United States
7 stories
The largest legal market, and the loudest.
Morgan & Morgan commits $1 billion to its own legal AI(forthepeople.com)
Morgan & Morgan, the plaintiff firm best known for its television advertising, has unveiled MX2, an AI platform it built in-house over several years, and pledged more than $1 billion in legal-technology spending over the coming decade. MX2 already runs at scale inside the firm, with close to 5,000 monthly users across four tools: a case-insight agent tied into its own case-management system, a document drafter, a medical-record extractor and a case-data search engine. The firm says it plans to offer MX2 to outside firms by invitation once the platform has proven itself further, with an external rollout targeted for late 2027.
Product UpdatesMorgan & Morgan3 sources
California AI bill for lawyers now sits with the governor(artificiallawyer.com)
SB 574 would write AI duties into California practice rules: protect confidential client information at the prompt stage, guard against discriminatory use, and personally read and verify every source cited in a filing you sign, AI-generated or not. It would also bar arbitrators from delegating any part of a decision to a model. The legislature cleared it on 31 August, the Senate concurring in the Assembly's amendments 39-0, so the only remaining step is the governor. Anyone practising in California should plan next quarter's AI rollout on the assumption it lands.
E-Courts5 sources
Texas court shields a litigant's AI chat log from discovery(nortonrosefulbright.com)
The Eleventh Division of the Texas Business Court held that a chat log of a non-lawyer litigant's exchanges with a generative AI tool, created in anticipation of litigation, is protected attorney work product under the Texas rules. Judge Grant Dorfman declined to follow United States v. Heppner, the February decision from the Southern District of New York that reached the opposite result on the federal standard, reasoning that the Texas rule is written differently and on its face reaches these conversations. The party must still disclose which discovery materials it fed into the tool, so the protection covers the conversation and not the documents behind it.
E-Courts4 sources
California signs first-in-nation AI chatbot child rules(gov.ca.gov)
Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a package of bills his office calls the country's strongest child-safety rules for AI companion chatbots and social media. SB 1119, named for Adam Raine, requires chatbot operators to run a risk assessment before a rollout, build in a crisis protocol for suicidal ideation, and pass an annual independent safety audit; AB 1709 bars addictive autoplay and algorithmic feeds for users under 16. A company found to have negligently harmed a child through either can be fined up to $1 million per child. The package regulates consumer-facing AI generally rather than legal practice, but it is the first state law to put a per-child dollar figure on an AI-related harm.
E-Courts2 sources
Eve opens EveOS to plaintiff firms with Analyst and Atlas(artificiallawyer.com)
Eve's operating system for plaintiff firms has come out of its staged rollout into general availability, and it arrives with two additions aimed at the parts of a contingency practice that are not legal work. Analyst answers questions about the firm itself, so a partner can ask for a report in plain English instead of commissioning one. Atlas assembles a live picture of each matter by reading the systems a case already generates, including filings, medical records and client correspondence, which is a direct attack on the manual data entry that plaintiff firms carry.
Product UpdatesEve2 sources
Harvey wires PacerPro docket data into litigation work(harvey.ai)
Harvey and PacerPro have integrated so that litigation teams working in Harvey can reach their firm's own filing history alongside live state and federal dockets. PacerPro captures filings and their documents as they post and ties each one to its case and matter, which turns a new filing or order into something that can trigger work rather than something somebody has to notice. For litigation groups the pitch is that the court event, the matter context and the firm's prior work arrive in the same place.
PartnershipHarvey, PacerPro3 sources
Privilege shields Workday's bias-testing data in Mobley(blogs.duanemorris.com)
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler refused to make Workday hand over its AI bias-testing data in Mobley v. Workday, holding it privileged because the company's lawyers curated the testing and used the results to give legal advice, and that merely acknowledging the testing existed did not waive that. She also found Workday lacked Rule 34 control over its customers' applicant data, while ordering it to produce its own EEO-1 and OFCCP records. For anyone bias-testing a hiring model, whether counsel directs the work now looks like the thing that decides whether the results are discoverable.
E-CourtsWorkday4 sources