Corporate Counsel Business Journal | Fall 2025 by KRISTIN CALVE

2025 FALL EDITION VOLUME 33, NUMBER 3

Leading with Aloha

JENNY SILBIGER ON LIBRARIANS AS WAYFINDERS OF THE INFORMATION AGE

INSIDE

SEC Cyber-Disclosure Enforcement Takes a Back Seat— But Don’t Drop Your Guard Yet Hon. Kimberly Priest Johnson on AI, Ethics and Judicial Competence

Legal Ops Redefined: Connie Brenton & Jeff Franke on Data, Development and Strategic Leadership

Dispute Resolution Clauses

Harness the power of Artiﬁcial Intelligence with ClauseBuilder AI. Trained on almost 100 years of expertise, this free-to-use breakthrough tool utilizes generative AI language models based on a history of clauses to draft effective arbitration and mediation agreements tailored to your industry needs. With ClauseBuilder AI, the future of dispute resolution is here.

In This Issue

The participants in the CCBJ Network demonstrate, through their many contributions, their unwavering commitment to the advancement and success of corporate law departments. The engagement and support of these “partners of corporate counsel” assure we continue to develop and distribute the news and information this unique and sophisticated audience relies on to meet the evolving legal and business needs of their organizations.

Leading with Aloha

Jenny Silbiger on Librarians as Wayfinders of the Information Age

 As the current president-elect of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), Jenny Silbiger speaks with CCBJ about the profession’s evolving role. With candor and conviction, she frames law librarians not just as keepers of knowledge but as wayfinders—guides, mentors and innovators— helping the legal ecosystem navigate an avalanche of information and a tidal wave of new technologies.

CCBJ: AALL has long served as the professional home for legal information experts across sectors. As president, how do you see the organization’s role in response to unprecedented technological change, tighter budgets and shifting expectations across the legal ecosystem?

Jenny Silbiger: This is a moment of real transformation, and our role at AALL is more vital than ever. We are uniquely positioned to lead on issues like innovation, access to justice and the responsible use of generative AI. Our members are often the beta testers, adopters and implementers of new technology—while also serving as the feedback loop for vendors who shape it.

We stand as both a stabilizing force and a launch pad for innovation. That means supporting members as they navigate rapid change, empowering them to lead within their organizations and delivering the tools, education and community they need to thrive.

AALL’s strength has always been its cross-sector membership—from courts and government to law firms and academia. How do you balance distinct needs while reinforcing shared professional identity in this time of fragmentation?

Our greatest strength is our differences. Each sector—law schools, firms, courts, government—has distinct priorities, yet together we create an ecosystem that sustains the profession. Law students move to firms, firms interact with courts, courts depend on accurate research: it is all interconnected.

The key is active listening. We spotlight shared values like access to information, ethical practice and professional growth, while honoring the differences. We build opportunities for cross-sector collaboration through education, publications and partnerships. In doing so, we reinforce the shared identity of legal information professionals as essential stewards of reliable access.

You’ve spent your career at the intersection of public service, legal research and judicial access. How does that shape your vision for elevating the visibility and viability of law libraries in today’s digital, data-driven environment?

Reliable access to information is the currency of justice—and librarians ensure it is distributed equitably.

Law librarians are the infrastructure of legal information. Formats evolve, but our skills endure: evaluating sources, testing authenticity, guiding stakeholders. We’re not simply pointing to a website or a tool—we’re helping navigate a system that grows more complex by the day.

We bring curiosity and critical evaluation to new environments, ensuring outputs are useful and authentic. Elevating visibility means recognizing librarians as strategic partners in access to justice and in shaping technology decisions. Strengthening viability requires sustainable funding, investment in professional development and demonstrating measurable impact. My background reinforces a commitment to equity, usercentered innovation and the ongoing evolution of our services.

AI is transforming legal research. What role should AALL play in shaping conversations around responsible use, ethics and equitable access?

We have a critical role. Our members are already experimenting with AI, whether in law schools teaching prompt engineering, in firms benchmarking tools or in courts monitoring responsible use. We can be considered wayfinders here—guiding stakeholders with expertise, ethical grounding and caution.

AALL must advocate for technologies that expand access, not restrict it. These tools are expensive, and we must ask: who gets access? Through education, partnerships and leadership, we help members stay ahead of innovation while rooted in our values. Reliable information is the currency of justice, and librarians ensure it is distributed equitably.

Many members are navigating resource constraints and questions of sustainability. What practical support can AALL offer, and how do you define success?

Resource constraints are sadly familiar to libraries. Yet they’ve also honed our creativity. AALL provides practical, flexible support: toolkits, peer-driven data, best practices and advocacy resources. Our Salary and State of the Profession surveys, for example, demonstrate our value and help members make the case for investment.

Success is measured by how well members feel supported, connected and empowered to adapt and lead. Are we creating meaningful connections? Are we providing evidence and examples members can use to strengthen their position? If so, we’re fulfilling our mission.

Looking ahead, what legacy do you hope to leave—not just in initiatives, but in how members experience the association?

My theme this year is Leading with Aloha. Aloha is more than hello, goodbye or even love. It’s about grace, humility, respect, kindness—meeting people where they are and honoring differences as opportunities to learn.

I want members to feel that AALL is relevant, responsive and essential to their professional lives. That they belong. That they are connected to one another across differences, and that together we are shaping a forward-thinking, trusted voice for the legal information field.

That’s the legacy: cultivating a culture where librarians are seen not just as information keepers, but as wayfinders— guides, partners and leaders—in a rapidly evolving information landscape.

*Wayfinding is the ancient Polynesian art of navigating the open ocean without instruments, relying on observations of the stars, sun, ocean waves, wind and other natural signs to find direction and location. 

Front

SEC Cyber-Disclosure Enforcement Takes a Back Seat—But Don’t Drop Your Guard Yet

Is SEC cybersecurity enforcement fading away—or just shifting gears? With proposed budget cuts poised to limit enforcement, corporate counsel must stay vigilant on disclosure compliance.

Liz Dunshee spotlights a brewing shift: the recently proposed House appropriations bill explicitly seeks to defund enforcement of the SEC’s 2023 cybersecurity disclosure rule (Item 1.05 of Form 8-K). With nearly 7 percent cuts to SEC funding and renewed pushback from Republican commissioners, cybersecurity enforcement could take a back seat—but the rules themselves aren’t going anywhere yet.

As Dunshee argues, that doesn’t mean companies get a free pass. The statutes remain in force, and traditional disclosure principles still apply. Even if cyber enforcement slows, the SEC’s focus on fraud, accounting issues and insider trading remains strong.

Explore how these shifts impact compliance and risk-management strategies at TheCorporateCounsel.net

Briefly

Tonkean Unleashes Proactive AI Agents to Transform Enterprise Operations

Purpose Legal Earns Relativity aiR for Review Solution Competency

Thomson Reuters, Icertis and Accenture Announce Strategic Partnership

AAA-ICDR® to Launch AI-Native Arbitrator, Transforming Dispute Resolution

McGuireWoods Advises Hull Street Energy in Acquisition of Michigan Hydropower Fleet

Onit Launches AI-Native Unity e-Billing, Spend Agent, and CounselMatch to Transform Legal Operations

SCCE & HCCA Welcomes New Chief Executive Officer Garth Jordan

Epiq Appoints Kimberly Anstett as Chief Operating Officer

NetDocuments empowers Howes Percival to innovate and enhance client service

LexisNexis® Announces Protégé™ in CounselLink+™ for Actionable Matter and Invoice Insights

Mitratech and iManage Partner to Deliver the First Contracts & Document Platform for Legal Teams

Purpose Legal Welcomes Talin Andonians as Chief Operating Officer

Reveal and Clearbrief Announce Strategic Integration to Connect Legal Discovery to Drafting with Transparent, AI-Powered Workflows

SUBMIT YOUR ANNOUNCEMENTS TO editor@ccbjournal.com

SHO R T TA K E S

Frontier Tech Investments Rebound—Executive Spotlight

A fresh analysis by McKinsey in Tech Bounces Back in 2024 highlights a turning point: equity investments rose across 10 of the 13 frontier tech categories despite 2023’s headwinds, led by agentic AI’s explosive 1,562 percent increase from a small base. Meanwhile, energy, mobility, cloud & edge, bioengineering, space, AI and robotics— all rebounded or surpassed prior levels. The data underscore the renewed appetite for innovation—but also signal the need for sharp governance and agile strategy if enterprise leaders want to capitalize effectively.

Anthropic Reaches Landmark Settlement With Authors Over AI Training Data

Anthropic has reached a class-wide settlement with authors in Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, resolving claims over the use of millions of books to train its Claude AI system. The agreement, filed August 26 in the Northern District of California, avoids a trial and potential exposure to massive statutory damages tied to the company’s storage of “pirated” works.

Judge William Alsup had previously ruled that training on lawfully obtained books qualifies as fair use, but distinguished that from maintaining unauthorized “shadow libraries.” The case underscores that AI training isn’t shielded by a blanket fair use defense, raising ongoing policy questions as regulators, courts and Congress wrestle with compensation frameworks for authors.

Anthropic’s settlement highlights the tension between innovation and creator rights— and may reshape how AI firms, large and small, compete for access to training data.

Read more from Dennis Crouch at Patently-O.

UK Lawyers Lead Global Shift Toward AI, but Face Gaps in Implementation

British lawyers are emerging as global frontrunners in anticipating the AI-driven transformation of their profession, according to Thomson Reuters’ Future of Professionals 2025 report. The survey found that 87 percent of UK legal professionals believe AI will significantly impact the industry within five years, outpacing the global average of 79 percent. Yet, despite this foresight, only 38 percent expect “transformational change” inside their own organizations in the near term.

The research underscores a growing divide: lawyers who adopt AI early are gaining productivity, faster career development and stronger client relationships, while those who lag risk falling behind. Corporate in-house teams, in particular, are moving quickest, with half anticipating major AI-driven change this year. For law firms, the message is clear—tomorrow’s most successful lawyers will pair traditional expertise with technological fluency.

Source: Thomson Reuters, Future of Professionals 2025 report .

Contributors

Thanks to the law firms, technology companies, alternative legal service providers, management consultants and other supporters of corporate law departments who share their insights and expertise through the CCBJ network. Your participation is appreciated.

innovation and transformation at the intersection of business and law. She co-founded and serves as CEO of LegalOps.com the organization after having been the original cofounder of CLOC, along with Jeff Franke, defining legal operations as a discipline. LegalOps.com’s two reference models serve as the North star in the definition of legal operations. Through the legal operations community she built, Connie drives change in how legal departments can best operate and provide a competitive advantage to the business.

Jenny Silbiger is the State Law Librarian and Access to Justice Coordinator for the Hawai‘i State Judiciary and is the 2025-2026 President of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the first from Hawai‘i to serve in this role in AALL’s 118 year history. Silbiger was honored to be the recipient of the Hawai‘i Women Lawyers Distinguished Service Award in 2022.

Franke is the Co-Founder and CEO of LegalOps.com. LegalOps.com connects industry professionals and creates, collects, curates and delivers content and thought leadership through platforms and events in the corporate legal industry. With more than 25 years of experience at major high-tech companies and in private practice, Jeff’s experience includes running and leading legal operations functions as the Chief of Staff to the GC, as well as handling product release due diligence, technology licensing, commercial transactions, commercial litigation, open source licensing, and M&A technology due diligence.

Richard Torrenzano is Chief Executive of The Torrenzano Group which helps organizations take control of how they are perceived. For nearly a decade, he was a member of the New York Stock Exchange management (policy) and Executive (operations) committees. His new book was released in August: CEO Playbook: 101 AI and Communications Game-Changing Stakeholder Strategies

Judge Johnson brings nearly a decade of judicial experience to her practice, having served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas. During her tenure, she authored more than 1,300 substantive opinions and managed a broad civil and criminal docket, including cases involving federal agencies such as the FBI. At Shook, clients turn to Judge Johnson to draw upon her in-depth knowledge of the law, from the perspective of having served as both a federal judge and an attorney, for their most complex, bet-the-company litigations.

Cornell H. Winston is an experienced law librarian and Records Center Supervisor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Currently serving as President of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) for the 2024–2025 term, Winston advocates for innovation, inclusivity and bold leadership within the law librarian community.

As Chief Executive Officer of Frontline Managed Services, Seelin Naidoo sets the strategic vision and leads the firm’s global operations, driving innovation and sustainable growth across its expanding legal and professional services client base. Since joining the company in 2004, he has transformed Frontline from a regional service provider into a global leader in outsourced administrative, financial and IT solutions—supporting more than 800 law firms with a team of more than 1,000 employees worldwide.

Connie Brenton champions

Jeff

10th Annual

2025 Directory of Leading Legal Technology and Project Management Solutions

We are thrilled to present our 10th Annual Directory of Leading Legal Technology and Project Management Solutions, formerly the In-House Guide to Tech, from CCBJ. Over the years, this guide has served as a solution for our many readers who look to bring new and innovative solutions into their corporate environment. We are incredibly fortunate to have access to many subject matter experts who represent any number of industries and solutions within the legal ecosystem.

Hon. Kimberly Priest Johnson on AI, Ethics and Judicial Competence

HON. KIMBERLY PRIEST JOHNSON SHOOK & HARDY

 Judge Johnson shares her perspective on judicial competency in the digital age, ethical obligations around ESI and translation and the evolving responsibilities of attorneys and the bench.

CCBJ: Let’s start by discussing a very timely and important issue: technical competency within the judiciary. We’re obviously in a period of rapid technological advancement, which is reshaping how the legal profession operates—including the courts themselves. So, judges’ fluency with these emerging tools, AI in particular, is no longer optional—it’s essential. Indeed, a few months ago, at Legalweek in New York, you emphasized the degree to which AI is now essential for legal proficiency. How do you think judges

can responsibly integrate AI tools into their work, to enhance credibility and ensure accuracy?

Hon. Kimberly Priest Johnson: Great question. Over the last decade, my judicial role as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas exposed me to many evolving technical issues and provided me with firsthand insight into how the judiciary navigates and manages emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and electronically stored information (ESI).

There’s is an important distinction between attorneys and judges regarding AI integration. Attorneys must provide competent representation pursuant to Rule 1.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Contact, which arguably mandates using AI tools for

efficiency and effectiveness. Thus, the concept of competent representation is expanded such that lawyers must consider and utilize AI’s benefits in their overall representation of clients. Judges, however, are simply obligated to render fair and accurate decisions under existing law. Judges do not have a direct equivalent to Rule 1.1, but they must remain aware of AI advancements in order to regulate attorney use and understand the potential risks and issues such advancements potentially pose to the judicial process. Use of AI in a judge’s chambers or by court staff is certainly an option as well, and the judge may decide that certain AI technologies allow improved judicial services both to the parties and the public.

Judge Allison Goddard has raised concerns about complacency with AI tools. What critical practices should judges adopt to avoid ethical pitfalls?

Primarily, attorneys must ensure accuracy in their filings, regardless of AI tool usage; as mandated by Rule 1.1. Courts

should establish clear rules on permissible AI usage. Early AI misuse led some courts to prematurely ban AI tools. While understandable at that stage, our understanding of AI tools is expanding, so that such broad restrictions may prove unnecessary. Nonetheless, prudent court protocols—such as inquiring about AI storage practices and authenticity verification—will increasingly become necessary as the court regulates use of AI tools to promote efficient administration of justice while also protecting parties’ information and enforcing its rulings around protective orders and discovery procedures.

Redaction disputes often fuel mistrust among parties. How can judges manage redactions effectively while preserving judicial integrity?

There are two primary redaction types: privilege and relevance. Courts generally favor privilege redactions to facilitate document sharing without exposing privileged information, balancing efficiency and costs per Rule 1 of

“Judges must remain aware of AI advancements in order to regulate attorney use and understand the potential risks and issues.”

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Relevance redactions, on the other hand, remain widely disfavored, due to the explicit production rules, although limited exceptions may exist for highly sensitive competitive information. Many judges believe they can avoid unnecessary disputes if they limit relevancy redactions because they can rely on standard protective orders to protect information during the pretrial phase and can utilize other processes (including redaction) when a document is going to be used at trial phase and they have a better context by which to judge proposed relevancy redactions.

You’ve highlighted judicial concerns about translated ESI and international document usability. How should courts ethically approach translation obligations?

The Federal Rules require document production as maintained in the course of ordinary business—they do not mandate translating documents not kept in the ordinary course of business. While a few courts have required such translations by the producing party due to significant economic disparities between the two parties, they are in the minority on this issue. But note that a producing party might strategically opt to translate its own documents for production if it significantly benefits their case or controls the accuracy of the narrative around a translated document.

We’ve talked about the rapidly evolving intersection of technology and judicial practice. Are there any critical insights or emerging issues we haven’t touched on that you believe merit further discussion?

This evolving landscape means continued introduction

of new tools for lawyers and the courts. Courts and attorneys must collaboratively address the issues these new technologies and tools will present as they come into the judicial process. Current procedural rules broadly accommodate ongoing changes, maintaining efficacy without constant revision. Lawyers and judges need to work within those rules to promote use of advances that serve both the client and the judicial system’s interests while limiting the potential for misuse and abuse. For instance, it will remain essential for attorneys to stay vigilant about verifying AI-generated content, especially considering recent cases involving fabricated information from AI tools. Doing so is part of attorneys fulfilling their obligation under Rule 11 when they sign and file a pleading.

Ensuring speed and accuracy in judicial processes remains essential. What’s your perspective on maintaining accuracy amid growing AI use?

Rule 11’s obligations apply to every attorney as do the obligations of candor to the tribunal. Thus, vigilance by attorneys as to how tools are being used, how the tool performs in terms of limiting potential for improper disclosures and making sure anything submitted to the court that comes from AI tools is genuine and accurate is essential. Recent AI misuse cases underscore the necessity of vigilance to avoid false or fabricated submissions. 

Law Librarians Stand Guard Over Authoritative Knowledge in an Era of Misinformation

CORNELL WINSTON AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES (AALL)

 Cornell Winston, law librarian at the United States Attorney’s Office and president of the American Association of Law Libraries, discusses the historical importance of law librarians as guides and guardians of authoritative legal information, plus how their essential role is evolving in an age of information overload and unprecedented technological innovation.

CCBJ: As president of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), how have you seen the law librarian’s role in safeguarding authoritative legal information evolve amid technological disruption and growing public skepticism toward “authoritative” information sources?

Cornell Winston: I’ve been in working in libraries for more than 40 years—and in law libraries specifically for 37 years. Originally, we managed the print collection, reporters, digests, treatises and such. But as our world has increasingly gone online, we’re now managing those electronic sources.

It’s true that technology and public skepticism have both grown. So, now we have to vet those digital resources, and we have to teach information literacy. We have to ensure that what people are getting is reliable.

I’ll tell this story: One of my attorneys brought something to me that the opposing counsel had written in a particular brief. And I was like, “No, this is wrong.” He was like, “I’m sure it’s cited.” I said no. “In the first place,” I told him, “it doesn’t have a public law number.” It didn’t have all those markings you’d need to say this is true. Part of me thought, “Come on, you’re an attorney, you should know this.” But he didn’t.

So nowadays part of our role is to vet that information. To borrow a line from Ronald Reagan, “We’ve got to trust, but we also have to verify.” We safeguard authoritative legal

information, and we also have to support that access to justice. In our association, we have county law libraries, we have law schools, we have law firms, we have corporations, with librarians in all those particular areas. Our role has changed, and it’s been a challenge—but hey, that’s something that librarians have always embraced. And hopefully we’re still taking the lead in those areas.

We, as law librarians, have to be able to say, “This is authoritative.”

Under your leadership, AALL emphasizes innovation and technological adoption. Let’s discuss a specific innovative approach you’ve championed that significantly advanced the efficacy, accuracy or accessibility of legal knowledge management?

Like I said, we’ve seen how things change. I recall at my old law firm—this was the late 1990s—I taught classes on how to use the internet. But nowadays my 7-year-old granddaughter, or even my 4-year-old granddaughter, will pick up a laptop or a tablet, and they’re like, “No, Grandpa, you don’t have to teach me” because they already know it.

But we law librarians have really embraced the internet— we have embraced taking things online. I remember when Shepard’s Citations was only in book form. It was a hard book, and then you got a supplement for it, and then you got a supplement to the supplement. And if you had to Shepardize something, it was a laborious chore. But now it just takes a few clicks and you’ve got your Shepard citations.

Similarly, it used to take forever to create a table of cases, or a table of authorities. But as librarians, we worked with that—we had to master it, because we’re looked at as the authority. That is a major role we have. Whatever comes out from a publisher, or from whomever, we have to embrace it. Others may be skeptical, but we have to embrace it,

because we’re looked at as the authority in terms of legal information and accuracy.

The “database of record” has been a hot topic, especially with the way technology is rapidly evolving. It’s always seemed to me like such a natural fit for libraries to convert information digitally, because librarians understand the data architecture, the markers you were talking about that are needed to vet content. It’s interesting to me when, as you said, people can’t tell based on the markers—or lack of markers—that something isn’t valid. It’s an evolving skill, I guess. Let’s focus on that.

Yes, it’s a skill. Going back to the old days again, to when I was teaching those classes about using the internet at my old law firm, I’d use the illustration of General Motors. You would assume that if you went to generalmotors.com you would get information on GM cars and the company General Motors. But back then, it was actually a website that some

guy—he utilized the name, said he was a general in the military and that his last name was Motors—had gotten before GM could get it. So, you look at, and it’s like, no, that’s wrong, that information’s wrong—you’re not finding what you need there.

It’s the same even today when we look at things going digital—anybody can put things online. People put things online all the time that are just wrong. So, as a library, the question is, how do we vet things to say “this isn’t right” or “this isn’t true?”

We also have to make sure that these things are preserved for the future. Dead links, for example, are a worry of mine. Even in these past several months, we’ve seen certain information being removed from federal websites. That’s discouraging and a bit scary, because we depend on the information being there, and it being truthful—and all of a sudden when it’s gone, how do you deal with that? How do you verify? There are websites that archive those things, but

even so, how can you be sure that they will always be there? It’s a difficulty.

We have to make sure that information is not just available but also reliable.

So, given these challenges, how do law librarians effectively balance the promise of cutting-edge tools like artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced analytics with the inherent risks that these technologies present, such as potential biases or misinformation in curating legal information—or any kind of information, really?

Great question—this is something AALL is very focused on. For instance, our president-elect for 2025– 2026, Jenny Silbiger, who is the state law librarian for Hawaii, works with judges across the state to increase awareness about the pros and cons of using generative AI. Our most recent past president, June Hsiao Liebert , who is now at a law firm here in Los Angeles, leads a practice innovation team that is not only helping attorneys use AI but also collaborating with clients of the law firm to integrate those technology solutions to make things more efficient. And one of our members, Kristen Edringhouse, who is now our incoming treasurer, created and ran legal analytics and innovation initiatives at Georgia State—teaching students in the legal analytics, data science and technology program.

It’s not enough to say, “This is where we are.” People also want to know where we are going. And a librarian says, “Here, let me walk you down this road map to get you to there.” I’ve heard for years, “Oh, librarians, they’ll be in the past soon.” To which I say, “You know what? I think I do more work now than I’ve ever done before.” People will tell you, “Oh, it’s all online, everything is online.” And I say, “That may be true, it may be online, but if you cannot access it, it is of no value to you.” For me, it’s almost like walking

into a physical library and saying, “Well, I need a book on horticulture.” Well, you know it’s in there somewhere, but are you going to walk up and down each stack? No. You’re going to go to the card catalog—which is now electronic— and it’s going to give you a card number, it’s going to give you a location. But you’re only able to do that because some librarian actively took that information and broke it down into something that people could use.

That’s happening right now with these new tools that are out there—though I really think that with some of these things, like the newest forms of AI, we do need to master it even more. I know I need to master a whole lot more. Just think about how fast things have changed. Three years ago, most people were not talking about generative AI, and now it’s the norm.

Along these same lines, can you talk about the proactive strategies knowledge management professionals should employ today to anticipate and mitigate risks related to data integrity, privacy and information security— particularly within governmental and legal institutions?

I think of librarians as the connectors—with the IT security teams, the attorneys, the vendors—because we really have to translate legal needs into technological solutions. But people really need to understand that there are risks that are just inherent with this new technology. We have to ensure that our legal research platforms and the vendors really meet and connect—there have to be strict data integrity and privacy standards before something is adopted, not after it’s already out the bag.

So, librarians sometimes have to say, “Hold on, I know you think this is a great product, but there has to be some safeguards around it. You’ve got to have some standards there.” And I think we have to do more to develop and enforce those cybersecurity measures, to prevent those breaches that do occur. Sometimes it’s just too easy for somebody to hack in and get information.

We have to do continual training. When I started at the U.S. Attorney’s Office—and I’m coming up 24 years there—one of the first projects our office did was about identity theft. But that has really been an ongoing project, and we’ve been working on it for 24 years, because the particulars evolve. So when we do trainings now, it’s about the amount of information that is available for scammers to take advantage of, and about how to safeguard yourself so you’re not scammed—we even talk about how AI can mimic a person’s voice now, for instance.

We have to create an environment where technology, legal expertise, security and public information work together to ensure that people know what’s going on. You have to know what to watch out for. That’s how you can protect yourself. Because otherwise it’s so easy to be scammed. Part of our ongoing training is to remind people, “This is different. It’s a new age, and we can’t run away from it we have to run to it.”

As librarians, we have to be watchful, and we have to sound the alarm if things are not digitally correct.

Let’s wrap up by talking about AALL in the context of the broader legal information ecosystem. What longterm opportunities do you foresee for law librarians to shape the ethical standards and continue ensuring the credibility and reliability of legal information?

We have to develop, promote and encourage ethical guidelines for legal information and management. There are certain things that you just have to say, “This is right—this is the standard.” Whether it’s a publisher, or a vendor, or whatever, there are standards that we have to meet and maintain.

AALL is big on open access. When there are too many things

behind paywalls, it stifles getting information to the public. But better collaboration with tech vendors is needed to embed some ethics and some privacy rules. And we, as law librarians, have to be able to say, “This is authoritative. This is a good site—it’s maintained.” I remember when the Government Publishing Office started putting the authentication stickers on their information online. It’s like that. We have to make sure that information is not just available but also reliable.

Let’s take case law reporters, for example. There have always been standards, but it was easier to verify when you were just dealing with physical books. Federal Reporter was a standard, for instance. When you pulled up a Federal Reporter, or a Federal Supplement, or a Supreme Court Reporter, it was authoritative—you could trust it.

Now that everything is digital, it’s harder to make sure that whatever website you’re going to is—that what’s there is the latest information, that it’s corrected and so on. Sure, in the past, you might occasionally find a mistake or something like that in the Reporter. But you knew that overall, it was authoritative.

As librarians, we have to be watchful, and we have to sound the alarm if things are not digitally correct, if there are problems there. And it’s a challenge. In a way, it’s similar to the cybersecurity challenges we touched on, which most people are very familiar with. We have to remain vigilant. We can’t be complacent or let those safeguards go and think it’ll

HELIX Promises Faster, Smarter IT Support for Law Firms

SEELIN NAIDOO FRONTLINE MANAGED SERVICES

 HELIX, the new AI-powered service desk from Frontline, promises to cut downtime in half, boost consistency & protect billable time. CEO Seelin Naidoo calls it “three years ahead of the market.”

Frontline Managed Services says its ServiceNowpowered platform can cut downtime in half, boost consistency and protect billable time.

HELIX is pitched as the end of the lawyer help desk headache. Built on ServiceNow and infused with generative AI, the new platform from Frontline Managed Services aims to give lawyers faster answers, consistent outcomes and seamless self-service—all without sacrificing the nuance of legal workflows.

For firms, the benefits are clear: less downtime, better predictability and measurable return on lawyer time. HELIX can transcribe a request, search a firm’s knowledge base and deliver the right solution at the speed of a Google search. Partners who still prefer to call in get live answers within seconds, while associates can resolve issues directly inside Microsoft Teams. ServiceNow’s analysis suggests as many as 40 percent of tickets could be deflected from human

analysts, cutting average handle times from 8 minutes to as little as 4—or even 2.

The promise goes beyond convenience. Every stalled document or login issue eats into revenue. By standardizing how support is delivered across hundreds of tools—from iManage and NetDocuments to Intapp—HELIX seeks to protect billable hours while scaling firmwide IT without ballooning headcount.

Frontline has already proven this model on the finance side. Its “Bili” billing compliance engine audits invoices against client rules before submission, helping firms achieve a 98 percent realization rate compared with an industry average in the mid-80s. With HELIX, the same operational discipline is now applied to IT.

CEO Seelin Naidoo, who has grown Frontline from 30 employees to more than 1,000 worldwide, calls HELIX not just an upgrade but a leap forward: “Where we are today, I’d say we’re three years ahead of where the market is.” With fresh backing from Broad Sky Partners, HELIX is now rolling out across more than 200 client firms. Naidoo emphasizes that Frontline isn’t selling software—it’s delivering outcomes.

Bottom line: For AmLaw firms under pressure to do more with less, HELIX promises to transform IT support from a friction point into a business advantage—faster, smarter and built to protect the hours that matter most. 

As Chief Executive Officer of Frontline Managed Services, Seelin Naidoo sets the strategic vision and leads the firm’s global operations, driving innovation and sustainable growth across its expanding legal and professional services client base. Since joining the company in 2004, he has transformed Frontline from a regional service provider into a global leader in outsourced administrative, financial, and IT solutions—supporting more than 800 law firms with a team of more than 1,000 employees worldwide.

Legal Ops Redefined: Connie Brenton & Jeff Franke on Data, Development and Strategic Leadership

CONNIE BRENTON AND JEFFREY FRANKE LEGALOPS.COM

 Legal operations is no longer just a support function—it is a platform for strategic leadership. LegalOps.com co-founders Connie Brenton and Jeffrey Franke share their framework for the future: one built on professional development, actionable data and an integrated legal ecosystem.

CCBJ: Let’s start at a high level. What distinguishes LegalOps.com and the Running Legal Like a Business (RLLB) conference from other players in the legal operations space?

Connie Brenton: We have built something fundamentally different—an ecosystem, not just a conference. RLLB is where the entire legal ecosystem comes together: corporate legal, legal ops, GCs, IP and litigation teams, law firms, tech

providers—everyone. Our content is fully curated, and we’re known for its depth and quality. But it is also about creating a professional community that people want to come back to year after year. It is personal.

Jeff Franke: What sets us apart is the rigor. We are building a comprehensive set of reference models and operating frameworks. These aren’t just presentations—they are blueprints for how to run legal like a business. Most organizations in this space do not go that deep. They might offer networking and some vendor-led sessions, but we are offering something more systemic. And it is resonating— we are seeing major companies bring full teams. That is because this is a serious learning environment.

The conference has a distinct feel—intentional and designed. Can you talk about the programming architecture and who it’s really for?

Franke: We build for all levels—beginner, intermediate and advanced. But we design especially for advanced professionals who are often underserved. We have 15 legal ops practice areas, and we intentionally cover the spectrum. That includes foundational workshops, deep dives into prompt engineering for AI and Chatham House–style closed-door sessions for advanced problem-solving. Our tech content isn’t fluff—it is implementation-level, and we keep it free of vendor pitches.

Brenton: And it is not just the sessions. Every design choice—from open floorplans to collaborative seating— is about reinforcing that sense of connection. This is a community that supports each other, that shares knowledge freely. We want everyone—from junior analysts to COOs—to feel like they belong and have something to contribute.

Beyond the event itself, what does LegalOps.com offer year-round?

Brenton: This is where we are different. We are not an events company. We are a content and data company. Behind the scenes, we have a robust platform—a realtime benchmarking tool, a growing online community, compensation data and message boards. Our programming all sits on top of that infrastructure.

Franke: And it’s real data, not static surveys. People input compensation data when they join—it is totally confidential, anonymized and encrypted on the back end. Our data allows us to build personal compensation benchmarking reports, and people are using those reports to secure market driven increases in pay when they get promoted or take a new job. And employers are using the data to help understand market rates. Moreover, we can calibrate compensation data in terms of base, bonus and equity. This creates an ability to have data driven compensation conversations and outcomes.

Let’s talk about professional development. You’re building a certification program—what’s the goal?

Brenton: We have needed this for years—a rigorous, credible

legal ops certification. Existing programs are often too light to be meaningful. LegalOps.com will include deep training modules, built with and by experts who have worked inside legal departments. We want to ensure that certification means something; it is not just a badge but a sign of real capability.

Franke: We are not rushing the creation of the program. We are building it to last, with input from people who have done this work for decades. It is not just about monetizing a credential. It is about elevating the profession and giving teams a clear developmental roadmap.

LEGALOPS.COM’S FOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT PARADIGMS

Risk Management—Minimizing liability and regulatory exposure

Business Partnering—Supporting business units with more agile legal processes, more friendly contract templates, etc.

Strategy Enablement—Supporting enterprise strategy through legal processes and initiatives

Competitive Advantage—Using Legal as a differentiator in the market

Franke: We have seen Legal Operations Management evolve alongside the role of the general counsel. Some Legal departments are still focused only on guarding the company. Others are now guiding it. The most mature departments are helping drive a competitive advantage.

Those four paradigms help companies see where they are— and where they could be.

Brenton: General Counsel are hiring differently now. Legal Operations Executives are moving into chief of staff roles, into COO seats at law firms, even into the business side of the enterprise. It is a sign that Legal Operations expertise offers critical leadership skills needed by any number of Legal and senior business roles.

You’ve mentioned culture a few times. What’s the community like at RLLB?

Brenton: It feels like a family. We are intentional about balance—providers, law firms, in-house teams. We treat them all as part of the same ecosystem. That is important because the best legal ops professionals do not just sit in one type of organization. They move across the ecosystem, and they need that full network.

Franke: The vibe is about sharing—not showboating. These are hard jobs. They require strategic thinking, emotional intelligence and operational execution. It is cathartic for people to come together, to be honest about their challenges, and to say, “How are you handling this?”

As you head into your third annual RLLB conference, what are you most excited about?

Brenton: The people. I am passionate about connecting with people and doing what I can to advance their careers. I am equally as passionate about building communities. At LegalOps.com we help Legal Operations executives grow in their practice area expertise, and we help them develop their leadership and professional skills.

Franke: For me, it is defining the space by building the reference models and supporting content. Always. There is a lot of noise in the market. Everyone is talking about AI, and yes, we are covering prompt engineering and agentic AI. But we are also focused on things like knowledge management, strategic planning, budgeting, communications, rightsourcing, vendor management, data and metrics. These are

some of the foundations of a modern legal department.

Why Now? What makes this “the moment” to invest in Legal Ops?

Brenton: The pace of change is only accelerating. GenAI, new regulations, rising expectations. You cannot afford not to keep learning—and you cannot do it alone. This is about building the network, the knowledge and the support to stay ahead.

Franke: There is no blueprint for Legal Operations—yet. But we are building one. And we are doing it together with the community.

More about the upcoming conference here. 

Connie Brenton champions innovation and transformation at the intersection of business and law. She co-founded and serves as CEO of LegalOps.com the organization after having been the original cofounder of CLOC, along with Jeff Franke, defining legal operations as a discipline. LegalOps.com’s two reference models serve as the North star in the definition of legal operations. Through the legal operations community she built, Connie drives change in how legal departments can best operate and provide a competitive advantage to the business.

Jeff Franke is the Co-Founder and CEO of LegalOps.com. LegalOps.com connects industry professionals and creates, collects, curates and delivers content and thought leadership through platforms and events in the corporate legal industry. With more than 25 years of experience at major high-tech companies and in private practice, Jeff’s experience includes running and leading legal operations functions as the Chief of Staff to the GC, as well as handling product release due diligence, technology licensing, commercial transactions, commercial litigation, open source licensing, and M&A technology due diligence.

AI Puts General Counsel at the Center of Corporate Survival

RICHARD TORRENZANO THE TORRENZANO GROUP

Business survival, in 2026, will be a high-wire act where market value and trust vanish in minutes. A single deepfake attack against a chief financial officer (CFO)— engineered into a jaw-dropping manufactured “gotcha”—or a rogue, unauthorized AI-driven digital attack can torch reputation before a chief executive officer (CEO) can shout, “Battle stations! ”

Corporate survival demands relentless adaptability, warpspeed agility and precision. Speed is vital but useless if wrong. Winning combines constant preparation, scenario rehearsals and disciplined action.

A late-night social media storm can send stocks into a nosedive by the opening bell. Market tremors now propagate in minutes, trades triggered in microseconds— often set off by viral content or a single, surgical, 280-character post

Unfortunately, most lawyers approach warp speed with the enthusiasm of a Victorian confronting an escalator. In this environment, hesitation is not a flaw; it’s an existential liability.

Crisis no longer knocks—it bursts in and moves markets and media before you can react.

Business today resembles speed chess, except pieces move themselves, rules shift mid-game locally and globally, with compliance laws clashing across borders.

Today’s reality is that artificial intelligence (AI) generated deepfakes have already cloned executives’ voices, duping employees into transferring funds or leaking sensitive data.

Algorithms now act in real time with real-world consequences, while cyber threats outpace the laws meant to contain them. The 2025 crisis playbook is obsolete. Companies that fail to evolve don’t just risk penalties—they gamble reputation, trust, equity value and survival.

While researching my forthcoming AI book, we spoke with CEOs and general counsels (GCs) about AI’s legal and reputational risks. The consensus was uneasy urgency, tinged with polite optimism usually reserved for pilots announcing “light turbulence” during a thunderstorm.

A few insisted their companies were “totally on top of it,” but admitted their strategy boiled down to: “We’re letting IT manage it.” This problem now exceeds the scope of IT and law alone.

A friend—a GC for two major companies and a former military fighter pilot—flew one of the most advanced single-seat aircraft in the world equipped with cutting-edge avionics, lethal air-to-air weapons and blistering speed. Physical demands were brutal.

When asked about the hardest part, he didn’t hesitate: “You always have to be thinking 5 to 10 miles ahead when you are flying. Always.”

That mindset defines great GCs: always ahead of the threat. Deepfakes, cyberattacks and regulatory upheaval are the next turbulence at Mach speed.

“Who you goanna call” when trust is at stake?

When an AI-powered trading algorithm misfires, deepfakes drain accounts or a rogue chatbot tarnishes a brand overnight, executives won’t call IT… those calls will be to legal and communications.

GCs must mobilize cross-functional teams instantly to ensure fairness, transparency and compliance before damage becomes irreversible.

AI now drives strategic decisions through cognitive computing, autonomous systems and adaptive learning.

No organization can afford to deploy a black-box system that produces legally questionable decisions. Instead, it must become a trust engine—protecting stakeholder confidence, upholding contracts and steering clear of the corporate kabuki of hollow lawyer-script. Those “We

take this very seriously” statements that land with the credibility of a phishing email.

Reputational threats demand preemptive strategies— ethical AI governance, clear communications and rehearsed rapid-response protocols.

The algorithm made me do it.

A great general counsel isn’t just a firefighter—they’re the architect of fire prevention. They engineer systems that make crises uncommon, embed legal foresight into business strategy and turn trust from a happy accident into a deliberate competitive asset.

Ethical AI or carbon neutrality—whatever the promise, slogans are cheap; keeping them is costly. GCs ensure they’re worth the investment and survive earnings cycles.

This is never a one-lawyer mission… it’s a precision team sport.

AI specialists stress-test algorithms for bias, contract hawks seal cross-border loopholes, compliance veterans navigate clashing regulations and experienced communications strategists shape stakeholder perception before and as it hits the headlines.

If that roster isn’t on the field, the clock is running out. The GC’s mandate is brutally simple: stop AI from rewriting the company risk profile or its obituary.

Privacy, power, penalties in an age of relentless oversight.

Some regulators now move faster than companies they police. Antitrust enforcement is expanding, deepfake lawsuits are surfacing, privacy and cybersecurity rules tightening and corporate liability climbing… all at once and at record speed.

In just two years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has imposed more than $11 billion in penalties—$1.5 billion tied directly to failures in monitoring off-channel communications such as private messaging apps, social media and unauthorized devices.

European Commission (EC) has hit violators with similarly steep penalties for data breaches.

In Washington, lawmakers are pushing—but have yet to pass—federal privacy legislation to create a single nationwide standard.

These moves mirror global precedents, from the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to California’s Consumer Privacy Act and Texas’s new Data Privacy and Security Act

Lawmakers are chasing technology evolving faster than statutes can be written, leaving companies in a legal gray zone. This is where general counsels prove their worth—

turning AI risk into enforceable policy before regulators, courts or activist investors step in.

It’s not for the fainthearted. AI is already making calls once reserved for human judgment—hiring, lending, pricing—at a scale, few grasp. And while others chase the upgrade, savvier GCs ask the harder question: “Should we?”

Who knows and who decides when algorithms are out of line?

Companies that survive won’t just deploy the fastest algorithms; they’ll know when to pause, when to override, when to walk away. Aligning AI with mission, values and risk tolerance isn’t risk-avoidance—it’s survival engineering.

That puts GCs in the control tower—shaping governance, enforcing ethical standards and coordinating with IT—with communications and leadership to preempt the unpredictable: snap regulations, algorithmic errors, novel liabilities and deepfake warfare.

The next corporate crisis will start quietly—with a single AI decision buried in a supply chain, loan portfolio or product recall. By the time it’s visible, fallout will be measured in minutes, not hours.

In that moment, the GC’s value won’t be in citing law—it will be coordinating expert teams, buying the company time, protecting credibility and turning a split-second failure into a long-term save.

Be sure to follow InHouseOps.com and subscribe to the Newsletter for updates and posts from key industry leaders! Suggestions or submissions can be sent to our editors at Info@Inhouseops.com.