtrack at the end of every day. And he ends up losing significant billable time because he either forgot to capture it altogether or he was simply too busy to capture it contemporaneously. So I told him, jokingly, of course, I think what you’re really looking for is someone to just maybe an assistant, someone to follow you around all day and log everything in real time. Maybe a notepad, maybe they have access to your billing system. I don’t know. His response, “Laith, I already have two assistants.” So I think legal professionals see the potential, but we want more.

We want to make things even easier despite the significant, again, quote unquote, progression.

Tom Mighell:

When we’re done with the podcast, I want to share with you or I want to go look for and then share with you the name of a company that I saw at Tech Show this year that actually acts as a billing AI assistant that follows you digitally around all day and then bills your time. So happy to talk about that, whether that’s in something that will work. I was really impressed with it. It doesn’t work in my business, but I would love to see how well it’s working. I want to stick a little bit with the people side, but to talk about it in a different way, and that is technology competence. Dennis and I talk about it all the time. We sometimes are very skeptical of the rate of technology competence that we see out there, more among older lawyers than newer lawyers, but given that you are new to the legal workforce over the past two years now, you’re in a very different position than we are to look at things.

And so I kind of have a two-part question, which is, what are you all seeing out there? Do you feel like technology competence among lawyers is good, bad, indifferent? Maybe there’s a generational issue that you’re seeing somewhere. And then maybe the second part of the question is, what do you believe that a lawyer should be doing these days to be technologically competent? What do they need to know to actually be able to represent their clients and understand technology in a way that benefits the clients? Sorry, that was all mouthful.

Laith Quasem:

In my experience, had plenty of conversations with attorneys who graduated 2024, same as both Megan and myself, younger attorneys, and consensus seems to be. Let me start with the motivation, and then I’ll get to answering your question in a roundabout way. Younger attorneys, including myself, do not want to spend their life billing. So in other words, they don’t really want to build their lives away. So we want to build … We’re serious about our careers. We want to build successful careers, but we also want to live, we want to travel, we want to actually enjoy our lives. So in a way, we want to have our cake and eat it too. So because of that, I found that most younger attorneys are really open to learning and adopting technology so long as it helps give them some of that time back and it helps make their practice more manageable.

They tend to be curious and willing to try new things. And most, again, most, whether it be colleagues or attorneys my age or younger at other firms, they’re just interested in any technology that can make their work more efficient. I’ve also met on the flip side real quick here, a small handful, definitely a minority who are deathly afraid of certain legal technology, especially generative AI, mostly because of ethical concerns. But in my opinion, that usually comes from or stems from a lack of fully understanding how to use those tools responsibly and within appropriate ethical boundaries, unless their firm, of course, outright bans those tools. And I think honestly, any firm that refuses to engage with new technologies, AI platforms are going to have a really, really difficult time keeping up, perhaps even retaining younger attorneys like myself. So to me, last part of my answer here, and again, relating to my previous answer, being technologically competent today means treating tech like tools in a toolbox.

None of it replaces human judgment, but it can, or at least or can help you get to better answers faster, and you need to know which tool makes sense for which task. So for just a quick example here, different research platforms are better for different kinds of problems. I’ve had situations recently, for example, where using the right legal tech tool helped me solve a really narrow regulatory issue relating, it was a narrow MTALA question that had stumped other attorneys and they were approaching the issue more traditionally, approached it with a different platform, not AI, it was actually Bloomberg Law, but I knew from just paying attention back law school advanced legal research, again, certain tools are more tailored for different tasks.

Megan Morrison:

Yeah. I think Lath really hit it on the head attorneys RH, or not even RH, but who graduated with us, I do think are turning to technology a lot more enthusiastically than maybe the older generations would. And I think it’s just we grew up with technology and most of us, at least for our age group, we had cell phones by the time we were like 10. So yeah, I think that there’s a lot more competence, but also they’re more comfortable. We’re more comfortable with technology. So yeah, I definitely think it contributes to us being more willing to use it. I do think that the technologically competent lawyer needs to know, and this is a broad answer, they need to know what tech they’re using. They need to understand how to use it correctly and effectively, how to protect client data, how to assess risks with using those tools and be able to communicate when they’re having issues with that tool.

And so it’s not about them being an expert in IT or becoming a coder. It’s just having what I think is basic knowledge about these tools. And again, it’s for the betterment of the attorney, it’s for the betterment of the client, the firm. And I also think because technology changes so fast, attorneys in today’s world need to be curious and adaptable because technology just changes so fast. We’re talking about AI is the big thing right now, but in five years, who knows what we’re going to be talking about. So I think attorneys need to keep up because the legal field classically is not very up to date on the current trends. And so I think that that’s really important that attorneys in today’s world and in the future are able to keep up with the changing world.

Dennis Kennedy:

Tom, can you believe that these are my students and they might’ve picked up a few things from my perspective just a little

Tom Mighell:

Bit? Yeah, I feel a lot of similarities here with just

Dennis Kennedy:

Talking

To you. So Megan also was one of my RAs. I was there. I want to ask you something because as people have already figured out, you two are two of the nicest and most polite people out there, but I want to ask you what you’re experiencing so far. And I think Laith, you’ve been involved with the firm’s decisions about AI and other things already as a new associate, but where do you think, based on what you’re seeing, what needs the most attention when it comes to technology? Is it just general upgrades? Is it specific tools? Is it AI? Where do you see that? And then how do you get the attention of the more senior lawyers to pay more attention to that?

Laith Quasem:

Yes. So I think, and of course, speaking with respect to my own firm from my firm’s perspective, AI is definitely the place to be. And I, again, can speak quite confidently on behalf of my firm in providing that we are all feeling the pressure with respect to finding efficient and ethical ways to adopt artificial intelligence and finding ways to utilize it within our various practice groups. So with that being said, I think in terms of areas that need the most attention, I think it really depends on the practice area. And again, I know, I don’t think, at least again, CLG attorneys, my senior attorneys here, they’re well aware of the value of these different AI tools, but it’s more a matter for the senior attorneys of having enough time to try to tackle the issue because their workflows are already so voluminous. It’s just about having the time to find the right solution and adopting it and implementing it.

And I think senior attorneys, shareholders, partners are a lot more interested in solutions than associates or other administrative professionals coming to them with problems or other issues that they then have to try to resolve. But with respect, or in terms of my answer here, depending on the practice area, again, so I work between our professional licensing and regulatory affairs practice and our white collar practice, and I’ll make this as brief as possible. In our professional licensing regulatory affairs practice group, I see a lot of room from a procedural perspective for technology to automate our administrative processes and workflows. So in professional licensing defense, for example, we always start with one of two things, an investigation letter or an administrative complaint. And if the administrative complaint has already been issued by, for example, in Michigan Lara or Washington State, the Washington State Department of Health, we know, again, procedurally speaking, we need to do A, B, C, and D.

In every single case, and that’s in terms of a baseline, like bare bottom, this is what we know we need to do here. Of course, in terms of extras, every case varies by complexity, factual legal issues therein. But again, adoption and implementation is the key for senior attorneys and shareholders, not so much getting them to pay attention. And then white collar, my answer’s quite similar. From a substantive perspective, at least in health law, narrowly, certain cases are nearly always go- tos for the defense. And of course that depends on jurisdiction and the applicability of the case law’s precedential value or persuasive value, but then we’ve already thought about how can we pair that substantive case law with motion practice. And again, what we know we need to do, procedurally speaking, A, B, C, and D. How can we connect the substantive and procedural and find the right tool or create our own tool to automate our workflows?

And again, it’s heavily incumbent upon practice group.

Dennis Kennedy:

And Megan, how about you? I was thinking when Leith was talking about why Caller and then what you do in data privacy, we had talked in class about how there are certain areas of practice that just, it seems impossible these days to do without an understanding of technology. And those to me seem two areas. But your career path is really interesting because you are one of the people who went straight from law school into corporate, which a lot of students don’t believe can be done. But what are you finding out there with technology that you feel needs the attention? Is it sort of better in the corporate world? And then when you see some technology that you might want to use, how easy is it to get more senior lawyers to approve that or get their interest in it?

Megan Morrison:

The corporate world is really interesting. Earlier I was talking about how the legal field is traditionally falls behind. At least that’s the stereotype that we’re back in the dark ages still. I think the corporate world wants to be very, very on top of new technology, at least in my experience. I’ve been at two companies now since graduating and both organizations were really, really excited about implementing new tech and investing in it. And so I’m going to have kind of a lame compliance answer, but I think innovation is awesome and I love to see new tools being invested in within reason, but I do think we still have to make sure that we’re carrying out governance appropriately and that we still have controls and guardrails over what we’re doing, especially depending on what people’s roles within an organization are. I think from an outside perspective, the legal profession I think also really needs to pay attention to security when it comes to technology, which again, isn’t a very fun answer, but I think it’s really important for firms to know that even if they’re not investing in the shiniest new tool or even AI, they still have a really big target on their back for cyber attacks.

And so I think it’s really important to try and get that across to stakeholders and shareholders that they can, even if they decide not to invest in technology, there are these risks, but if they do, there’s a way to invest and innovate within your practice while still doing a risk assessment, acknowledging what risks these tools could add to your practice and mitigating those before actually implementing.

Tom Mighell:

As someone who has worked in information governance for, this is year 16 working in information governance, you are speaking my language and if you ever want to do some information governance consulting, give me a call. We got a lot more questions for Megan and Laith, but we need to take a quick break for a word from our sponsors.

Dennis Kennedy:

And we are back with Megan Morrison and Laith Cosam. We have found in the Fresh Voices series that we love to hear about our guests career paths and our audience does as well. I know your stories, but our listeners don’t. Would each of you talk about your career path since graduating from MMSU Law and what kinds of things you’ve done to get into your current roles. And I think that also means … I think our audience would be interested in how you actually did that, because I know that you both took some different routes rather than just saying like, “Oh, send out a bunch of resumes and interview on campus.” So maybe talk about the path from anthropology to law and then how you actually got to where you are.

Megan Morrison:

So I mentioned it kind of briefly at the beginning. I knew pretty much end of my 1L year that I did not want to continue down what I’m going to call the traditional path of graduating, taking the bar, and then going to practice in a law firm. And I had had a past experience working in IT and it was a super laid back job that I had in college, but it had a really lasting impact on me. And so when I found myself at this crossroads at the end of 1L year, that’s when I really started to question, do I continue down this path of finishing law school? I have two years left. Do I jump ship and go into technology and have to start a master’s program because I have a background in anthropology, so it’s not exactly tech related. And so that’s really where Professor Kennedy’s class came kind of at the right time.

I had signed up for it and it just was amazing how perfectly that area of data privacy combined what my two interests were because again, it was super important to me. I’d already finished a year of law school and I wanted to get that degree and have those skills, but I knew that technology was still something close to my heart. And so it was really that class, I’m really boosting your class here. It was awesome though. So it really helped, kind of set me on my path. And what’s really cool about data privacy is that you still can go kind of a traditional way where you can be a data privacy attorney, or you can go into more of a compliance role where you’re not actually practicing. So aBar license is not required, which was also a major, major perk for me. I’m not going to lie.

So once I knew that was the path I wanted to go on, it became a lot more clear to me the kind of internships and classes and whatnot that I needed to involve myself in. So for example, I had gotten a cybersecurity internship after 2L year, so my 2L summer, and I was doing governance, risk and compliance work, and that really created the foundation for what I now do in privacy. Privacy and cybersecurity are very, very similar, but still very different. And so it really helped me with being able to understand how to take regulations and put them into, basically put them into action instead of just being words on a page or on a screen. And then it also helped me to be able to identify what certain risks are for organizations. And so yeah, it really helped me to be able to jump from that one field of cyber into privacy in the corporate world.

Dennis Kennedy:

Yeah. And Laith, I know that your health was always the direction you were going to go. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it always seemed to me that that was where you wanted to go. But kind of talk about your approach and then how you got to where you are now.

Laith Quasem:

Yeah, you’re absolutely right, Professor Kennedy, but Before I answer this particular question, I want to compliment you, Tom, and Megan. I’ll never forget, I think it was two a year. And as you know, Professor Kennedy, I worked in the library and a very good friend of mine, librarian at the library. And he meant this in the best way possible, but we were talking about non-traditional legal career paths, just generally abstractly, not because I had an interest in non-traditional, but he had some students who were and it spurred conversation on the topic. So he said, and I remember this by heart at this point, he said, “It’s not about in terms of using your JD in non-traditional career paths. It’s not about what you can do with your JD. It’s what you can do despite your JD in terms of non-traditional.” I will never forget that.

And I don’t want to speak for all of corporate America, but I think that’s still largely true, unfortunately. Unfortunately, it is incredibly difficult for JDs to go and do non-traditional things. And I don’t know why that is. I think maybe that’s a subject for another podcast altogether. I don’t know if corporate America tends to sort of view JDs in a tight little neat box and they think that JDs can and only should be practicing law and don’t belong elsewhere. But again, I digress and we’ll leave that for another day. But Professor Kennedy, to answer your question, of course, like Megan, anthropology was my first love. And anthropology, of course, is the study of humanity. What does it mean to be human from a cultural perspective, archeological perspective, linguistic perspective, et cetera. So my specific anthropological interests were cultural anthropology, medical anthropology, and legal anthropology, which is a major field.

I thought about going to get my PhD, but I think it was last year of undergrad. Megan was actually in this class as well. One of our anthropology professors, we sit down first question, he has a question on the board, he reads it verbatim, asks us, “Why are you guys here? Why are you studying anthropology? Because here are your chances of actually getting a job in anything anthropology related.” Now, Megan and I knew that we were going to use our anthropology degrees as a sort of stepping stone. We knew we weren’t going to actually use it in any sort of applied way. Again, I thought about professorship and going to get the PhD, but even before then, I was sort of leaning toward the law, stemming from the interest in legal anthropology. But again, health law was just a natural fit from the get- go.

Went into law school knowing I was going to do health law, all of my internships in law school, summer work, health law related, and jumped straight into my work here at Chapman Law Group. It’s been incredibly hands-on. And well, history is still writing itself. Here I am.

Tom Mighell:

All right. We have the obligatory AI question of the podcast. We are a legal technology podcast, so we have to at least talk about AI once to keep Dennis happy. And so my question for you, you are both kind of in a unique position time-wise in that you were in law school when the generative AI tools sort of exploded. So you were in a position where you could learn about how they worked and how they might be applied and the right things to think about AI from a ethics and responsibility perspective, but also how they can be used in the law where I think that the people who came before you who are out in the trenches and law firms and other places may not have had the same benefits and are just now sort of learning about all of that. But now you’re out in the workplace, you’re seeing how it’s being used, you’re seeing how people are approaching it.

You’ve talked about how there’s a little more reticence to use it because of the people you represent and the type of work that you’re doing. How do you see generative AI affecting the areas in which you’re working right now? And does agentic AI have a place in that? How is everybody approaching these particular tools from each of your perspective?

Laith Quasem:

Yes, quite dramatically. I used to, especially when I was a student in Professor Kennedy’s classes, I took multiple classes with Professor Kennedy. I used to downplay. I actually used to downplay the future importance of AI. And to be completely transparent, I didn’t think it would amount to much. I didn’t think research-wise, drafting-wise, it would ever be able to possess or be able to generate the nuance needed for real life hands-on legal practice. My perspective has definitely changed. So now from a practical perspective, I think it’s going to be absolutely transformative. And again, I feel as though my previous answer you were alluding to wasn’t very clear. So to clarify, again, I sort of, again, think about this. If you’re in the federal district court and you’re dealing with a white collar matter, from a procedural perspective, again, we know that this motion needs to be filed at this time and this motion needs to be filed at this time.

And then you have the substantive law and any AI tool that is able to streamline practice by combining the substantive in the procedural is going to absolutely be transformative. And the firms that are able to achieve that first, and I have seen plenty of firms trying to develop their own AI for that purpose. And that includes my firm, by the way.

I’m part of that effort at my firm. We are trying to do that. And it’s difficult to explain, but again, it’s about accurately combining. It’s about starting with a data set. And I’m certainly not a coder, but you know the right cases that you need. Of course, that constantly evolves, but that’s why we keep abreast of legal developments. But you stay on top of the procedure, you know what needs to happen in professional licensing regulatory affairs. You know what needs to happen in any white collar criminal case. You know when those things will happen, and you know what case law, what statutory law, what regulations you need to put on a competent defense. There will be at some point, it’s not a matter of if now, there will be an AI tool or tools that will absolutely transform practice and make our lives easier. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it will ever outright replace all attorneys, but I think recent studies are showing, in fact, some firms have been cutting down on their number of associates.

And AI, in my opinion, is yet in its early stages of development in terms of its application to legal practice.

Dennis Kennedy:

I was just thinking how … I always think of Latha as my most skeptical student on AI and his evolution on thinking about AI during the class was so interesting to me because it’s so thoughtful, so informed and practical, and I really, really enjoyed that.

Tom Mighell:

How does it differ in the corporate world? Because I work with mostly corporate clients and I see a very different approach that is being taken than what law firms are tending to do. I don’t know if you’re seeing the same thing.

Megan Morrison:

I’m seeing a very enthusiastic crowd in the corporate world about gen AI. And I’m going to be honest with you both. I hate generative AI. I said it.

I know it’s a hot take, especially to say it to Professor Kennedy. And I really tried to avoid it for as long as possible. But I will say, I think at least in my organization, they are really pushing everyone to use AI. And of course, within specific guidelines, and we have the good old acceptable use policy and whatnot, but in general, they’re really, really excited about how everyone can use it. And it’s kind of an open field where everyone can explore and use it, again, within specific guardrails, but they’re kind of open to everyone finding out on their own how does this work for what you’re doing. And so like I said, I’ve kind of fallen victim completely and have been using it a lot more. So I think it’s really great for really basic tasks like summarizing meeting notes. I think it’s really good at creating first, and I want to emphasize first drafts of policies or emails or … We just had data privacy day on Wednesday, so it’s great to start the initial communication.

It’s data privacy day, right? An email that’s going to go out to my organization. It’s great at things like that. When it comes to AgentTech AI, that definitely is something that’s a little bit more, I don’t want to say concerning. My team and I are a little bit more cautious about Agentic AI just because it’s got a little bit more autonomy compared to ChatGPT, for example. And so yeah, I mean, we’re still … I mean, for my team, we’re still trying to figure out how to incorporate that into what we’re doing every day. But no, on the corporate side, they love AI. So it’ll be interesting to see how that evolves.

Dennis Kennedy:

So I think Megan illustrates a point that I often make is where are corporate clients going to find the lawyers who can actually represent them? And I think that’s going to be a big challenge. And that’s where the sort of new generation of law students can come in pretty quickly. But I think that’s a big issue that’s out there. And although Megan may be a little bit negative on AI, I can tell you that her final paper, which I’m still after her to keep working on and publish, is still, after she graduated, still very innovative and interesting.

Tom Mighell:

Well, my take is- Thank you. And from someone who is compliance-minded like Megan, I don’t know if you share the same … I see the same thing. All of our clients super interested in AI. How can we use it? And every department and every company wants to find a different way to use it, but where’s the governance? There’s no governance there. They’re just, let’s rush out and use it. What happens if we have personal information that finds its way into these training models that are being used? How long are we retaining prompts and outputs and all those types of things? I feel like there’s a lagging edge of governance that’s taking a while to catch up. We’ve been talking about AI governance and my work for two years now, and we’re still not getting a lot of traction. Anyway, that’s me. I’ll step down from my soapbox.

We still got more questions, but we need to take another quick break to hear from our sponsors.

Dennis Kennedy:

And now let’s get back to

Tom Mighell:

The Kennedy Mighell Report. I’m Dennis Kennedy. And I’m Tom Mighell, and we are joined by our special guests, Megan Morrison and Laith Quasem two former students of Dennis’s from Michigan State University College of Law. We’ve got time for just a few more questions.

Dennis Kennedy:

So I really want to ask this question because this is so important to me. So what advice would you give to today’s law students about preparing for careers in legal tech and careers like you are? And another way of thinking about it is looking back, what do you wish you had known or done differently during law school? And I think we’ll start with Laith on that.

Laith Quasem:

I think in terms of your students, Professor Kennedy, students who have taken non-traditional legal paths, I think Megan is the maestro, and she really wasn’t afraid to think outside the box. And law school produces a certain, let’s call it traditional environment. Careers are, again, traditionally oriented and it takes non-traditional career paths with your JD. It presents a lot of risk. It’s risky and your classmates aren’t going to be doing the same things, right? They’re all going to likely be, or most of them are doing traditional things. And I think in law school, given the sort of environment there, there could be judgment, for example, if you’re more interested in not practicing traditional law. So I think it’s a matter of taking risks, not being afraid to take that risk, and we have to consider it a risk to begin with again, but I think law schools tend to breed that culture where it’s traditional legal practice or bust.

And somehow if you’re doing something outside the box, it’s not good enough. So you need to be resolute in what you want to do. And if something outside the box interests you, pursue it. But I think no matter what, building strong legal fundamentals is absolutely vital. And at the end of the day, technology amplifies good lawyering. It can’t replace it.

Dennis Kennedy:

And Megan?

Megan Morrison:

I was super excited to answer this question. I agree totally with Laith. In my experience, there’s a lot of pressure in law school to go into big law, go into clerking or do something that we both keep calling traditional legal work. So my advice to law students would be to follow your gut and follow whatever you’re passionate about. And even if that path doesn’t look like what your peers are doing, you should do it anyways. I don’t think law schools, again, in my own experience, are prepped for the students who may not want to go into big law. And so I also think it’s really important to network, and especially now that we have LinkedIn, networking is easier than ever. So I think it’s really important for students who, even if they’re not resolute, they’re not sure that they want to go non-traditional. I think it still is beneficial to network and see what other people are doing and see how they got into that career path.

And looking back, that’s definitely something I wish I would’ve done sooner is network because I think when you’re going the non-traditional path, it’s super helpful because again, there are definitely a lot more … There can be a lot more barriers. So networking, getting to know people who have actually done it can be a huge step in making that career happen for yourself.

Tom Mighell:

All right. Last question. Before we wrap up, I have a question. It’s a more personal question. Let’s say personal to Dennis. I need to ask how you found Professor Kennedy’s courses that you took at Michigan State. What from those classes or the class or classes that you took has proven useful to you in your careers? And we’ll start with Megan this time.

Megan Morrison:

I’m not just saying this because Professor Kennedy is here. Everything honestly was foundational to what I’m doing today. I think I took three of your classes. I

Think that’s right. I think that’s right. And I think that’s all of them. So I was there for everything. I mean, in terms of the data protection class, that, again, really set the foundation for what I’m doing now and introduced me to that area. And so, I mean, that’s been priceless for me. And then in terms of the AI class I took, I think that put all of the students who were in it above and beyond what probably most people in the legal field and outside of it, way ahead of how to use AI and not just how to write prompts, even though writing prompts is super important. It’s really an art, writing the right prompt to get what you want, but you also introduced and made us think about those ethical issues that we’ve talked about. So I think the classes that you offered were really ahead of their time.

They could not have been offered really any … I mean, they were perfect. I think totally on brand with the culture and yeah, it was invaluable. So thank you.

Dennis Kennedy:

Hey, Leith?

Laith Quasem:

Yeah, I can’t say enough. I could just say so much positive things about Professor Kennedy and the classes he taught. I think to keep this super simple, Professor Kennedy’s classes were essentially in more academic terms, of course, him saying, Hey, everyone … And by the way, this wasn’t just Professor Kennedy hollering this in the hallways and in his classes for students to listen to. No, I think most of our student population at MSU Law knew that he was also pressing the issue at the very top and trying to get or catalyze some sort of action from MSU Law on AI and adopting and implementing AI responsibly and incorporating it into MSU Law School’s curriculum. And I believe Professor Kennedy was instrumental in transitioning AI, the topic of AI generally into the advanced legal research class at MSU Law. Now, I left before the class was offered, but again, working at the library, I spoke with a few librarians about the general plan for that course and how AI teaching, how to responsibly use AI and its advantages in legal practice were going to be taught in advanced legal research.

So again, I think Professor Kennedy, with respect to all of MSU law, was essentially saying, “Hey, everyone, here’s some shiny new tools out there that can make your life a whole lot better. Go be an early adopter of those tools.” And I remember in every class, he’d show us the early adoption chart and the benefits of being an early adopter of these technologies. There’s risk, of course, but early adopters, people who don’t wait, firms that don’t wait, corporations that don’t wait, the potential benefit is you get ahead of the curve, the adoption implementation curve, and you’re a winner and be an excellent prompt engineer along the way. If you’re using AI, check all your work along the way. And I think, again, of his many accomplishments at MSU Law, those are just a few.

Dennis Kennedy:

Well, thanks. I’m blushing here, and I’m also missing you two. I really enjoyed hanging out with both of you and talking because you guys always made me think about new things and kind of pushed me to go further in some directions, but thanks so much. Tom, you want to get the contact information?

Tom Mighell:

Yes. Well, we want to thank Megan Morrison and Laith Coston for being our guest on the show. Tell us where people can connect with you and learn more about what you’re doing. Megan.

Megan Morrison:

You can find me on LinkedIn. If anyone ever has questions about data privacy, going into law school or being in law school or anything about untraditional legal work, I’m your girl. Come and send me a message. I’m happy to talk.

Laith Quasem:

And Leth? I’m pro technology adoption. I am old school when it comes to social media, so you cannot find me anywhere else other than LinkedIn. I have a Facebook, but I would prefer connecting on LinkedIn.

Dennis Kennedy:

Of course. So now it’s time for our parting shots at OneTip website or observation you can use the second this podcast ends. Megan, let’s start with you.

Megan Morrison:

My tip is get outside, take a 10-minute walk, just get some fresh air. Weather permitting.

Laith Quasem:

Leth. I would concur with Meghan and I would add for younger attorneys, for newer attorneys, I get questions from recent grads a lot about how to make the best of your first year of practice because it can be absolutely horrifying. And I think that the key to success as a younger attorney is to just roll up your sleeves and do it. And when you’re presented with novel assignments or complex issues, just do your absolute best to go figure it out. And I think that’s more than half the battle.

Tom Mighell:

All right. I have a technology-based parting shot this time, and it is once again a way in which I show that Android, again, is generally the superior phone platform to ios in one way and more specifically in regard to artificial intelligence, which Apple has just appeared to … Well, they’re hiring Google to do their AI work. So that’s all you need to say about that. But I’m hoping that this comes to Google Photos. If anybody uses Google Photos for their photos, I’m hoping this comes to the desktop version, the web-based version of it. But on the phone right now, what they’re doing with a tool called Remix and AI is really amazing. You can, very similar to some of the other AI imaging tools, you can write out a prompt on the photos that you’ve taken and have it change things. So Remix allows you to take a picture and say, “Here’s a picture of me and my sister.” Go ahead and put a gorilla in a tuxedo next to us and it adds it instantly.

That’s kind of on the stupid side, but it also does some really amazing things to make your pictures better than they were before. It’s a lot of interesting good new features. So if anybody’s got an Android phone, you’ve got access to that right now. Hopefully it comes to Google on the web at some point. Dennis.

Dennis Kennedy:

All litigators and judges are now on notice about what they need to know about AI generated evidence. Correct. Under discussed issue out there these days. Well, I’m going more anthropological than tech this time. And I’ve been thinking about reverse mentorship and that’s part of what we’re able to do on this podcast. I think if you’re an experienced lawyer, just find a lawyer from the next generation, set up a monthly reverse mentorship coffee. Let them show you how they’re using technology, what tools they find intuitive, what frustrates them about current legal tech. I actually learn more from conversations with students than from legal tech conferences these days. So to paraphrase William Gibson, the future is already here. It’s just hanging out with younger lawyers.

Tom Mighell:

And so that wraps it up for this edition of the Kennedy Mighell Report.

Dennis Kennedy:

Thanks to the Legal Talk Network team for producing the show. You can find show notes and transcripts on the Legal Talk Network website.

Tom Mighell:

If you like what you hear, please subscribe. You can subscribe either on the Legal Talk Network site or in your favorite podcast app and leave us a review when you can.

Dennis Kennedy:

And you can connect with us on LinkedIn with your questions or to share your thoughts about this episode. So until the next podcast, I’m Tom Mighell. And I’m Dennis Kennedy, and you’ve been listening to the Kennedy Mighell Report, a podcast on legal technology with an internet focus since 2006.

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 ABA 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