Everlaw and DISCO each published model documentation for their AI review features, listing training data provenance, evaluation methodology and known limitations. Neither disclosed model weights or vendor. The publications follow customer requests for documentation to support internal AI governance reviews. Both companies said the documents will be updated with each model change.
Colorado lawmakers amended the state's Artificial Intelligence Act in a special session, narrowing the definition of consequential decisions and delaying the duty to conduct impact assessments by twelve months. Developers of general-purpose systems are carved out unless they market a system for a consequential use. The attorney general retains exclusive enforcement. The amendments take effect immediately on signature.
The European Commission published the final general-purpose AI code of practice, setting out how providers of large models can demonstrate compliance with the AI Act's transparency and systemic-risk obligations. Signatories gain a presumption of conformity; non-signatories must show equivalent measures. The code covers training-data summaries, copyright policy and incident reporting. Fifteen providers have signed. The Commission said the code is voluntary but that supervision begins immediately.
Read the long piece on LexRegisterThe Florida Bar issued an opinion on supervising generative AI, treating an AI tool as a nonlawyer assistant for the purposes of the supervision rule. Lawyers must verify AI output before filing or advising, and a firm must have written policies covering permitted tools and confidentiality. The opinion does not require client consent for internal use but requires it before client data enters a third-party tool.
Read the long piece on LexRegisterMost obligations under the EU AI Act became applicable on 2 August 2026, two years after the regulation entered into force. The date covers Annex III high-risk systems, transparency duties and the national penalty regimes member states were required to lay down. Obligations for high-risk systems embedded in products regulated under Annex I follow on 2 August 2027.
Read the long piece on LexRegisterA Northern District of California judge issued a standing order requiring any filing prepared with generative AI to identify the tool, the portions affected, and the human who verified them. The order applies to all civil matters on the docket and takes effect for filings made after 1 August. Certification is required with each filing rather than once per case. Counsel who cannot make the certification must instead file a short statement explaining why, before the applicable filing deadline.
Spellbook raised a Series B for its contract drafting assistant, which works inside Word and is sold mainly to small and mid-sized firms. The company said the round funds expansion of its engineering team in Halifax and Toronto. Investors were not fully disclosed. The company reported that customer numbers roughly tripled over the preceding year without giving a base figure.
The Ninth Circuit adopted a circuit-wide rule requiring counsel to certify that every authority cited in a brief has been checked against a primary source. The rule does not require disclosure of AI use. Judges may strike a brief and order re-filing at counsel's expense. The court said it chose verification over disclosure because the risk is unverified content, not the tool.
An academic team published a benchmark measuring citation accuracy in AI legal research tools, testing seven commercial products against a set of two thousand questions drawn from state and federal practice. The paper reports error rates varying by an order of magnitude between products and finds that retrieval-augmented systems reduce but do not eliminate fabricated citations. The authors released the question set and scoring code, and invited vendors to submit corrections before a second round of testing later this year.
Read the long piece on LexRegisterThe State Bar of California updated its practical guidance on generative AI, adding sections on billing, supervision of contract lawyers using AI, and disclosure to courts. The update states that a lawyer may not charge for time not spent, and that efficiency gains belong to the client where fees are hourly. The guidance remains advisory rather than a rule.
Two US law firms filed breach notifications describing ransomware incidents affecting client matter data, together covering roughly forty thousand individuals. Both notifications state that data was exfiltrated before encryption. Neither firm named the vendor or system involved. State attorneys general published the notifications in their breach registries, which is how the incidents became public.
A Southern District of New York judge imposed sanctions on two lawyers whose brief cited six cases that do not exist, referring both to the state bar and ordering them to notify their client. The court found the citations were generated by an AI research tool and filed without verification. Sanctions include a monetary penalty and mandatory continuing education. The opinion sets out a verification standard that the court says it will apply to future filings across its docket.
Corrected . An earlier version of this card said the penalty was $7,500. Reuters and Law360 report $5,000; Bloomberg Law reports $7,500. The summary now states the sanction without a figure and the key point carries both.
Read the long piece on LexRegisterA proposed class action filed in the Northern District of California alleges that marketing claims about hallucination-free legal research were false and misleading. The complaint seeks refunds for subscription fees paid by small firms and solo practitioners. It pleads claims under California's unfair competition law. No defendant has answered, and the docket shows a scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss in October.
Read the long piece on LexRegisterOfcom confirmed that law firm websites offering user-to-user messaging fall within the Online Safety Act's scope where the messaging is available to the public. Firms operating client portals behind authentication are outside it. The regulator published a decision tree for borderline cases and said enforcement will prioritise services with the largest reach rather than professional services sites.
A New York State Bar Association committee addressed whether entering client information into a generative AI service is a disclosure under the confidentiality rule. The opinion says it is, unless the provider is contractually barred from training on the input and from human review. Standard consumer terms do not meet that bar. Firms are advised to obtain enterprise agreements before use.
Accel led a $550 million Series D in the Swedish legal AI company Legora, tripling its valuation to $5.55 billion. The company said the round funds expansion in the United States and continued hiring for its agentic drafting product. Fourteen outlets reported the round on 10 March; none reported secondary-sale terms.
Cloud switching obligations under the EU Data Act became enforceable, requiring providers to remove contractual, commercial and technical barriers to moving a customer's data to a competing service. Egress charges must be withdrawn entirely from January, and providers must publish the formats in which data is exported. Legal technology vendors hosting client matter data in the Union are in scope regardless of where the vendor is established, and several vendors have already republished their standard terms to reflect the change.
Read the long piece on LexRegisterThe High Court ruled that a party need not disclose which AI tools were used to prepare witness statements, holding that the existing statement of truth already places the obligation on the signatory. The judgment distinguishes tools used for drafting from tools used to generate evidence. Costs were awarded against the applicant. The court declined to issue general guidance.
A District of Columbia judge set out an authentication standard for evidence alleged to be AI-generated, requiring the proponent to show provenance through metadata, chain of custody or testimony from someone with direct knowledge. The order declines to adopt a presumption either way. It applies to a single case but the court published it as guidance for the district.
A federal district judge issued a standing order requiring parties to certify whether generative AI drafted any portion of a filing and to confirm that every citation was checked against an authoritative database. The certificate must accompany each pleading. The order follows comparable requirements adopted judge by judge since 2023 and is enforceable by striking the filing.
An Ohio advisory opinion considered whether a consumer-facing legal AI product constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The opinion finds that supplying general legal information is not, but that applying law to a user's specific facts and recommending a course of action is, regardless of disclaimers. It notes that enforcement remains a matter for the state supreme court.
Utah's Division of Consumer Protection issued guidance on when a regulated occupation must disclose that a consumer is interacting with generative AI. The guidance treats a prominent, plain-language notice at the start of an interaction as sufficient, and says a disclosure buried in terms of service is not. Legal services are named among the regulated occupations covered. The division said a first violation will be treated as an opportunity to cure, provided the interaction caused no demonstrable consumer loss.
An Illinois State Bar Association advisory opinion concluded that a lawyer may pass through the cost of a generative AI subscription as an expense only where the client agreed in advance and the charge reflects actual cost. Marking up the subscription is prohibited. The opinion draws on the existing rule governing charges for photocopying and research databases.
NIST released a draft profile applying the AI Risk Management Framework to legal services, mapping the framework's govern, map, measure and manage functions onto tasks such as document review and legal research. The draft is open for comment for sixty days. It is guidance rather than a rule, and carries no independent enforcement mechanism.
Litera and DocuSign released a joint integration linking drafting and contract execution, allowing a document to move from a Litera template to a DocuSign envelope without leaving Word. The integration is available to customers of both products at no additional licence cost. Neither company disclosed how many joint customers the integration is expected to reach.
A Northern District of Illinois judge approved a model discovery protocol governing the use of AI-assisted review, requiring parties to disclose the tool, the validation method and the recall achieved. The protocol does not require disclosure of seed sets or training decisions. It was drafted with input from both sides' e-discovery vendors and is offered for adoption in other matters.
A study of bar examination performance found that candidates permitted to use a generative AI assistant scored higher on multistate performance test items but not on multiple-choice questions. The authors caution that the sample was small and drawn from a single jurisdiction's practice examination. Examiners have not indicated any change to permitted materials.