Industry Insight

Patients who were prescribed Ozempic (semaglutide), Wegovy (semaglutide), Mounjaro (tirzepatide), or other GLP-1 receptor agonist medications to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight loss may be at risk of vision loss or blindness from a condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). GLP-1 receptor agonists are among the most widely prescribed medications in the United States for managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. Drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Mounjaro, and Zepbound have gained widespread popularity due to their ability to regulate blood sugar levels and promote weight loss. However, recent scientific studies and legal claims have raised questions about whether these medications may increase the risk of sudden optic nerve damage and NAION vision loss in some patients. As new research and lawsuits continue to emerge, patients and healthcare providers are paying closer attention to reports linking these widely used diabetes and weight loss medications to an increased risk of NAION. GLP-1 users who were diagnosed with NAION or who have experienced vision problems after taking these drugs can contact an experienced product liability attorney to find out whether they qualify to take legal action. Understanding NAION and Sudden Vision Loss Non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) is a condition caused by reduced blood flow to the optic nerve. The optic nerve plays a critical role in transmitting visual information from the eye to the brain. When blood circulation to this nerve is disrupted, permanent damage may occur. NAION often develops suddenly and typically affects one eye, although it may later involve both eyes. Patients frequently report waking up with blurred vision, darkened areas in their field of vision, or significant vision loss without warning. In many cases, the damage to the optic nerve is permanent. While NAION has historically been associated with underlying vascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, or sleep apnea, researchers have recently begun investigating whether certain medications, including Ozempic or other GLP-1 agonists, may also contribute to the condition. Patients seeking additional information can review frequently asked questions about GLP-1 drugs and NAION vision loss to better understand symptoms, diagnosis, and potential legal claims. Research Examining GLP-1 Drugs and NAION Risk Growing attention to the potential connection between GLP-1 medications and NAION has been fueled by emerging medical research. Several studies have examined whether drugs containing semaglutide or similar compounds may increase the likelihood of optic nerve damage. Researchers have noted that patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists appeared to experience NAION at higher rates than those taking other diabetes medications. Although further research is still ongoing, these findings have prompted increased scrutiny within the medical community. The possible mechanisms behind this risk remain under investigation. Some studies investigating the link between GLP-1s and NAION have concluded that changes in blood flow or vascular regulation associated with GLP-1 medications may contribute to reduced circulation in the optic nerve. Others have suggested that rapid metabolic or cardiovascular changes triggered by these drugs could play a role in certain patients. At this stage, scientists have not reached a definitive conclusion about causation. However, the potential association has been strong enough to generate both medical concern and legal action. GLP-1 Medications Involved in Vision Loss Claims Although Ozempic has received the most public attention, several GLP-1 medications are being examined in connection with NAION reports. These drugs share similar mechanisms of action and are often prescribed for diabetes or weight management. Medications frequently referenced in these discussions include: Ozempic (semaglutide) Wegovy (semaglutide) Rybelsus (semaglutide) Mounjaro (tirzepatide) Zepbound (tirzepatide) Because these medications work by activating GLP-1 receptors that regulate blood sugar and appetite, researchers are evaluating whether their biological effects could influence blood flow in sensitive tissues such as the optic nerve. Patients who experience sudden vision loss while taking these medications may wish to seek medical evaluation promptly, as early diagnosis can help physicians determine the cause of optic nerve damage. Emerging Litigation Over GLP-1 Drugs and NAION Vision Loss As reports of NAION among users of GLP-1 medications have increased, lawsuits have begun to emerge across the United States involving drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and other medications in the same class. These lawsuits generally allege that manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about a potential risk of sudden vision loss associated with these widely prescribed diabetes and weight loss treatments. Product liability claims involving prescription medications often focus on whether drug manufacturers provided sufficient safety information about known or reasonably foreseeable risks. In GLP-1 vision loss cases, plaintiffs typically argue that stronger warnings about possible optic nerve injury or NAION could have influenced treatment decisions made by physicians and patients. As the number of lawsuits has grown, federal courts have begun coordinating the litigation. GLP-1 vision loss claims involving NAION have been consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Multidistrict litigation, commonly known as MDL, allows courts to centralize similar lawsuits before one judge in order to coordinate discovery, address common legal issues, and manage complex pharmaceutical litigation more efficiently. The creation of the federal MDL reflects the increasing number of claims involving GLP-1 medications and alleged vision loss injuries. When cases involving the same drugs and similar medical conditions are filed in multiple federal courts, MDL consolidation can help streamline the litigation process while allowing individual plaintiffs to pursue their claims. As additional lawsuits continue to be filed by patients who experienced NAION after using GLP-1 medications, the federal MDL will likely play a central role in shaping how these claims proceed through the court system. Patients who believe they may qualify to file an Ozempic or GLP-1 vision loss lawsuit can speak with a law firm that handles mass tort claims to find out more about how the MDL may affect their ability to take legal action. Legal Options for Ozempic and GLP-1 Users Diagnosed With NAION Patients who take GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes or weight loss should not discontinue prescribed medications without consulting their healthcare providers. For many individuals, these drugs provide significant medical benefits. However, patients should be aware of potential warning signs of NAION and seek medical attention if sudden vision changes occur. Symptoms may include blurred vision, dark areas in the visual field, reduced contrast sensitivity, or unexplained vision loss in one eye. Early evaluation by an ophthalmologist or neuro-ophthalmologist can help determine whether optic nerve damage has occurred and identify possible underlying causes.  As research and litigation continue to develop, courts and medical experts will play a key role in evaluating the evidence surrounding GLP-1 drugs and NAION. For patients affected by sudden optic nerve injury, understanding both the medical and legal aspects of these developments may be an important step in assessing available options. Individuals who developed NAION after using Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, or other GLP-1 medications may also wish to consult with an experienced product liability attorney. An attorney can review medical records, medication history, and other evidence to determine whether a legal claim related to potential drug-induced vision loss may be viable.

Have you seen those “Top 100 Lawyers” or “Influential Women in Business” awards and wondered how recipients actually earn those distinctions? Industry awards can often seem opaque, with confusing criteria and vast competition that makes award nominations feel like an uphill battle. You are not alone. Over the past decade at Blattel Communications, I’ve written hundreds of award nominations and have seen all kinds of award submission formats. Some ask for a lawyer’s matter list with a short description, while others seek long-form essays breaking down the nominee’s influence. But the one thing that remains constant across all submission forms is the emphasis on and importance of a good story. A strong character can carry a story, but the character’s impact can be devalued if their story itself is weak. Think “The Joker” sequel from 2024: Joaquin Phoenix is a delight to watch, which should have made a mass-appeal hit, but the film’s story left too much to be desired. The inverse is also true: a great story elevates a great character even higher, creating something truly memorable, much like Bryan Cranston in Breaking Bad . That’s where the right team can add value. By leaning into our expert writing skills and storytelling prowess, we can transform your career achievements into a story worth recognizing by highlighting your impact, leadership, and relevance in a way that appeals to judges and readers. Nominations Should Showcase Your Story, Don’t Skimp on Impact What makes a good story worth telling—and worth recognizing? As a lawyer, your litigation achievements are impressive, but do results alone make a good story? Don’t get us wrong. There’s a reason legal and courtroom dramas like Suits are popular, but we all know Suits isn’t reality, and the truth of legal work is too procedural for a TV show. So, what makes a show like Suits work? Drama, suspense, unique settings, compelling themes, and characters: these are key elements that demonstrate the impact of a good story. When writing an award nomination, all good stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end woven together as a larger narrative. This is what helps convince the reviewing body that this nominee is worth recognizing. As you prepare for your nomination, consider the following: Does this matter or achievement break new ground or set legal or industry precedent? Was it a first-of-its-kind or unusually complex case or deal in a specialty jurisdiction? Did you argue in front of a legendary judge? Close a deal in record time despite a giant transactional team? Does this matter exemplify a recent trend or follow a major news event that we can highlight (e.g., consumer class actions against technology companies involved in data breaches, lawsuits against public entities over wildfires, etc.)? When you tell colleagues or family members about this case or deal, what excites you? What piques the interest of those outside of the profession? These are just a few examples, but they point to the key elements that frame the story and help us (the writers) sell the readers (the judges) on the impact of the matter and your role in it. Extensive Nomination Details A couple of my favorite authors are Agatha Christie and Stephen King. Each author pours incredible detail into their stories. There is no such thing as a filler or throwaway point in their storytelling. Every single word or idea, no matter how small, either sets up a red herring meant to distract the reader or a clue pointing to the suspect. From character descriptions to setting the scene, reading these stories is always incredibly immersive. Details provide additional flavor and context for your story. If you’re describing a matter that recently concluded, it helps to have more facts that point to the impact of the case and your role in it. Asking pointed questions that lead to more detailed answers is a simple way to move beyond a surface-level case description, giving more authority to your submission. Some examples may include: Will this deal break new ground, open new markets, or shape an industry? What brought the parties to the table? How long was the matter litigated, and what were the stakes at the outset? If settled, can you disclose the settlement amount and the plaintiff’s original demand? On what grounds did you successfully convince a judge to dismiss a case? What was the basis for your appeal? Is the matter still ongoing, and does it signal broader industry impact? What are the potential ripple effects of the matter on an industry or society more broadly? If a deal, what is the larger significance of the deal beyond value? Waiting to Submit an Award Nomination is OK, Too Not every year is the right one to submit a nomination. Maybe you don’t have a big win to highlight, or you want to increase your community involvement before putting yourself forward. Or, maybe you’re working on a big matter that you expect to resolve before next year’s award cycle. Regardless of the reason, waiting a year isn’t the worst strategy. In most cases, it will strengthen your nomination next year with a fresh and full narrative. The goal is not a submission for its own sake, but recognition grounded in substance and impact.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a part of nearly every industry, and the legal field is no exception. More specifically, AI-generated evidence is constantly evolving, and it is important for attorneys to keep learning about it, so that we can stay informed, prepared, and, more importantly, ahead of the curve. AI-generated evidence consists of a variety of data, including but not limited to photographs, videos, and other documents or materials that are developed or integrated through AI technology to analyze data or create new content. While this form of evidence can be an innovative tool, there is widespread, valid concern about the use of this evidence. On one hand, unlike with tangible, physical evidence, there is no clear point of origination with AI-generated materials. Thus, there are concerns about authenticating the validity of the AI-generated evidence and the integrity of said evidence. To determine whether evidence is AI-generated, there are a few steps we can take to guide our assessment. One step is to trust our instincts. Attorneys are trained to evaluate the credibility, consistency, and plausibility of all evidence and information presented to them while investigating and developing their case strategy. That same instinct should be applied when reviewing potential AI-generated evidence. If a document, text, image, or video appears too polished or inconsistent with the surrounding facts, it may warrant closer scrutiny. There is something to be said about thinking a piece of evidence is “too good to be true.” There is no harm in following up on the validity of a piece of evidence if something about it has raised questions or caused pause. For example, consider a scenario where opposing counsel produces a video allegedly depicting a plaintiff speaking in a measured, articulate manner with calculated pauses and minimal emotions. Yet during deposition testimony, the attorney sees that the same plaintiff speaks rapidly, with an accent, displays natural hesitation, or is animated. Such discrepancies between the evidence provided and real-world presentation should raise immediate concerns about manipulation or artificially-generated activity. Depositions are therefore a critical investigative tool, not only for factual development, but also for evaluating whether the evidence aligns with the witness’s authentic behavior, speech patterns, and demeanor. Attorneys may also investigate whether there are any pre-suit recorded statements taken by a reputable third-party, such as an insurance company, of plaintiffs or relevant fact witnesses to further assess any discrepancies with proffered digital evidence. Once our suspicions arise, the next step is to obtain the underlying metadata associated with the evidence. Metadata functions as a digital fingerprint, often revealing creation date and time and the device or software used to generate the file. For example, if a party claims a text message was sent five years earlier, metadata may show that the file was actually created recently and on what software. In many cases, metadata can serve as our smoking gun. Nevertheless, attorneys must be aware and keep vigilant that in the age of AI, metadata can also be manipulated. It is just one piece of the puzzle that can be used to evaluate the authenticity of proffered evidence. If authenticity remains in question, retaining an appropriate expert is critical. Courts increasingly rely on technical experts to interpret complex digital evidence, particularly where AI tools may be involved. Relevant experts may include digital forensic scientists, data analysts, and/or cybersecurity professionals. Courts have begun to confront the admissibility of AI-generated or claimed AI-manipulated evidence. In Huang v. Tesla [1], a California state court rejected an objection to video evidence premised on the generalized claim that the footage “could have been” a deepfake. The court made clear that the mere possibility of AI manipulation is insufficient to exclude evidence. Instead, the court determined that parties must present concrete, technically-grounded proof demonstrating that the presented evidence is inauthentic or unreliable. This ruling shows that challenges to AI-related evidence must be supported by specific facts, expert analysis, or forensic evidence. This approach is consistent with longstanding authentication requirements under Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 901 requires only that the proponent produce evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” The standard is intentionally low: courts do not demand absolute proof of authenticity, but rather a prima facie showing through testimony of a witness with knowledge (expert witness), distinctive characteristics, metadata, or evidence describing the process or system that produced the item. Once that threshold is met, the burden shifts to the opponent to demonstrate a genuine issue as to authenticity. In the AI context, courts are making clear that hypothetical concerns about deepfakes do not, by themselves, defeat admissibility.  Similarly, attorneys must grapple with the potential consequences of the improper use of AI-generated evidence in their cases and the importance of identifying and asserting improper use by their adversaries. AI use presents risks that we cannot ignore, such as hallucinations in case law citations. In the matter, Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. [2], The Superior Court of California, Alameda County, dismissed the case with prejudice when it was discovered that pro se plaintiffs had used deepfake videos and altered photographs as exhibits to their motion for summary judgment. As previously discussed, the subject videos showed witness testimony in an unnatural manner with unsynchronized mouth movements and other identifiable issues. Evaluation of the photographs demonstrated false data, such as altered screenshotted messages and a security guard superimposed into the image. In the Order, the California Superior Court states, it “remains suspicious of the other evidentiary submissions, but it does not have the time, funding, or technical expertise to determine the authenticity of Plaintiffs’ statements or conduct a forensic analysis.” This point leads into a deeper discussion about how improper use of altered, false, and/or distorted AI-generated evidence puts further burden on court time and resources. In response, courts have begun imposing non-monetary and monetary sanctions in response to the AI-generated hallucinations in legal briefs. Recently, an Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court judge sanctioned two attorneys after they filed a brief that included these AI-hallucinated citations. While these sanctions are one tool used by the court to send a strong message throughout the legal community about the consequences of these serious acts of misconduct, it is important for attorneys to remember the professional rules of conduct and oath of fidelity, honesty, and lawful practice that they have an obligation to abide by. This is not to say that the use of AI-generated materials is strictly prohibited. We know that this ever-developing technology will continue to be a part of ongoing legal practice. However, it is important that all attorneys stay apprised of the rules, protocol, and guidelines as outlined by the courts for the use of AI in their legal practice and hold their adversaries accountable to uphold the same standards. Since AI is here to stay, attorneys must approach it as a tool, and never as the final product. AI cannot replace professional judgment, ethical obligations, and strategic analysis that is essential to competent representation. There are many nuances that attorneys as humans discover in their cases that can never be replicated by AI technology. Thus, in this age of technology, it is important for attorneys to remember that this human aspect of practice is a strength and, accordingly, must hold ourselves and our adversaries accountable. [1] https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/ai-in-courts/deepfakes-evidence-authentication/ [2] Mendones v. Cushman et al Decision

Imagine someone with a legal question, perhaps a young woman who has finally made the decision to file for divorce. On a quiet evening while her spouse is out of the house, she opens her laptop and begins her search for a lawyer. Until recently, that search would have started with a query typed into a search engine. Now people are increasingly beginning their search with an AI tool like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity. Even if our searcher did decide to Google, one of the first things she’d see would be an AI Overview. Like the other AI tools, this overview might provide a curated recommendation leading the searcher to contact the website directly, without even sending her to the attorney’s website. AI is the new referral engine. It hasn’t changed the fact that people need lawyers, but it is affecting how they find them. Gartner, Inc. predicted in 2024 that traditional search engine volume would drop 25% by 2026. 2026 is here, and that prediction is largely on track. Understanding what has changed, why, and how to adapt is the key to enhancing your law firm’s visibility to AI and, by extension, your target clients. Searching for an Attorney: The Old Way vs. The New Way Walking through the “old” way of searching for a lawyer online and comparing it to the “new” way helps to illustrate just how much things have changed. The traditional online path to hiring a lawyer starts with an inquiry to Google or another search engine: something like “divorce lawyer near me.” Within a second, the search engine results page (SERP) appears, yielding a list of SEO-driven links. At this point in the search, position on the SERP takes precedence over substance, and the user is scanning results rather than making a decision. The next step is to check out a few law firm websites, usually those ranked high in search engine results. Our searcher is making comparisons at this point, not contact. They may leave the law firm websites to gather validation from a third party like Martindale-Hubbell, Avvo, or Google reviews. Finally, the searcher may return to one or more law firm websites, fill out a contact form, or call the office directly. With this path, exploration is user-driven, with lots of comparison. Factors like SEO, website design, and reviews all play a role. Now contrast the journey to a law firm that starts with AI. The query itself is different, more natural, and specific, like “Who is the best divorce attorney near me for high-conflict cases?” It’s more than just a search; intent and context are factored in. The AI tool generates a short answer with a shortlist of recommendations, including the rationale behind them, such as an attorney’s experience or specialization. Unlike the search engine, the AI isn’t just providing options; it’s screening and recommending them. The user doesn’t have to explore multiple law firm websites and third-party sites for information and validation. They can “borrow trust” from the AI’s framing, contacting fewer firms, and making a decision faster. In a nutshell: With traditional search, your law firm’s credibility gets checked after a user discovers your website. With AI, if the tool doesn’t find you credible, you may not get discovered at all. Why Does AI Recommend Differently From Google? There are many reasons AI and search engines make different recommendations. Here are some of the most important things for lawyers to understand. They have different incentives and goals. Search engines are optimized to return the best group of links for a user to evaluate. Google is incentivized by clicks and time spent on search, and success means the user clicked on something (or multiple things). By contrast, AI is optimized to return the best answer. Instead of assuming the user will weigh the options, AI assumes responsibility for reducing the effort required to make a decision. Success doesn’t mean more clicks; it means the user got what they needed and doesn’t have to keep searching. They rank different things. Google ranks individual law firm web pages, with a focus on things like keywords, backlinks, and site structure. It also pays attention to how “fresh” a site’s content is. But as Best Lawyers CEO Phil Greer points out, peer recognition and structured data determine who AI surfaces in legal search. AI isn’t just looking at the page and how well it’s optimized for search engines. Instead, it’s evaluating the firm itself across many sources. Some of those, like the law firm website and its content, are entirely within the lawyer’s control. But AI also looks at professional directories like Avvo and Martindale-Hubbell to confirm the firm’s credibility and review platforms like Google and Yelp for consistent signals about the firm’s reputation. And it doesn’t stop there; AI looks at legal and editorial content, media mentions, and other sources to see if there’s a broad general consensus about what the firm is and does, and whether what the firm says about itself aligns with what others say about it. AI tends to favor firms with a consistent online presence and strong, repeated signals about what they do and how they excel. They define “help” differently. Google and other search engines help users by providing them with many options and a somewhat agnostic approach. Think of Google as a hotel desk clerk. When a guest asks what there is to do in town, Google waves them in the direction of the rack holding dozens of brochures for nearby attractions. AI offers fewer, but more heavily filtered, options. Think of AI as a hotel concierge. When a guest asks for things to do, the concierge asks questions about the guest’s interests, needs, and limitations. Then the concierge makes a recommendation based on that input and the information they have gleaned from experience, previous guests’ feedback, and other sources. That approach prevents overwhelm and increases confidence, along with the likelihood that the inquirer will actually follow through on one of the recommendations. The New Referral Agents in (Virtual) Town There are a number of AI tools that can act in that “concierge” capacity, but like real human concierges, they have their differences. ChatGPT (OpenAI), arguably the most familiar to most people, has a conversational style that helps people clarify their situations on the way to finding a lawyer. Claude (Anthropic) has a similar style, but tends to be even more deliberate and structured. Gemini is Google’s answer to AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT, with the added benefit of being able to pull from Google’s ecosystem of resources, including maps, reviews, and local data. Perplexity not only provides answers but also cites sources. There are also legal-specific AI tools like Co-counsel and Harvey, designed to help legal professionals work more efficiently. While they aren’t used to help people find an attorney, AI tools designed for legal work are further evidence that AI is a growing presence in the legal space, not a passing fad. Attorneys who want to capitalize on how AI is changing the profession are learning to adapt. Everlaw recently reported that 64% of in-house legal teams expect to rely less on outside counsel due to efficiency enabled by AI. And Jones Walker’s AI forecast for 2026 included the prediction that 40% of enterprise apps will feature task-specific AI agents. What Makes Attorneys Visible to AI? If your prospective clients are using AI to look for an attorney, you need to make sure AI can direct them to you. That might seem daunting for lawyers who have spent years focusing on SEO, but it’s actually good news. Remember that AI values credibility, legitimacy, and consistency, not technical tricks to game ever-evolving search engine algorithms. Highlighting your strengths is within your control, so let’s talk about some of the things that drive AI recommendations. (You’re probably already doing some of them!) Professional, Updated Website Design and Content Your law firm website is still important to AI search, but its role has shifted. AI scrapes websites to understand law firms’ practice areas, location, service area, and depth of experience. Structured attorney profiles, case highlights, and clear practice descriptions help AI decide that a firm is not only legitimate but highly qualified. Content that is regularly refreshed, such as blog posts and FAQs, signals to AI that the site is active and relevant, which boosts the site’s credibility. Independently Verified Peer Recognition Recognition in Super Lawyers or Best Lawyers and AV- or AV Preeminent ratings from Martindale-Hubbell register with AI as third-party endorsements, which carry more weight than self-promotion. These listings are seen by AI as signals that others in the profession are validating and vouching for the attorney’s skill and ethics. Complete, Consistent Profiles Across Online Directories State bar listings, legal directories like Avvo and Justia, and other online directories contain information about your firm, including name, address, and phone number (NAP) as well as information about your practice areas. When that information is inconsistent (perhaps due to a move or phone number change that wasn’t updated across all directories), AI interprets the inconsistency as a lack of credibility. Consistent, accurate information increases AI’s confidence that yours is a legitimate, established firm. Published Thought Leadership Authority matters to AI, and demonstrating thought leadership through published articles, speaking engagements, white papers, and relevant quotes in the press signals authority. This is another reason maintaining a blog with current posts on legal topics and new developments in the law has value; it helps AI better understand your practice areas and perceive you as someone who knows them well. Client Reviews on Platforms Indexed by AI Like independently verified peer recognition, client reviews on platforms like Google and Yelp signal to AI that third parties find your law firm trustworthy and reliable. In particular, AI looks for patterns: multiple satisfied clients describing an attorney as “responsive” or “professional” strengthens the signal of legitimacy, as does a high volume of consistently positive reviews. Because AI culls information from a wide range of sources, there’s a cumulative effect to these legitimacy signals; the more layers of verification, the more likely AI is to surface your firm as a good option for users. Remember: credibility is not just something that can be measured, but also built. With AI, substance matters more than fluff; smaller firms can compete with larger ones, so long as they maintain a consistent, credible presence. And because AI visibility is linked to trust, leads who come to your firm through AI may be more likely to convert. The Risks of AI Invisibility While the good news is that smaller law firms can capitalize on their strengths to build AI visibility, the flip side is that firms that ignore the shift in how people search may become “invisible” to AI. That can translate into a loss of business without any obvious reason, leaving firms scrambling to identify and fix the sudden shortfall. Google provides tools, like Google Analytics and Search Console, to help attorneys track a drop in business. You can see if your organic rankings dropped, say from #2 to #10. That usually leads to a drop in impressions (people seeing you) and clicks (people visiting your site), and ultimately to fewer conversions. With AI invisibility, users may never know you exist; your law firm is simply not presented as an option. You can’t check your rankings or track lost impressions or clicks; you just see fewer inquiries. In other words, with Google, your firm’s presence may decline; with AI, it may disappear. With fewer signals and less feedback, it’s hard to course-correct. And by the time you notice the drop in traffic, it may be even harder to gain visibility. What Law Firms Should Do Now With the shift in how people find lawyers online, it’s more important than ever for smaller law firms to be proactive in managing their visibility. Fortunately, there are concrete steps you can take to increase your AI visibility. Claim and Fully Complete All Major Legal Directory Profiles AI looks at major legal directories like Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, and Justia for clues to your firm’s credibility. These sites, in particular, are easy for AI to read because they are standardized and structured. To avoid conflicting signals that tank AI’s confidence in your firm, ensure that all profiles tell a complete, consistent story about who you are and what you do. Pursue Peer Recognition Rankings AI can’t truly know who the best lawyers are, so it relies on credibility signals from those in a better position to know: other lawyers. Peer recognition validation from organizations like Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers tells AI that multiple reliable sources consider you among the best, and that AI can confidently recommend you. Those badges on law firm websites aren’t just for decoration! Publish Substantive Content That Positions You as a Thought Leader Consistent publication of articles on specific legal issues, speaking engagements, and media quotes position you as a thought leader in your areas of practice. AI looks for publications that align with your stated practice areas and that have real depth (not just a generic retread of information that’s already out there). Audit Public-Facing Bios for Completeness and Clarity Attorney profiles are among the pages human readers most often visit on law firm websites. They are also one of the most important (and overlooked) AI inputs. To strengthen yours, clearly state your practice areas and include specific experience and credentials. “California Certified Family Law Specialist with 25 years of experience in high-conflict divorce” is much stronger than “experienced, dedicated, family law attorney.” Remember that consistency is also important to AI, so audit information about you online and ensure that information in other biographical profiles matches what you have on your law firm website. The goal is to create a clean, unified digital identity that AI can confidently recognize and recommend. A Note About Ethics and Privacy As important as increasing AI visibility is for your law firm’s marketing, it’s critical to adhere to ethics rules about marketing and client privacy while doing so. Unintentional violations can happen in one of the following ways: Describing case outcomes too specifically, so that the details make a client identifiable Exaggerating claims or credentials in a way that could mislead the public Feeding sensitive data or real client scenarios into an AI tool Failing to be transparent with clients about whether and how AI is used in their case, or how their data is handled Minimize the risk of ethics violations by aggressively anonymizing case information online, or avoid real case scenarios altogether. When using AI, never input confidential or sensitive information into a system that trains on your data. And consider centralizing oversight of your marketing content and attorney profiles so unapproved updates don’t fly under the radar. Legal Search is Evolving. Your Firm Can Evolve with it. The legal profession is by nature conservative, but lawyers have successfully navigated change in the past. They can do the same with the shifts in legal search that AI has brought about. As with past changes, the attorneys and firms who understand the nature of the change and adapt their behavior accordingly will not just survive, but continue to thrive. Key Takeaways AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity are becoming the first place people turn when searching for an attorney, changing how clients find legal help. The steps that improve AI visibility are the same ones that build a genuinely trustworthy online presence, so the work pays off either way. Unlike search engines, AI doesn’t just rank websites. It evaluates a firm’s credibility across many sources and makes recommendations based on what it finds. A well-optimized website is a good starting point, but firms need peer recognition, directory listings, client reviews, and regularly published content to succeed. AI rewards substance and consistency, not budget or firm size, allowing smaller firms to compete with larger ones.

Generating business is a priority for almost all law firms, especially small and solo practices. Sure, it’s nice for your website to get lots of views, but the end goal of your marketing efforts is to help the people you can best help connect with and become clients of your practice. It’s frustrating and disheartening to prepare for a scheduled consultation only to have a prospective client cancel at the last minute, or worse, simply fail to show up. Lead magnets can improve lead quality by educating prospective clients beforehand and building trust. When a prospective client has learned something useful from your firm, even before speaking to you, a consultation feels like a continuation of the value they’ve already received. That’s likely to increase their commitment and follow-through. What is a Lead Magnet? A lead magnet is something of value that you offer in exchange for the person’s contact information. It’s not a sales pitch or promotional material; it’s something your audience perceives as a benefit. Ideally, a lead magnet is genuinely useful content that answers a specific question or solves a problem. If you’ve ever been online and clicked a button to get a free downloadable guide or eBook, you’ve been attracted by a lead magnet. Chances are that the offer addressed a particular need, interest, or pain point of yours. You can do the same for the people you hope will become your clients. Seven Effective Law Firm Lead Magnets When someone is facing a legal issue, they are often navigating uncharted territory. The legal knowledge you have can help them feel more in control of their situation. A lead magnet allows them to “sample” your knowledge with very little investment, boosts your credibility, and encourages them to come back for more. Some of the most effective law firm lead magnets include:  eBooks: An eBook is an in-depth electronic guide that covers a legal topic, such as “Everything You Need to Know About Filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy” or “A Guide to Estate Planning for New Families.” eBooks are designed to educate, often for a broader audience, and are good for building awareness and credibility. Whitepapers: Structured and research-driven, whitepapers analyze a legal issue in depth. They often provide statistics, data, and citations and are geared toward a more sophisticated audience. Whitepapers are good lead magnets for firms that want to demonstrate thought leadership, especially in technical or regulatory practice areas. Downloadable Guides: Downloadable guides are similar to eBooks but tend to be shorter and narrower in scope. They are often built around a specific problem or decision, e.g., “What to Do After a Loved One’s Death.” While an eBook generally says, “Here’s what you need to know,” a downloadable guide says, “Here’s what you need to do right now.” Downloadable Checklists: There’s a certain satisfaction in checking items off a list, especially for people facing an unfamiliar legal problem who want to know they’re on the right track. Checklists like “Documents to Bring to Your First Estate Planning Appointment” or “Seven Things to Do Before You File for Divorce” help users feel organized and in control. Exclusive Webinars: Whether live and interactive or pre-recorded, webinars are a popular and effective lead magnet. Many people appreciate learning by video, and actually seeing and hearing the attorney humanizes them and helps build trust. People also tend not to attend webinars unless the issue is timely for them, so webinar attendees may be higher-intent leads. Case Studies: A case study is an account of a real matter (often with identifying details changed) that describes a legal issue the client faced, the strategic decisions the firm made, any obstacles encountered, and how they were addressed, and the outcome. Case studies signal experience with certain scenarios and reassure prospects that the firm has successfully handled cases like theirs. Templates: When used properly, downloadable templates can be highly effective lead magnets. They work best when they help leads organize information and identify areas of concern, such as an “Incident and Timeline Organizer.” Templates are best as lead magnets when they help prospects identify knowledge gaps and the need for an attorney’s help to move forward. The right lead magnets for your law firm depend on your goals, practice areas, and target audiences. It’s likely you will want multiple magnets in play for clients with different needs or people at different stages of the sales funnel. Paige Silver-Dunn, Director of Marketing for The Modern Firm, counsels attorneys to put themselves in their clients’ shoes when planning lead magnets: which topics and formats would they likely take the trouble to download? Getting the Most Out of Your Lead Magnets Unlock the full potential of your lead magnets by observing these best practices: Pay attention to both form and substance. Naturally, your lead magnets should provide genuinely helpful information; otherwise, the people who downloaded them won’t see the value in contacting you for more. But don’t underestimate the value of having an attractive, well-designed document or infographic bearing your law firm’s logo and branding. A polished appearance makes the lead magnet feel more valuable and makes your firm look more legitimate and trustworthy. Make access easy. How many times have you gone to take an action online, only to give up because you were asked to take one too many steps or provide more information than you were comfortable sharing? It’s the same for your prospective clients, so don’t make it inconvenient for them. Ask only for the minimum information you need, and make it convenient for them to provide their information. Nurture the leads you’ve gathered. The purpose of a lead magnet is to attract high-quality leads; don’t just let those leads languish! Keep in touch through appropriate lead nurturing. Lead nurturing keeps your firm top-of-mind for prospects early in the sales funnel, and continues to build trust and showcase your knowledge for those who are closer to hiring a law firm. Segment your contact lists. Your lead magnets may attract different pools of potential clients. An estate law firm, for example, might get contact information from young families making their first estate plan, older couples who need to update a plan, and people facing probate. Segment contact lists so targeted messages reach the right people. Not only would an email about “securing your baby’s future” be irrelevant to an elderly widow, but it also comes across as insensitive, signaling a lack of understanding of her situation and needs. Switch up your lead magnets. Lead magnets, like many aspects of law firm marketing, aren’t “set it and forget it.” It’s important to refresh your lead magnets from time to time, because stale or repeated content loses impact. Updating your materials ensures that your offers stay relevant to your target audience and ultimately attract prospects who are better matched and more committed to following through with services. Key Takeaways Lead magnets motivate prospects to share contact information in exchange for value A lead magnet is not a sales pitch; it’s a useful resource to attract potential new leads There are a variety of options for lead magnets, from downloadable checklists to eBooks to webinars Once you’ve acquired leads from this marketing avenue, be sure to nurture them

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Arbitration Fuentes v. Empire Nissan (2026) _ Cal.5th _ , 2026 WL 265574: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, which had reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in an employment case. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the employment arbitration agreement was unconscionable based on a very high degree of procedural unconscionability (including the agreement’s tiny, blurry print and rushed presentation) and a low-to-moderate degree of substantive unconscionability (including a perceived one-sided carveout tied to later confidentiality agreements). The Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to grant the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that illegibility goes only to procedural unconscionability and that, properly construed, the confidentiality agreements did not create substantive one-sidedness. The Supreme Court held that format/legibility generally does not itself establish substantive unconscionability, but concluded the Court of Appeal erred by using a pro-arbitration interpretive presumption and by directing an order compelling arbitration rather than remanding. The California Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further trial-court proceedings (including consideration of unresolved validity/assent and related issues) consistent with the clarified unconscionability framework. (February 2, 2026.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Attorney Fees Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 63123: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant law firm’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that although the firm lacked the client’s consent to settle when the settlement was entered, the client later ratified the settlement and that ratification related back, entitling the firm to its full contingency fee (with prejudgment interest). Defendant was awarded $2,761,380.29 in attorney fees plus $522,770.90 in prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding there were no triable issues of material fact that the client’s ratification was involuntary (including no sufficient showing of duress or loss-minimization), and also upheld the denial of a motion continuance and the award of prejudgment interest. (C.A. 2nd, January 8, 2026.) Employment Spilman v. The Salvation Army (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 35953: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action alleging wage and hour issues. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, holding California’s wage-and-hour laws did not apply because plaintiffs, who performed full-time “work therapy” while enrolled in defendant’s six-month residential substance-abuse rehabilitation program, were volunteers rather than employees due to the absence of any express or implied agreement for compensation. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed, holding that while nonprofit volunteers can fall outside the wage laws, the trial court had applied the wrong standard. When the question is whether a nonprofit organization has properly classified a worker as an unpaid volunteer rather than an employee, the nonprofit must establish that (1) the worker freely agreed to work for the nonprofit to obtain a personal or charitable benefit, rather than for compensation, and (2) overall, the nonprofit organization’s use of the volunteer labor is not a subterfuge to evade the wage laws. (C.A. 1st, January 6, 2026.) Torts Fisher v. Fisher (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 538717: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff Todd Fisher, following a jury trial, in a wrongful death action related to the death of his brother Wade Fisher. Plaintiff and his brother Wade had been engaged in a feud with their brothers Brittin and Kent Fisher over the division of their parents’ estate. Plaintiff alleged that Brittin and Kent Fisher falsely reported their mother was missing, even though they knew she had died of natural causes, with the intent to cast suspicion on Todd and Wade, and this act was very upsetting to Wade Fisher who had been sober for 15 years. After this event Wade relapsed and drove his motorcycle drunk with marijuana in his system without a helmet and he crashed and died. The jury found Brittin and Kent liable for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and they conspired to make false statements to SDPD requiring law enforcement intervention, and acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury found defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing severe emotional distress and harm to Wade. They awarded about $5.1 million to Wade’s estate and $4.3 million to Todd, including $80,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress could be a legal cause of Wade Fisher’s relapse and subsequent death, and it rejected defendants’ other appellate challenges (including claims regarding curtailed cross-examination and damages). (C.A. 4th, February 26, 2026.) Trial Jogani v. Jogani (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 508478: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part (conditionally affirmed and modified in part, and dismissed in part) the trial court’s judgment, following a five-month jury trial, in favor of brothers Shashi Jogani, Rajesh Jogani, and Chetan Jogani related to their claims of ownership in the family’s diamond and real estate partnerships, awarding declaratory relief and compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and related relief totaling about $6.85 billion against Haresh Jogani and related entities. The Court of Appeal ruled that defendants failed to show reversible error on most issues raised on appeal. However, it concluded the trial court abused its discretion in admitting an undisclosed damages-expert opinion regarding approximately $1.98 billion in alleged lost profits, so it conditionally affirmed the judgment and ordered through remittitur a reduction of economic damages relating to the real estate partnership for the purported $1.98 billion in lost investment profit. If any of the prevailing parties do not agree to the reduction, then the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial as to that individual’s economic damages arising out of the real estate partnership and his punitive damages. The Court of Appeal otherwise affirmed the judgment. (C.A. 2nd, February 24, 2026.)

Last year saw the return of special and signing bonuses in the US legal market, signaling sustained competition for elite legal talent. Rather than indicating a broad-based hiring surge, this trend is in fact indicative of a laser-guided recruitment strategy in which firms are willing to pay significant premiums for attorneys with very specific expertise. While there are many corporate lawyers working in major cities, the proportion with this very defined skillset is small, so they can effectively name their price. Based on what we have observed in recent months and the hiring activity of the top firms, I certainly believe this trend is one which will continue for the foreseeable future. What seems to have happened is that those firms were all looking for the best people at the same time, so inevitably that creates considerable competition. This means that those associates were in a very good position to obtain big signing bonuses. The years following the pandemic were two of the best ever in the legal recruitment industry. This could be very obviously explained by so much activity being shut down during Covid and then rebounding with such an unprecedented surge. For reasons that are harder to pin down, there is almost a similar level of confidence in the marketplace now, which started toward the end of last year and still prevails. The offers we are seeing are almost reaching the level of the post-Covid flurry, when it was almost impossible to fulfill the demand. While M&A was not as busy last year because of geopolitical issues like the tariffs implemented by President Trump and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, that seems to have smoothed over. Interest rates appear to be coming down, and we are in a period of high investment. There are multiple explanations. But regardless of the exact reasoning, as a result of that improvement in confidence, deals are happening again, so there is going to be real demand in both leveraged finance, M&A and funds. Looking ahead, the market for the best attorneys at the top 20 firms in New York is likely to remain incredibly competitive in these high-demand practice areas. Recent market activity has seen multiple offers exceeding $100,000, highlighting how competition for experienced attorneys is approaching the levels last seen in 2021 and 2022. Firms are hiring more senior people than before, and the shrinking pool of suitably experienced senior associates and counsel is intensifying pressure on firms to secure talent earlier and at higher cost. I think it is perfectly possible that this sign-on bonus figure could rise still higher for certain people. Although $100,000 is a high number and not that common, we have seen a few rare instances in which bonus offers have exceeded $125,000. It is hard to envisage signing bonuses increasing beyond that, but we generally see more offers having sign on bonuses then not. Despite the apparent reluctance among firms to create an escalating bidding war, clearly the level of experience of the candidate might give them even more sway when negotiating a signing bonus with a firm desperate for a very tailored acquisition. Senior associates, counsel, and non-equity partners (NEP) are also in higher demand right now. The effect of this is that lateral moves and step-ups have been made more accessible for the right candidates, particularly where firms are prepared to be flexible on role and title. Beforehand, firms were less inclined to take people on at senior level, or even senior associate level. They would typically be looking for a two to six-year associate. Traditionally, the reason for this is that anyone above that six-year threshold would be getting closer to partnership level, which evidently brings its own risks. They wanted people at the mid-level because they are not too expensive; they are also at a stage in their career in which they can be molded and trained according to a firm’s particular demands and structure. Today, however, given the intensity of the competition between these top firms, there is more willingness to take on people already in senior positions. It comes down to the simple necessity of having to deal with the workload and having the ability to further grow their practices. Firms are much more flexible about paying massive incentives simply to get these prized assets through the door. Candidates have considerably more leverage than they would have done if they were just desperate to move. When it is a case of an attorney being willing to jump at anything, the firm holds all of the cards. But in a marketplace as busy and tight as this one, the candidate or the associate tends—in many cases—to be able to assert much more bargaining power. So, they’re able to be a bit more aggressive with their negotiations and more straightforward. Plainly this can give them the platform for obtaining much better offers. At the same time as changes in the hiring environment, we have also been observing structural changes to partnership tracks at different firms. This too is playing a significant part. Different firms are putting different structures in place to create alternative progression pathways. Based on this evolving template, candidates can increasingly weigh the relative value of early partnership titles versus more substantive routes toward equity elsewhere. For example, Kirkland and Ellis promotes attorneys to partner at the seventh-year level, but for some candidates this milestone carries less weight, as it is widely viewed as an expected progression within the firm. As a result, some attorneys choose instead to move to another firm as a non-equity partner, where the role may represent a more substantive and credible step towards equity. Historically, prior to this uptick in activity of the last two to three years, there was only a limited selection of promotional pathways for associates. For example, at a firm like Kirkland, from associate to non-equity partner to equity partner. Alternatively, you could stay as an associate for eight years and then try to make partner or become a counsel and then a partner. These were the only real routes. Now, however, so many different firms have so many different pathways. Some firms are now promoting attorneys to counsel at seven years, to non-equity at nine years, and then equity at 11 years. Others are just going for straight equity partner after seven years. The natural implication of this is that if an associate doesn’t like the structure that they’re on at their current firm, there is a much broader variety out there to pick and choose from. If they are unhappy in their role, this wealth of options provides them with infinitely more choice. It is no longer a case of complaining but sucking it up because you are entrapped by an inflexible promotion structure. This broad hiring phenomenon looks set to proceed at the same rate in the first half of this year. Firms are still being very aggressive, and there are no immediate signs of that stopping. When you have surges in the core markets of finance and M&A in particular, other areas such as tax also start to become busy because they are effectively a side-product of the substantive corporate work. There is, therefore, a high chance that these secondary areas might increase their level of activity, further bolstering the need for firms to make the right hires at associate level. I cannot envisage any immediate slowdown. 

When a Nevada County prosecutor cited three completely fabricated cases in court—and then blamed “scrivener’s errors”—the California Supreme Court had seen enough. The unanimous decision in Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County marks a turning point in how California courts will handle AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings. Combined with the recent passage of SB 574 by the California Senate, the message to practitioners is unmistakable: the era of plausible deniability for AI mistakes is over. The Case That Changed Everything The facts in Kjoller read like a cautionary tale written specifically for the AI age. A Nevada County District Attorney submitted a response brief citing eight cases. Three didn’t exist at all. Three more existed but said nothing resembling what the DA claimed. Even a cited constitutional provision was irrelevant to the point being argued. When opposing counsel discovered the fabrications and filed for sanctions, the DA’s response made matters worse. First came a phone call claiming she was just “going too fast in her research.” Then came a brief characterizing wholesale fabrication as “scrivener’s errors”—the legal equivalent of claiming the dog ate your homework. The Court of Appeal twice denied sanctions motions without explanation. But the California Supreme Court wasn’t buying it. In a unanimous order, the Court directed the Court of Appeal to issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. More significantly, the Court gestured to the civil referee process governed by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 638-640 as a mechanism for the trial court to investigate and resolve the matter—essentially green-lighting a formal inquiry into whether the DA had relied on AI hallucinations. The Cover-Up Makes It Worse The Supreme Court’s decision to recommend a referee appointment signals something crucial: how attorneys respond after discovering AI errors matters as much as the errors themselves. The Court was clearly influenced by: United States v. Hayes, where the Eastern District of California sanctioned an attorney who also blamed “hasty” drafting for AI hallucinations. That court didn’t just impose monetary penalties—it ordered the sanctions notice be sent to every state bar where the attorney was licensed and to every judge in the district. A permanent, public record of professional failure. Kjoller follows the same trajectory. By denying responsibility and offering implausible explanations, the DA transformed a correctable mistake into an ethics investigation that could result in career-altering consequences. The lesson is stark: attorneys who immediately acknowledge AI errors and take corrective action face manageable consequences. However, those who deflect, deny, or minimize face investigations, public embarrassment, and escalating sanctions. The Myth of “Reliable” Legal AI Tools Many practitioners assume that premium legal research platforms are immune to AI hallucinations. The data tells a different story. Research presented in the Kjoller petition reveals that AI tools from LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters—the gold standard names in legal research—hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. These aren’t experimental startups; these are established platforms with decades of credibility. Yet one in five citations generated by their AI tools may be fabricated. For context, general-purpose models like ChatGPT hallucinate legal queries between 58% and 88% of the time. The specialized tools are better, but not reliable enough to justify blind trust. A fabricated case is misconduct regardless of which platform generated it. The glossy marketing materials and brand recognition of premium vendors don’t change that fundamental reality. As the Kjoller petition states plainly: “using AI to generate briefing without carefully cite checking the drafts often will result in the citation of fabricated authorities, which is misconduct.” Law firms cannot outsource verification responsibility to technology vendors. If anything, AI-generated research demands more scrutiny than traditional methods, not less. Every citation must be independently verified, every case read in full, every proposition confirmed against the actual source material. This Isn’t Just About Criminal Law Kjoller involves criminal defense, where AI hallucinations can have “horrific, life-shattering consequences” for defendants facing incarceration. The stakes in criminal cases naturally heighten judicial concern. But the California Supreme Court’s reasoning applies with equal force to civil practice. The Court’s message transcends practice areas: submitting unverified AI outputs to any court invites significant sanctions, including formal investigations into your competence and ethics. The fundamental obligations haven’t changed. Attorneys must present truthful information to courts. They must conduct adequate research. They must verify their sources. AI hasn’t automated these responsibilities away—if anything, it’s placed them under a microscope. The Legislature Moves to Codify Verification Requirements Two weeks after Kjoller, the California Senate passed SB 574, which would require attorneys to take “reasonable steps” to verify all AI-generated materials, correct hallucinations, and remove biased content. The bill also prohibits inputting confidential client information into AI tools and bars arbitrators from delegating decisions to AI. SB 574 was modeled after existing judicial AI rules and a recent sanctions case—but the timing and substance align perfectly with Kjoller’s themes. The trend is unmistakable: courts are sanctioning lawyers for unverified AI output, and legislatures are moving to make verification protocols mandatory. Whether SB 574 becomes law or not, the writing is on the wall. Practitioners who wait for formal legislative mandates are already behind. The standard of care is being established now, case by case, sanction by sanction. What Practitioners Must Do Now The implications of Kjoller and the legislative momentum behind SB 574 demand immediate action: Implement mandatory verification protocols. Every AI-generated citation must be independently verified. Every case must be read in full. Every legal proposition must be confirmed against original sources. Make verification a required step in your quality control process, not an optional safeguard. Apply equal scrutiny to all AI tools. Don’t assume premium platforms are hallucination-proof. Whether research comes from ChatGPT or LexisNexis AI, the verification requirements are identical. Train your team. Ensure everyone using AI tools understands both the technology’s limitations and the professional consequences of submitting fabricated authority. Make it clear that “I didn’t know” isn’t a defense. Own your mistakes immediately. If you discover AI hallucinations in filed documents, acknowledge the error promptly and file corrections. The cover-up is worse than the crime. Protect client confidentiality. Never input confidential information into AI tools unless you have explicit protocols ensuring compliance with ethical obligations. The California Supreme Court and Senate have made their positions clear. AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional judgment. Attorneys who treat it as such will benefit from its capabilities. Those who use it as a shortcut will face consequences that could define their careers—for all the wrong reasons. 

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Arbitration LaCour v. Marshalls of California (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3731034: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a former employee plaintiff’s single-count PAGA action. In denying the motion, the trial court reasoned that “there is no such thing as an ‘individual PAGA claim’ ” that could be severed and compelled to arbitration. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that—based on ordinary contract-interpretation principles and the parties’ mutual intent when the arbitration agreement was signed in 2014—the arbitration agreement did not clearly reflect an agreement to arbitrate “individual PAGA claims,” so defendant was not entitled to compel arbitration notwithstanding Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 and related post-Viking River developments. (C.A. 1st, Dec. 24, 2025.) Attorney Fees Evleshin v. Meyer (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3101271: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ postjudgment motion for attorney fees. Following a bench trial the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants, the sellers of a Santa Cruz home, and found them to be the prevailing parties in a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs/buyers alleging breach of contract and fraud. In the purchase agreement the parties agreed to mediate if there was a dispute. If one party refused to mediate they would lose the right to recover attorney fees if they later prevailed. Based upon these provisions, the trial court denied defendants’ motion for attorney fees on the grounds that defendants had refused to mediate, and although they were the prevailing they had lost the ability to recover attorney fees. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the trial court erred in reading the contract’s mediation clause to impose a forfeiture where there was evidence in the record that could support a conclusion that while defendants’ initially declined to mediate, they re-opened the door to mediation before the lawsuit was filed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. If the trial court finds on remand that defendants retracted their initial refusal to mediate and expressed a willingness to mediate before the lawsuit was filed, the disentitlement provision in the contract would not apply. (C.A. 6th, November 6, 2025.) Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3687544: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision sanctioning plaintiff for failing to comply with Civil Code section 55.54(d)(7) by refusing to disclose in his early-evaluation-conference statement the amount of attorney fees and costs he was claiming as of that time, and—after offering an alternative sanction of proceeding but not being able to recover attorney fees—dismissed the action with prejudice when plaintiff elected dismissal. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that section 55.54(d)(7)’s requirement to disclose claimed attorney fees and costs did not violate the attorney-client privilege (distinguishing the decision in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282). It also concluded the trial court’s sanctions procedure did not violate due process. (C.A. 6th, December 19, 2025.) Employment Dobarro v. Kim (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3228546: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision denying defendant’s appeal of a Labor Commissioner wage award to plaintiff because it was filed one day late. The trial court concluded the notice of appeal was untimely filed under Labor Code section 98.2. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the Labor Code section 98.2 deadlines for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision and for posting or seeking waiver of the undertaking are mandatory and jurisdictional, not subject to equitable tolling or the electronic-filing tolling provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, rejected defendant’s other arguments as meritless, declined to impose sanctions but published the opinion to clarify the law. (C.A. 1st, November 19, 2025.) Torts Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3225067: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s finding for defendant, in a bench trial on the liability of defendant under the immunity provided in Vehicle Code section 17004.7, in plaintiff’s action for personal injuries suffered when her car was hit by another driver who was being followed by a city police officer. The trial court concluded that defendant’s written vehicular pursuit policy and training complied with the statute and the other driver Elijah Henry believed he was being pursued, thereby rendering defendant immune from liability for plaintiff’s injuries and entering judgment in defendant’s favor. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that held the term “pursued” in section 17004.7(b)(1) must be given a single meaning derived from the vehicular pursuit definition in the public entity’s policy (including the requirement that the suspect be attempting to avoid arrest), and the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing Henry’s belief and improperly disregarded evidence that he did not think he was being pursued under that policy. The case was reversed and remanded for reconsideration of defendant’s the immunity claim under the correct standard. (C.A. 1st, November 19, 2025.) Trial McDonald v. Zargaryan (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3704598: The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiff, following a jury trial, where the jury awarded plaintiff future medical expenses of $1,872,900, past pain and suffering of $2 million, and for future pain and suffering was $10 million. The issue in this case was the fact that plaintiff first went to see a surgeon, Dr. Toorag Gravori, the week before trial and 16 months after the exchange of expert information. Seven days before trial, counsel for plaintiff blindsided the defense with a new medical expert with a new medical theory. The trial court denied defendants’ motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s late-disclosed medical expert, permitted the expert to testify after an expedited deposition, and the jury returned the substantial verdict above for plaintiff that the court reduced to judgment. The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the surprise expert to testify despite plaintiff’s failure to timely disclose the expert or seek leave to augment the expert list and the absence of any reasonable justification for the eve-of-trial designation. The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial. (C.A. 2nd, December 22, 2025.)