When people think about malware, they often imagine someone clicking a suspicious attachment or downloading a shady file. In reality, Jerry Lawson describes how one of the most dangerous forms of infection requires no obvious mistake at all. It’s called a drive-by download, and it remains a quiet but serious threat.
What is the irreducibly human element in legal education when AI can pass the bar exam, generate effective lectures, and provide personalized learning and academic support? This article by law professor Gregory M. Duhl confronts that question head-on by documenting the planning and design of a comprehensive transformation of a required doctrinal law school course—first-year Contracts— with AI fully embedded throughout the course design. Instead of adding AI exercises to conventional pedagogy or creating a stand-alone AI course, this approach reimagines legal education for the AI era by integrating AI as a learning enhancer rather than a threat to be managed. The transformation serves Mitchell Hamline School of Law’s access-driven mission: AI helps create equity for diverse learners, prepares practice-ready professionals for legal practice transformed by AI, and shifts the institutional narrative from policing technology use to leveraging it pedagogically.
In 2014, Rick Anderson wrote A quiet culture war in research libraries – and what it means for librarians, researchers and publishers’, arguing that there existed an ongoing conflict within the academic library profession over whether the library’s most important role is to support its local institution or to advance global priorities (specifically, progress towards open scholarship). Here Anderson reassess the landscape ten years later, finding that this conflict has both persisted and deepened, and offer two predictions: first, that the broader systemic conflict between competing business models will not be resolved by libraries, authors or publishers, but rather by institutions and funders, and second, that the end result will be a system characterized by coexisting models of pay‑access and open‑access publishing.
Before the volcano erupts, smart lawyers may want to think twice about investing too heavily in AI or thinking it’s a panacea for all problems – by Stephen Embry and Melissa Rogozinsk. All four parts of this series are available via links on each part of this series.
It’s time for lawyers and legal professionals to follow the money to assess the risks of AI. By Stephen Embry and Melissa Rogozinski.
Privacy and cybersecurity issues impact every aspect of our lives – home, work, travel, education, finance, health and medical records – to name but a few. On a weekly basis Pete Weiss highlights articles and information that focus on the increasingly complex and wide ranging ways technology is used to compromise and diminish our privacy and online security, often without our situational awareness. Five highlights from this week: Should AI Tools For Doctors Be Licensed Like Doctors?; The New Surveillance State Is You; Mojeek, the independent search engine worth trying; WIRED Data Breach; an How the human harms of cybercrime shook the world in 2025.
The Trump Administration’s Continued War Against Science, Research, Public Health, and the Rule of Law – Part 6 – As we approach January 20, 2026, the one year mark of the second Trump administration, Americans are witnessing the exercise of vast, often illegal and unconstrained presidential powers, unprecedented in our history. The impact of these powers, …
Jerry Lawson advocates consulting more than one AI app when dealing with important issues. Multiple AI perspectives help with high-stakes questions, unsettled law, or anything involving tax regulations. When two models agree, you gain confidence. When they disagree, you gain a warning sign. Lawson also addresses cybersecurity issues, technology risks, legal marketing, and choosing the best hardware and software for your work configuration.
Stephen Embry and Melissa Rogo Rogozinski identify the multiple risk factors involved in the increasing usage of AI in the legal sector, including infrastructure gaps between chip capacity, demand for energy sources and building new data centers, as well as vendor dependencies, promises and deliverables. This four part series is available on LLRX.
Stephen Embry and Melissa Rogozinski challenge the assumption fueling the explosion of AI use in legal is that it will save gobs of time. These savings will inure to the benefit of lawyers and clients, will lead to fairer methods of billing like alternative fee structures, will get better results, improve access to justice, and lead to ‘world peace’. Well, maybe even the vendors would not go so far as to guarantee the last one. But vendors do seem to be guaranteeing everything but that. And pundits talk as if AI will transform legal from the ground up. Law firms are buying into the hype, investing in expensive systems that do things they barely understand. See also Part I of their article here.