Today's General Counsel, June 2025 by Today's General Counsel

eDiscovery Without Compromise

As digital evidence grows in complexity and volume, KLDiscovery stands as the pioneer in eDiscovery excellence. For over three decades, we’ve helped law firms, corporations, and government agencies navigate their most demanding legal and regulatory challenges. With 26 strategic locations across 17 countries, we combine advanced technology with deep forensic expertise to turn raw data into actionable intelligence. Our comprehensive eDiscovery and compliance solutions don’t just mitigate risk—they create strategic advantages, optimize costs, and ensure defensible results. All backed by our signature 24/7 white-glove support, making KLDiscovery the trusted partner for organizations worldwide.

Regulatory Investigations and Compliance

Cross-Border Litigation and Investigations

Advisory Consulting Services

Cyber Incident Response

The field of artificial intelligence is advancing at an unprecedented pace. It’s equal parts fascinating and frightening when it comes to keeping up with all the latest developments.

Case in point, take China’s DeepSeek-V3. The platform’s swift adoption—and the serious compliance risks it raises—offers a wake-up call for legal teams to revisit and fortify their GenAI policies, as Leonard J. Dietzen, III and Derek Dzwonkowski write in our cover story

“The instant popularity of China’s DeepSeek-V3 generative artificial intelligence model underscores why companies should craft stronger GenAI policies that minimize the risks of employees exposing sensitive data, violating compliance regulations, and harming their companies’ brand images,” they write. “DeepSeek is even riskier than many other platforms because the company and its servers are based in China, where data privacy laws were crafted to protect state surveillance.”

The DeepSeek example underscores the importance of human oversight in the face of rapid technological advancement. Another story in this issue echoes that sentiment. Hunter McMahon explores the indispensable role of human expertise in shaping effective business strategies—especially those involving AI. No amount of automation can replace the value of accumulated knowledge and sound professional judgment.

“At the end of the day, AI will level the playing field when it comes to access to information," he writes. "But it won't level the playing field of sound judgment and human expertise. It won’t create experience or earn trust.”

Sharing legal expertise is at the heart of what we do at Today’s General Counsel and our companion platform, Today’s Managing Partner. With that mission in mind, we’re excited to introduce two new columnists in this issue. Mark Diamond, Founder and CEO of Contoural, brings his expertise in information governance, while Dan Regard, President and CEO of Intelligent Discovery Solutions, Inc. (iDS), offers a compelling perspective on how technology is transforming evidence, litigation, and dispute resolution. We look forward to future columns from them both that will dive deep into these topics.

This issue also includes articles on optimizing Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filings, acing in-person job interviews, fielding HR employee complaints, and leveraging AI and document management systems.

We hope you find actionable intelligence in these pages to support your team’s work. If you haven’t already, be sure to check out our recent Special Edition focused on legal operations, with insights on career development, legal technology, and more.

Wishing you a strong start to your summer!

Thank you for reading,

Amanda Kaiser Editor-in-Chief

Truth is in the details .

Behind every dispute, breach, or investigation, there’s a story. Our job is to find it—quickly, clearly, and without compromise.

At iDS, we don’t deal in guesswork. We deal in facts—digital and structured ones—the kind that can sway a courtroom or steady a boardroom.

We’re not just technologists or consultants. We’re Testifying Experts, Investigators, and Strategic Partners who understand the weight of getting it right.

Our process is proven, our tools are built in-house, and our team is the one people call when the stakes are too high to call anyone else.

8 What DeepSeek Can Teach Legal Teams About Creating Stronger GenAI Policies

By Leonard J. Dietzen, III and Derek Dzwonkowski

As new products like China’s DeepSeek emerge, companies should react quickly to update employees on the risks. Learn what you need to know to craft a stronger GenAI policy for your organization.

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Why Human Expertise Drives Real Success in an AI-Driven Legal World

By Hunter McMahon

AI is a gamechanger that promises to do more—faster and cheaper—but it’s no substitute for human expertise. Learn why individuals’ decades of experience, layered with curiosity and good judgment, outpaces raw speed every time.

18 How AI and Document Management System Convergence Can Unlock Value

By Serena Wellen

Learn how the convergence of AI and document management system (DMS) technology can unlock even more value from data and deliver tangible benefits to customers and key stakeholders.

What DeepSeek Can Teach Legal Teams About Creating Stronger GenAI Policies

By LEONARD J. DIETZEN, III AND DEREK DZWONKOWSKI

The instant popularity of China’s DeepSeek-V3 generative artificial intelligence model underscores why companies should craft stronger GenAI policies that minimize the risks of employees exposing sensitive data, violating compliance regulations, and harming their companies’ brand images.

As noted in this Today’s General Counsel story in October 2024, GenAI tools can compromise trade secrets, data security, and regulatory compliance. Companies using any GenAI technology risk their confidential information becoming part of the data that trains the model itself, potentially leading to unauthorized access, misuse, or government surveillance.

DeepSeek is even riskier than many other platforms because the company and its servers are based in China, where data privacy laws were crafted to protect state surveillance, according to an interview with Georgetown University law professor Mark Jia in online magazine ChinaFile

“China’s privacy laws are meant to preserve a broad ‘exceptional zone’ for state surveillance in areas like intelligence collection, law enforcement, and domestic stability maintenance,” Jia said.

DeepSeek is open about the location of its servers in China in its online privacy policy, which it updates regularly. “To provide you with our services, we directly collect, process and store your Personal Data in People’s Republic of China,” the policy states as of May 1, 2025. “Where required, we will use appropriate safeguards for transferring

As

new products come out quickly, some more dangerous than others, companies need to react quickly to update employees on the risk of new technologies.

Personal Data outside of certain countries, including for one or more of the purposes as set out in this Policy, we will do so in accordance with the requirements of applicable data protection laws.”

Many US companies must adhere to stringent data protection laws,

such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe. But DeepSeek’s privacy policy “is clearly not compliant with GDPR,” according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and does not afford users any data protection. Therefore, companies using the tool may inadvertently violate legal requirements, leading to penalties, lawsuits, or reputational harm.

Additionally, under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, the Biden Administration flagged China as a “country of concern” to prevent the law’s technology incentives from being used “for malign purposes by adversarial countries against the United States.” While this designation could change under the Trump Administration, the U.S.’ fraught relationship with China suggests a heightened risk of exposing data to an AI system based there.

CRAFTING A POLICY WITH THESE RISKS IN MIND

Until companies can fully assess the security and compliance measures of foreign-owned AI tools like DeepSeek, they should limit or prohibit employee use of such platforms.

That said, the advent of a player like DeepSeek and the fast-evolving AI landscape remind us why AI policies require continuous monitoring and improvements. Key considerations policies must address:

• Ethical guidelines, which establish standards for fairness, transparency, and accountability, are based on the possibility that an AI system could generate biased answers from biased data. Consider how a 2014 Amazon AI project to review applications for computer programming job openings “taught itself that male candidates were preferable” because its information was based on resumes submitted to the company over 10 years when males dominated the industry, according to Reuters. An AI system

Prefer to read this online? Click here.

based in another country, especially one not politically aligned with the US, could experience a similar problem. Ensure AI governance and policies address these ethical concerns by evaluating vendor policies and practices and considering best practices that can reduce the risk of bias, such as keeping a “human in the loop” for quality assurance.

• Compliance and legal requirements are of particular concern given differing regulatory obligations governing AI use in China versus those in the U.S.—especially in California—and Europe. Companies should get clearance from compliance experts before using DeepSeek or other any other new platform.

• Data privacy and security measures are another area for companies to watch closely when using GenAI products like DeepSeek. A typical AI policy includes implementing protocols to safeguard sensitive data, including storage and access controls, but as noted above, DeepSeek’s data is stored on Chinese servers where the security of the data is unclear and raises red flags. Policies must address what standards—GDPR, California or another area’s—a company commits to meeting before it engages new technologies and products on company servers.

• IT and cybersecurity professionals should be tapped to review the risks associated with using any AI platforms, especially something like DeepSeek. Neil Sahota, an AI advisor to the United Nations, writes in Forbes that companies are investing in “AI security systems capable of

detecting and neutralizing AI intrusions” in addition to more legal strategies and intellectual property management.

ONGOING TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES IS KEY

As new products come out quickly, some more dangerous than others, companies need to react quickly to update employees on the risk of new technologies. Employees need to understand best practices and protocols to work with any AI system and avoid exposing sensitive information to other AI users, especially critical trade secrets. Companies must consistently monitor employee AI usage and regularly update their policies and frequency in training on use as the AI industry develops. Tasks should include regularly auditing their AI usage, drafting new best practices and compliance requirements, and establishing feedback loops to identify potential issues before they become liabilities.

CONCLUSION

The security and privacy issues raised by DeepSeek explain why several state and federal agencies have recently banned their employees from using this product. Companies have similar concerns, and until companies can fully assess the security and compliance measures of foreign-owned AI tools like DeepSeek, they should limit or prohibit employee use of such platforms.

The emergence of DeepSeek provides valuable lessons for legal teams. Crafting stronger GenAI polices and taking a precautionary approach prevents unintentional data exposure and regulatory violations. Companies should establish clear guidelines

on which AI tools are approved for workplace use and enforce these policies through internal monitoring and regular communication.

Leonard J. Dietzen III is a partner at RumbergerKirk in Tallahassee, Florida, who concentrates his practice on all aspects of employment law for both private and public sector employers. He can be reached at ldietzen@rumberger.com.

Derek Dzwonkowski is an associate at RumbergerKirk in Tallahassee, Florida, who concentrates his practice on labor and employment law. He can be reached at ddzwonkowski@ rumberger.com

Learn How AI-Driven Contract Intelligence Empowers Legal Departments

Tuesday, June 24

1:00 PM ET

Michael Gormely Jr.

Sales Manager & CLM Software Expert

CobbleStone Software

In partnership with:

General Counsel are increasingly seeking intelligent solutions to navigate complex contract management bottlenecks of the day. Our research indicates that 95 percent of legal operations professionals are receptive to the integration of contract artificial intelligence, recognizing its potential to address key challenges.

We invite you to join this 30-min webinar to discover how CobbleStone's VISDOM AI delivers contract artificial intelligence for managing ever-increasingly voluminous and complex contract portfolios.

We'll cover:

VISDOM contract AI and how it can provide you deep contract insights

Automated redlining features that help streamline contract negotiation (41 percent of legal operations professionals rate this feature a top priority)

Other features that address key contract challenges you face

See how AI can transform your contract management processes, streamline tedious operations, improve compliance, and free up your legal team to focus on strategic initiatives. Register for Webinar

HSR Filings Just Got More Complex—Here’s How Legal Teams Are Adapting

By NYAH KING AND JORDAN CHELOVICH | PRESENTED BY

Regulatory pressure rarely announces itself politely. It builds quietly through vague agency guidance, evolving expectations, and deadlines that do not care how resourced your team is. The new Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules have added complexity for corporate legal departments and shifted the entire risk calculus for merger and acquisition deals. And while the rules changed, the expectations did not. Faster turnaround, airtight accuracy, and nothing left behind. In this climate, even top firms are reconsidering what they should handle internally and what is smarter to outsource.

EXPANDED HSR

REQUIREMENTS: WHAT’S CHANGED

The revised HSR rules have fundamentally reshaped compliance. What was once a short-term procedural step now demands deeper documentation, broader custodian inclusion, and far more sophisticated review workflows.

Under the new rules, parties must submit narrative descriptions of business operations and produce significantly more documents related to investment interests and

competitive overlaps. Custodian lists are longer, data volumes are higher, and regulators are asking more questions earlier in the process.

According to KLDiscovery’s internal metrics, the average size of HSR productions increased by nearly 40 percent in the first 90 days after the

HSR Navigator was designed from the ground up to align with the expanded demands of Hart-ScottRodino filings.

new rules took effect. Requests that once involved 8 to 10 custodians now routinely extend to 25 or more. Review timelines haven’t shifted, but the demands have.

For in-house teams and outside counsel, the challenge is not just about compliance. It’s about bandwidth. Teams that once handled filings in-house are now stretched thin, reassigning high-value talent to triage documentation and review. This misalignment drains internal resources and creates risk, especially

as regulators continue to evolve their expectations without much warning.

WHAT LEGAL TEAMS ARE CRAVING: REAL-TIME FRONTLINE INSIGHT

The legal departments feeling the most pressure right now are not necessarily short on knowledge. What they lack is visibility into how others are responding. In an environment where regulators are moving faster, and filings are under greater scrutiny, knowing what’s ‘market standard’ has never been more valuable.

That is why some of the largest US law firms have shifted how they engage with KLDiscovery. They are no longer asking who we are or what we do. Instead, they want to know what we see across industries and regulators. What workflows are getting traction with the Department of Justice (DOJ)? How are other clients handling multilingual reviews or nonstandard formats? What are the early signs of regulator pushback? It is not uncommon for even sophisticated practices to handle just a few Second Requests or HSR filings each year. In contrast, KLDiscovery supports dozens annually, often in simultaneous jurisdictions and under compressed timelines. That volume

gives us a unique vantage point—one that clients are actively seeking out.

One theme has emerged across client conversations this year: legal teams are looking for partners who can shorten the learning curve. They want answers grounded in experience, not theory. And they want solutions that scale without adding more to their plate.

KLDISCOVERY’S ANSWER: INTRODUCING HSR NAVIGATOR

As legal teams face increased regulatory complexity with fewer internal resources, KLDiscovery has developed a purpose-built solution: HSR Navigator.

Unlike general eDiscovery platforms that are retrofitted for compliance tasks, HSR Navigator was

designed from the ground up to align with the expanded demands of HartScott-Rodino filings. It combines legal expertise, technical precision, and scalable infrastructure in a single offering so legal teams can respond confidently, even under pressure.

At the core of HSR Navigator is a team of specialists focused solely on regulatory and antitrust matters. These project managers, analysts, and attorneys manage the entire eDiscovery lifecycle, from custodian identification and document collection to multilingual review and regulator-ready production.

Integrated Nebula Analytics brings advanced capabilities like AI-powered Pricing is transparent and predictable. Clients are billed per custodian or document volume, with no hidden

costs and hosting included for up to three months. Whether the matter involves ten custodians or a hundred, HSR Navigator scales accordingly. Infrastructure and personnel adjust to meet demand without forcing clients to invest in additional internal systems or headcount. This is not just an outsourced process. It is a streamlined extension of your legal team.

WHY LEGAL TEAMS ARE TURNING TO OUTSIDE HELP

The expanded HSR requirements have pushed many legal departments to a tipping point. What used to be a focused procedural step now requires Prefer to read this online? Click here.

broader document collections, more custodians, and tighter deadlines. For teams already balancing internal investigations, regulatory response, and day-to-day legal work, it’s a lot to absorb.

Rather than stretch limited resources even thinner, some teams are shifting their approach. They are carving off the most time-consuming parts of the process—custodian interviews, document translation, exception tracking—and working with outside support that can step in quickly and handle the volume.

This isn’t about outsourcing for the sake of efficiency. It’s about protecting internal capacity for the work that truly requires institutional knowledge or legal judgment. The rest, especially the operational execution, can often be done faster and more effectively by teams who handle this type of work every day.

The goal for legal departments under pressure is not to do more with less. It’s to stay focused on the right things while still meeting increasingly complex demands.

INDUSTRIES IN THE CROSSHAIRS: WHAT TO WATCH

While the new HSR rules apply across the board, certain sectors are feeling the impact more acutely. Life sciences and healthcare remain a central focus for regulators, especially in the wake of consolidation trends and prior enforcement actions. Technology and energy are also drawing increased scrutiny as regulators look more closely at data use, competitive positioning, and vertical integration.

Private equity and venture capital continue to appear in conversations, though opinions differ on whether these will remain enforcement priorities. Some expect the current

administration to return focus to traditional antitrust theories. Others believe investment structures and roll-up strategies will still attract regulatory interest under expanded disclosure requirements.

Regardless of sector, one trend is clear. The complexity of HSR filings is rising, and legal teams across industries are adjusting their approach. Many are moving from reactive workflows to proactive strategies, building capacity, exploring technology partnerships, and looking to streamline wherever possible.

KLDiscovery’s HSR Navigator is already supporting clients across these high-scrutiny industries, helping them reduce internal strain, increase filing precision, and prepare for regulator review before the clock starts ticking.

THE NEW STAKES OF HSR COMPLIANCE

Hart-Scott-Rodino compliance has always been a high-visibility aspect of regulatory readiness, but recent changes have significantly increased the complexity and operational demands. What was once a tightly scoped process now requires broader coordination, faster execution, and deeper resources to get right.

Legal departments that treat HSR filings as a strategic risk are better equipped to manage rising complexity. That means investing in the right partners, aligning workflows with regulator expectations, and shifting from reactive to proactive readiness.

KLDiscovery’s HSR Navigator was built for this exact moment. It offers legal teams a purpose-built way to navigate expanding regulatory requirements without overwhelming their people, systems,

or timelines. Compliance becomes faster, smoother, and fully defensible with the right infrastructure, expertise, and tools.

The filings are getting harder. The expectations are rising. The teams that adapt first will set the standard.

Nyah King is KLDiscovery’s Global Director of Project Management, Legal Technologies. She leads KLD’s Regulatory & Investigation Services team responsible for consulting clients through the EDRM lifecycle.

Jordan Chelovich is KLDiscovery’s Director, Global Managed Review Services. Chelovich spearheads the Regulatory Compliance team, providing strategic counsel to clients on best practices and cutting-edge technologies for optimal efficiencies on regulatory matters.

Why Human Expertise Drives Real Success in an AI-Driven Legal World

By HUNTER MCMAHON

In an era where AI promises to do more—faster and cheaper— it’s easy to lose sight of one enduring truth: not all outcomes are created equal. What separates good advisors from great advisors (particularly in the executive, legal, and risk worlds) isn’t just how fast they can get to an answer; it’s about knowing

what to ask, why it matters, and how to turn that answer into something valuable. That’s why human expertise is essential.

To put it another way, it’s not about doing the same things faster or with fewer people. It’s about delivering more value—deeper insights—with the same resources.

That distinction is where individuals’ decades of experience, layered with curiosity and good judgment, outpaces raw speed every time.

DOING MORE WITH LESS ISN’T THE GOAL

Today, too many AI commercials and sales pitches center on cost savings and headcount reduction. That’s the wrong metric—and the wrong mindset.

The best business leaders aren’t looking to cut corners; they want to deliver more impact with the same effort. AI, when purposefully integrated, allows professionals to spend less time on repetitive tasks and more time applying judgment, creativity, and strategic insight. That’s because AI is a tool, not a strategy in and of itself. And like any tool, its value depends entirely on how you use it.

Consider legal and compliance functions. If AI can draft a document, flag key risks, or summarize a lengthy case file in seconds, that doesn’t mean you fire the legal team. It means the legal team now has more capacity to think proactively, advise strategically, and support the business in real-time, all without burning out or hiring five more people.

With that in mind, the organizations seeing the most success with AI aren’t rolling it out everywhere at once. They’re identifying specific pain points, gathering data, contract redlining, and asking, “Can AI make this part faster or better?”

That’s purpose-driven adoption. It’s intentional, measurable, and it still centers around human expertise.

WHY TIME-TESTED EXPERTISE STILL WINS

Great leadership isn’t built overnight. It comes from years of navigating nuances, understanding the business context, and learning from outcomes—both good and bad. That

AI will level the playing field when it comes to access to information. But it won’t level the playing field of sound judgment and human expertise.

experience becomes a lens through which seasoned leaders interpret data, anticipate risks, and give trusted guidance to others in pursuit of great business decisions.

AI doesn’t replicate that experience. What it can do, however, is support it.

Imagine asking a junior team member to summarize a complex problem. They spend time reading, researching, and re-reading to ensure no details are lost. You might get a well-structured brief, but without knowing what’s truly relevant to the

strategic goals (or maybe even the significance of the problem itself), it’s just that—a brief.

Now, imagine using AI to generate that same summary in minutes or even seconds. With the proper oversight, you now have a draft that a seasoned advisor can quickly validate, add context to, and transform into actionable insight.

The value isn’t in the summary—it’s in the advice that only an experienced advisor can give once the details are understood.

TEAMS THRIVE THROUGH CURIOSITY

Leaders who are not only curious themselves but also create an environment where their team is encouraged to be curious are the leaders who build resilient teams. That’s because they aren’t a team of one, but a team of many.

Curious advisors, leaders, and strategists don’t just react to information, they interrogate it. They look for gaps. They ask, “What if?” and “Why not?” Curiosity drives professionals to question assumptions, test AI outputs, and ensure that what’s being delivered helps the client (internal or external) achieve their goals, not just check a box.

Authentic curiosity also inspires teams to explore new ways of solving old problems, often revealing opportunities that would otherwise go unnoticed. This is how real innovation happens. AI doesn’t replace curiosity. It amplifies those who have it.

TRUSTED ADVISORS AND LEADERS IN THE AGE OF AI

At the end of the day, AI will level the playing field when it comes to access to information. But it won’t level the playing field of sound judgment and

Prefer to read this online? Click here.

human expertise. It won’t create experience or earn trust.

Those will remain the exclusive domain of professionals who lead with curiosity and treat AI not as a crutch or a shortcut but as a tool to do more, deliver more, and drive better outcomes.

The future of advisors and leaders isn’t about being replaced by AI. It’s about trusted advisors who master AI replacing those who don’t.

Hunter McMahon is the Chief Operating Officer of iDiscovery Solutions (iDS). He is focused on collaborating with a team of experts to provide industry-leading solutions for clients. McMahon has served as a testifying and consulting expert to corporations both large and small, while working with Am Law 100 and boutique law firms.

How AI and Document Management System Convergence Can Unlock Value

By SERENA WELLEN

Legal document management systems are already a critical component of daily operations for many organizations. They house a vast array of documents, including contracts, reports, and customer communications. Now with the convergence of AI and document management system (DMS) technology, businesses can unlock even more value from their data and deliver tangible benefits to customers and key stakeholders.

More specifically, the convergence of artificial intelligence and the DMS will drive significant improvements in areas like employee efficiency and corporate decision making. One of AI’s strengths is its ability to analyze large amounts of data quickly to identify patterns and surface insights that might otherwise be overlooked.

The DMS of a mature organization contains vast amounts of domain knowledge and existing work product, which AI can extract and utilize to add value. This situation is especially true for large, global enterprises, professional services organizations, or those in heavily-regulated industries that require long-term information retention for compliance reasons.

USING AI TO UNLOCK HIDDEN VALUE

Many modern, data-driven organizations rely heavily on DMS, but the valuable information stored in them can be difficult to access and leverage. The current state of most DMS is often disorganized and contains redundant, disparate,

The DMS of a mature organization contains vast amounts of domain knowledge and existing work product, which AI can extract and utilize to add value.

and underutilized data and myriad document types. Multiple data silos, created by geographies or internal departments, proprietary software or legacy IT systems, and cloud storage solutions, exacerbate this problem.

Emerging AI-powered tools can enable organizations to break down these organizational and IT data

silos to mine the valuable information trapped within. By extracting information from all content types, they can surface past knowledge and high-value work product that might have been otherwise forgotten, identify hidden patterns to deliver critical business insights, and make the data and documents more interactive and dynamic.

The result yields several positive outcomes for organizations including greater employee knowledge, efficiency, and productivity. It also can help streamline workflows and processes to enable teams to work more effectively, reducing unnecessary delays, errors, and bottlenecks. This unlocked knowledge can also offer insights into producing higher-value products and services, enhancing the organization’s competitiveness. Finally, it can contribute to better customer and client service, fostering stronger, more resilient relationships with higher overall satisfaction and loyalty.

DMS AND AI: A POWERFUL PARTNERSHIP

Integrating AI tools into a corporate DMS can also produce results in seconds or minutes, instead of the hours or days it might take human

beings. Consider some of the benefits from leveraging AI’s powerful analytical capabilities to process and analyze the vast amounts of data within a DMS:

• Enhanced Search Capabilities: AI significantly improves search functionality within a DMS. By understanding natural language queries and context, it can provide more relevant search results, even when exact keywords are not used. It can also suggest related documents and information based on the user’s search intent.

• Pattern Recognition, Extraction and Insights: AI excels at identifying

patterns and generating actionable insights from large document repositories that would be challenging or impossible for humans to discover. It can extract data from various document types— structured, semi-structured, and unstructured—to uncover trends, correlations, and anomalies that inform decision-making and process improvements. This type of insight is crucial for market trend predictions, customer behavior analysis, or identifying relationships between legal cases and clients.

• Rapid Document Drafting: AI can use existing documents on the

Prefer to read this online? Click here.

DMS as a template for drafting future documents in the organization’s preferred style and format. This capability is useful throughout the entire organization—from sales teams creating proposals for customer meetings, legal counsel generating drafts of contracts or discovery requests, or marketing teams personalizing customer correspondence for more relevant and tailored communications. Natural language prompts allow users to rapidly

refine the document to change its tone or content.

• Automated Document Summarization and Comparison: AI-powered summarization tools can generate concise summaries of complex or lengthy documents such as audit reports, contracts, legal cases, or policy documents — or compare multiple documents — saving time and improving information accessibility. For example, it can quickly extract key arguments or relevant procedures in case law, leaving legal teams to focus their time and energy on other critical tasks, such as case analysis or legal strategy.

• Intelligent Document Sorting and Classification: AI can automate the process of sorting, filing, and classifying documents within the DMS. It can accurately categorize files, assign metadata or tags, and place them in appropriate folders or repositories, reducing manual effort and improving overall organization within the DMS. For example, it could scan incoming invoices and automatically extract crucial information like invoice numbers, dates, vendor details, and line items, populating other documents within the DMS without manual data entry.

• Personalized Insights: AI can analyze user behavior, unique work patterns and document interactions to provide personalized recommendations and insights. This could include suggesting relevant documents, highlighting important information based on user roles, or predicting future needs or intent. Autonomous AI agents can also automatically plan, intelligently select tools to

execute, perform self-evaluation and identify gaps to improve their output on a variety of tasks, and collaborate with multiple agents to accomplish complex tasks requiring multi-step or iterative reasoning.

PREPARING YOUR DATA BEFORE INTEGRATION

Organizations that have committed to integrating AI into their DMS must first ensure that their DMS is ready for AI before integration. Creating a robust data quality plan is a good first step, as accuracy and quality control are key. Focusing AI on the company’s internal data—with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) guardrails—helps boost relevance and accuracy while minimizing hallucinations. But most importantly, before beginning your DMS and AI integration journey, it is important to get your documents and data ready to get the most out of the integration. This includes:

• Data normalization : Organize the data in your DMS to reduce redundancy and inconsistencies, minimize data modification errors, enhance data integrity, and improve query performance.

• Updating taxonomies : A wellstructured, updated and domainspecific taxonomy allows for more precise categorization and management of the vast document repositories, ensures the model generates content that is highly relevant to the query, and produces more accurate and contextually relevant outputs for complex fields like medical or legal.

• Tagging and metadata: Accurate tagging and metadata in a DMS

are crucial to provide context and descriptive information to allow for efficient searching and retrieval of information buried within files.

AN INTEGRATED AI AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DELIVERS VALUE

The synergistic connection between an organization’s DMS and AI will usher in a new era of personalized workflow. It will enhance corporate decision making, improve employee efficiency, drive innovation, and enable organizations to deliver greater value to customers and key stakeholders.

In the coming months and years, we expect corporations to actively invest in strategies to tap into the value of their own DMS. Businesses that embrace this shift will be better positioned for success in the increasingly data-driven business landscape and gain a competitive advantage.

Serena Wellen is Vice President of Product Management for LexisNexis. Her portfolio includes generative AI-based solutions, work management tools, and legal-specific tools, including those for the contract lifecycle. Wellen’s career at Lexis has spanned multiple editorial and product roles. She can be reached at serena.l.wellen@lexisnexis.com

From Vision to Execution: How Morgan Stanley Built Consensus and Delivered Change with Strategic Design

Thursday, June 12

1:00 PM ET

Andrea Abrahams

Executive Director, Morgan Stanley

Liz Lugones VP, Professional Services, Mitratech

In partnership with:

Hear from Morgan Stanley as they walk through their journey to design and roll out a modern matter management solution bringing together silo’d systems, aligning stakeholders, and driving lasting change across legal operations.

In this webinar, you’ll get a behind-the-scenes look at how Morgan Stanley’s legal team approached a global implementation of a flexible, integrated platform.

In this webinar, you’ll learn:

Proven strategies to build stakeholder consensus and drive adoption across Legal, Finance, HR, and IT

How to design a user-centric matter management system that meets the needs of global teams and scales with your organization

Tips for framing the case for change—from identifying key pain points to setting clear objectives and aligning with business goals

Join us to discover how the right design choices can turn your matter management system into a strategic advantage for your entire organization.

Why In-House Counsel Candidates Struggle at In-Person Interviews in the Zoom Era

By SARAH SULLIVAN

Hiring managers are noticing a surprising trend: Many in-house counsel candidates who perform exceptionally well in Zoom interviews are struggling to make the same impression in person. Many legal professionals have mastered online interviewing skills from the comfort of their own homes, but are failing to adapt to the nuances of in-person interviews with hiring managers.

For in-house counsel, communication skills are critical in interviews and daily interactions with senior executives, board members, and business leaders. While virtual interviews provide a comfortable,

controlled setting, the skills needed to succeed in a face-to-face setting are different and more complex.

Here are five reasons why legal candidates who shine on Zoom interviews often falter when meeting the same hiring manager in person:

1 Comfort in a Controlled Environment

Virtual interviews allow candidates to present from a familiar setting with control over the lighting, background, and access to notes. For lawyers who thrive on preparation, this setup can reduce stress and enhance confidence. However, once in an unfamiliar office, without these

controls, some candidates struggle to think and respond spontaneously or with confidence, which are essential skills when advising executives in real-world scenarios.

2 Over-Reliance on Limited Body Language

On Zoom, candidates can focus on facial expressions and direct eye contact with the camera, avoiding the need for full-body engagement. In person, a strong posture, a firm handshake, and a relaxed, authentic manner are critical. In-house counsel are expected to command a room, not just a screen, and candidates who lack physical presence can fail to establish credibility with senior leadership.

3 Transactional vs. RelationshipBased Communication

Virtual interviews tend to be structured, allowing candidates to focus on delivering clear, concise responses. Meanwhile, in-house counsel are expected to go beyond predictable structure by proactively building relationships, navigating office dynamics, and gaining the trust of stakeholders. In-person interviews often involve informal conversations before and after the

more formal discussion, and candidates who are overly focused on structured Q&A may struggle with this “softer” yet equally important aspect of communication.

4 Energy and Engagement Differences

Sitting in front of a screen, most candidates find it easy to appear composed and articulate, but in-person interviews are far more dynamic and stressful exchanges. In-house counsel must demonstrate the ability to manage their energy and respond in real-time to discussions on a broad range of professional and personal topics. Candidates who appear confident and polished in a controlled virtual setting oftentimes come across as disengaged or nervous when they interact with a hiring manager or panel.

5 The Challenge of Thinking Quickly

Virtual interviews enable candidates to glance at notes or subtly reference prepared materials, which can help them sound well-informed and polished. In an in-person setting, those safety nets disappear. In-house counsel are often expected to provide real-time legal analysis or strategic recommendations, and those who have relied too much on external aid can struggle when faced with interview questions that require them to think on their feet.

HOW TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE IN IN-PERSON INTERVIEWS

• Practice In-Person Communication: Legal candidates should engage in mock interviews with career coaches, mentors, or

trusted peers to refine in-person communication skills. Attending networking events or giving presentations at live professional seminars or roundtables can also help build self-confidence. Because in-house counsel frequently interact with executives and business teams, practicing informal conversations can be as valuable as preparing for structured legal discussions.

• Strengthen Body Language and Presence: In-house counsel must project confidence and authority. A firm handshake, good posture, and natural eye contact can

While virtual interviews provide a comfortable, controlled setting, the skills needed to succeed in a faceto-face setting are different and more complex.

leave a lasting impression. Active listening—such as nodding, paraphrasing key points, and asking intelligent follow-up questions— demonstrates engagement and builds rapport, which is critical for legal professionals who work closely with business leaders.

• Adapt to Unscripted Conversations: Candidate interviews often involve walking through an office, casual chats with executives, or impromptu discussions over coffee. Candidates can practice responding to open-ended questions and engaging in spontaneous

Prefer to read this online? Click here.

conversations without relying on rehearsed answers. To build this skill, candidates should reduce the use of notes in online interviews and put themselves in real-world networking situations where it is necessary to think and speak on the spot.

CLOSING THE ZOOM GAP

For in-house counsel candidates, the divide between virtual and in-person interview performance highlights an important aspect of the hiring process. While Zoom interviews allow for structured responses in a controlled environment, in-person interviews demand adaptability, confident presence, authenticity, and relationship-building skills. By practicing in-person communication, refining body language, and preparing for the dynamic nature of live interviews, legal candidates can build a strong presence that translates into real-world success. For hiring teams, recognizing and evaluating the differences between virtual and in-person interviews can help to identify potential hires who are skilled communicators both on-screen and face-to-face.

Sarah Sullivan is a Managing Director at BarkerGilmore. She has a proven track record of recruiting legal and compliance leaders into some of the most influential in-house positions in the country. Sullivan is regularly retained on large, confidential general counsel, deputy general counsel, and chief compliance officer engagements.

Yes, Emails Contain Business Records: Here’s How to Handle Them

By MARK DIAMOND

As someone who’s worked in information governance and compliance for more than 25 years, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard someone say, “Email isn’t a real record.” Compliance folks see it as a liability. IT departments often see it as digital clutter. And in-house legal teams? They tend to see email as a dangerous landfill of discoverable, inculpatory evidence. But here’s the truth: emails are business records—maybe not all of them,

but many of them are. Ignoring that fact has consequences.

Let’s start with the scale of the issue. Many employees love their inboxes and often use them as a combination notepad, to-do list, and forever archive. The average US employee sends and receives over 160 emails per day. That’s a staggering volume of communication—some of it routine, some of it trivial, but a surprising amount of it is actually important. Over time,

inboxes grow bloated. Storage costs go up. EDiscovery becomes more painful. Privacy risks increase. Yet still, there’s resistance to managing email like the information asset it truly is.

MANY EMAILS ARE NOT TRANSITORY

Part of the confusion comes from how we think about records. Many organizations are still tempted to classify emails as “transitory” by default—ephemeral messages that don’t need to be saved. But email is a medium, not a message type. Some emails are absolutely transitory. But many are not.

In fact, emails are often the only place where key records exist. Think about it. Ever gotten a shipping or project completion notice by email? An expense or vacation approval? Budget and expense approvals? A vendor’s quote? Legal advice? Maybe even an HR decision or a performance review? Separate from any attachment, these emails are business records, and in many organizations, they never make it beyond someone’s inbox.

Now, if you’re thinking, “Well, that’s all the more reason to just save everything,” I get it. But that creates its own

set of problems. Unlimited email retention means increased eDiscovery costs. If you’ve got 10+ years of emails, every litigation hold becomes a monumental task. And then there’s privacy. Old emails are full of personal information—birthdates, health info, account numbers, even passwords. The more you keep, the more you’re putting at risk of having to report “an unknown amount” of personal information was breached.

Don’t treat all emails as records, and don’t treat them all as trash. Instead, classify based on content.

Unfortunately, the opposite strategy—deleting everything—isn’t viable either. You can’t just wipe all emails after 30 days and hope for the best. If you do, you’re almost guaranteed to destroy legitimate business records. And that can lead to real consequences, from regulatory sanctions to court sanctions. We’ve seen entire industries learn that the hard way.

THE REGULATORY ANGLE

In recent years, a number of large Wall Street firms and global financial institutions found themselves under intense regulatory scrutiny for failing to retain business communications, especially those sent via personal devices or ephemeral messaging apps. One reason many traders were using these messaging apps was they were a faster and easier way to communicate. In 2021 the SEC started an enforcement sweep that began

with a $125 million fine against J.P. Morgan’s broker-dealer arm after the firm admitted to widespread use of personal devices and WhatsApp for work conversations that were not archived.

In a 2022 wave of record-keeping cases, 16 more financial firms (including major players like Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup) paid combined SEC penalties of over $1.1 billion, with several of the largest banks fined about $125 million each. The message from regulators is clear: if business is being conducted, the communication must be preserved—regardless of the medium or platform.

CLASSIFICATION IS KEY

So, what’s the answer? It starts with a mindset shift: recognize that email is a container, not a category. Don’t treat all emails as records, and don’t treat them all as trash. Instead, classify based on content. A vacation approval email? That’s a record. A “there’s cake in the break room” email saved from 12 years ago? Probably not.

Next, give employees tools to do the right thing. Platforms like Microsoft 365 offer simple ways to classify and tag emails. You don’t need expensive add-ons to implement retention labeling and basic policies. Much of this can be highly automated—all with the basic version. Even creating “working document” folders where non-record emails can live for a fixed period— say, two years—helps tremendously. Employees can keep any email they need in the short term, but you’ve set expectations these will be deleted. Let those folders delete expired emails automatically.

For emails that have long-term

Prefer to read this online? Click here.

business value—such as those related to intellectual property, important business process, contracts, or critical business decisions—encourage employees to move them to shared repositories. That way, you avoid leaving important information trapped in individual inboxes, while still managing retention and access. Again, doable with base M365.

STRIVE FOR BALANCE

Ultimately, email governance is about balance. We can’t let email run wild, but we also can’t eliminate it from our information strategy. Legal, compliance, IT, and employees all have valid concerns—and a workable solution needs to address all of them. So, are there really business records in email? Absolutely. And if your organization hasn’t built a strategy around that reality yet, now’s the time. Start small if you need to, but start with intention. Because in the eyes of regulators, judges, and yes—even your own business leaders—if it walks like a record and talks like a record, it probably is a record. And it’s up to us to treat it that way.

Mark Diamond is the founder and CEO of Contoural, the largest independent provider of strategic information governance consulting services. Diamond welcomes discussion on this and other topics. Email him at markdiamond@ contoural.com.

How Legal Departments Should Face Workplace Complaints From HR Employees

By LEAH STIEGLER AND ANNE BIBEAU

What if the employee complaining of discrimination, retaliation, or other illegal conduct is your company’s human resources manager?

This horror story is surprisingly common. Workplace complaints from HR employees present unique challenges for the company—and headaches for its legal department.

Two recent court filings illustrate the problem: In November 2024, the HR director for Newport Beach,

California, sued the city seeking unspecified damages for a hostile work environment, gender and age discrimination, and whistleblowing retaliation, all arising out of the treatment she claims she received after urging the city to investigate potential wrongdoing by its city manager and fire chief. In December 2024, Dow Chemical was sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by a former HR employee

who claimed he was terminated for having cancer.

Although these types of lawsuits are always challenging for businesses, the situation is far worse when the plaintiff is an HR professional for several reasons.

First, the HR professional knows where the bodies are buried. Past problems, embarrassing stories, or anything else the company would rather not see exposed are at the HR professional’s fingertips. HR is trusted with all kinds of confidential information. By nature of their job duties, these team members know far more about the company’s personnel processes than other employees. They can quickly point to discrepancies in treatment and identify other employees who may have received preferential treatment. They know the importance of documentation and often have meticulous notes and recordings of conversations with managers. They understand how the company approaches claims, strategizes its defense, values a case, and decides when to settle and how much to offer.

The HR professional-turnedplaintiff also poses potential conflicts of interest for the company,

particularly if he or she is still employed. Typically, the company’s HR department conducts investigations into discrimination and retaliation complaints. That’s not possible when the complainant is or was in HR. Even if you can isolate the complainant from the investigation, the remaining HR staff cannot be expected to be objective about a colleague with whom they have worked closely. This can lead to biased investigations and potential legal issues.

AVOIDING LEGAL PITFALLS WHILE INVESTIGATING THE MATTER

When faced with such situations, it is crucial to have a well-thought-out plan and effective coordination. Retaining an outside investigator, likely an attorney, to review and determine the validity of the claim is a key part of this plan. The legal department should restrict the HR

The HR professionalturned-plaintiff also poses potential conflicts of interest for the company, particularly if he or she is still employed.

department’s access to information about handling the claim, as it should be expected that the complainant may have allies who could leak information. These precautions, when carefully planned and coordinated, can provide a sense of control in a potentially chaotic situation.

The HR department is expected to enforce the company’s nondiscrimination policies. If an HR professional claims those policies have been violated, that will erode other employees’ faith in the company. They will start to see discrimination and unfair treatment everywhere.

Take the following precautions when dealing with complaints from HR employees:

Select and retain HR professionals who understand the trust placed in them and the significance of their role in employee relations. Gossip and rumormongering cannot be tolerated in HR, where employees are required to maintain confidentiality. While an HR professional should not be too chatty, it’s also important that they be engaged with other employees and easily approachable.

Hire outside counsel or investigators to investigate a complaint by HR or a complaint into HR. While legal departments should oversee this process, an outside perspective is beneficial and underscores the company’s commitment to transparency.

3 Remember, HR has the same anti-retaliation rights as any employee. HR can (and often does) engage in protected activity, reporting, harassment, discrimination, and other law violations. HR-protected activity may also include an HR professional disagreeing with big-picture strategic thinking on company culture and toxic environments, so be mindful of giving a complaint or frustration by HR the same attention you would give to any employee complaint.

Prefer to read this online? Click here.

When terminating HR, always consider a severance. It’s a simple business decision to keep those skeletons locked up!

When things go sour with an HR professional, the company’s response requires a proactive and prepared approach. It is essential to involve counsel from the first hint of trouble, ensuring that the company is ready to handle any potential HR-related issues.

Leah M. Stiegler and Anne Bibeau are principals in the Labor & Employment practice at Woods Rogers in Virginia. They advise company leaders and their human resources departments on compliance with employment laws. Woods Rogers hosts the biweekly video series “What’s the Tea in L&E,” available on YouTube.

REGARDING EVIDENCE WITH DAN REGARD

The Evolution of Evidence: From Testimony to System-Generated Data

By DAN REGARD | FROM

This is the first article of a 10-part series on how technology is transforming evidence, litigation, and dispute resolution. In this first installment, we’ll explore how evidence has changed over time, leading us to the rise of System-Generated Data (SGD) and its impact on the future of litigation.

For centuries, legal disputes relied almost exclusively on testimonial and physical evidence. Courts depended on witnesses to recount events and on tangible objects like contracts, weapons, or property to support their claims. This method had inherent limitations— human memory is fallible, physical evidence can degrade, and bias often

plays a role in shaping narratives.

Over time, we saw that the introduction of documentary evidence —written contracts, business records, and later emails and digital documents—improved reliability. Courts increasingly recognized that documents could preserve an account of events far more accurately than human recollection. However, even written evidence depended on testimony to establish its origins and authenticity.

Today, we are witnessing another paradigm shift, one that is as disruptive as the move from oral testimony to written records: the rise of digital and transactional evidence. Contrary to what you might expect, this is not email, text messages, and social

media. It is largely non-textual data. I call this System-Generated Data (SGD)—and this new category of evidence is fundamentally changing how facts are established in legal disputes.

WHAT IS SYSTEM-GENERATED DATA (SGD)?

SGD refers to data automatically created and logged by digital systems, independent of human input. Unlike traditional documents that require a human to write, edit, and store them, SGD is generated passively by machines and algorithms. Examples include:

• Mobile device location logs: Tracking user movements with GPS and cell tower data

• Internet of Things (IoT) sensor data: Smart home devices, wearable fitness trackers, or connected car logs

• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) sensor data: devices that track weather, the electrical grid, pipelines, manufacturing, shipping, and more.

• Financial transaction logs: Automated banking records, cryptocurrency transactions, and payment confirmations

• Email and communication metadata: Records of when a message was sent, received, and read

• Autonomous vehicle telemetry: Sensor data from self-driving cars documenting acceleration, braking, and environmental factors

What makes SGD distinct from previous forms of evidence is its objectivity and granularity. It doesn’t rely on human memory or bias. Instead, it provides a machine-recorded, time-stamped, and structured representation of events. In many cases, it tells us what actually happened—often with more precision than a human witness ever could.

HOW SGD IS TRANSFORMING LITIGATION

The rise of SGD is reshaping legal investigations, case strategy, and court proceedings in several key ways:

1 Replacing Human Testimony with Digital Trails

Juries have traditionally been tasked with evaluating the credibility of witnesses—determining who seems more believable. But with SGD, the focus shifts. Instead of two drivers testifying about a car accident, their vehicle telematics and GPS logs may provide an objective reconstruction of the crash.

2 More Facts, Fewer Inferences

SGD reduces the need for juries and judges to fill in gaps with assumptions and inferences. With surveillance footage, location data, and timestamped logs, courts can reconstruct events in ways that were previously impossible. And this data is often generated on a frequency basis that approaches constant and

pervasive. The burden of interpretation shifts from human testimony to data analytics and expert witnesses.

3 Changing the Role of the Expert Witness

In an SGD-driven world, expert witnesses will play an even larger role—not just in analyzing data, but in translating complex digital evidence for juries and judges. For example, an AI algorithm flagging financial fraud must be explained in a way that makes sense to non-technical decision-makers.

4 Authentication and the “Proof-of-Origin” Challenge

The rise of SGD introduces new challenges in authentication and admissibility. When dealing with physical evidence, maintaining an unaltered state after acquisition is a key concern, known as the “chain of custody.”

In contrast, digital evidence can be digitally hashed, allowing its integrity to be easily verified later, making the traditional chain of custody less critical. However, understanding the origin of digital evidence before it comes under our control is becoming increasingly important—and more feasible. Looking ahead, courts may need to adopt “proof-of-origin” standards when evaluating authenticity and admissibility.

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF EVIDENCE

As the legal system adapts to the growing presence of SGD, litigators and investigators should:

• Understand what types of digital evidence exist and how they are stored.

Prefer to read this online? Click here.

• Work with experts who can authenticate and interpret digital trails.

• Develop courtroom strategies that leverage SGD effectively while explaining it to judges and juries.

The shift from oral testimony to documentary evidence reshaped the legal world once before. We are now at the threshold of a similar revolution—one in which data, not words, may become the primary storyteller in the courtroom.

CLOSING

THOUGHTS: JOIN THE

CONVERSATION

This is just one piece of the bigger conversation on the future of evidence. As legal professionals, we are relied upon to stay ahead of how emerging technologies impact investigations, case strategy, and courtroom advocacy. It’s important to partner with people who specialize in helping law firms, corporations, and regulators navigate the challenges of digital evidence—whether it’s mobile forensics, AI-generated data, or system logs that rewrite how we establish facts. Let’s continue the discussion.

Dan Regard is the President and CEO of Intelligent Discovery Solutions, Inc. (iDS). He helps companies solve legal disputes through the smart use of digital evidence. He is the author of “Fact Crashing™ Methodology” and is a contributing author to multiple other books on discovery and eDiscovery.

General Counsel Report 2025: The Data Guardian in Chief

Just Been Handed Ownership of Your Company’s Records Program, Now What?

Today's General Counsel, June 2025

eDiscovery Without Compromise

Truth is in the details .

Why Human Expertise Drives Real Success in an AI-Driven Legal World

18 How AI and Document Management System Convergence Can Unlock Value

What DeepSeek Can Teach Legal Teams About Creating Stronger GenAI Policies

CRAFTING A POLICY WITH THESE RISKS IN MIND

ONGOING TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES IS KEY

CONCLUSION

Learn How AI-Driven Contract Intelligence Empowers Legal Departments

HSR Filings Just Got More Complex—Here’s How Legal Teams Are Adapting

EXPANDED HSR

WHAT LEGAL TEAMS ARE CRAVING: REAL-TIME FRONTLINE INSIGHT

KLDISCOVERY’S ANSWER: INTRODUCING HSR NAVIGATOR

WHY LEGAL TEAMS ARE TURNING TO OUTSIDE HELP

INDUSTRIES IN THE CROSSHAIRS: WHAT TO WATCH

THE NEW STAKES OF HSR COMPLIANCE

Why Human Expertise Drives Real Success in an AI-Driven Legal World

DOING MORE WITH LESS ISN’T THE GOAL

WHY TIME-TESTED EXPERTISE STILL WINS

TEAMS THRIVE THROUGH CURIOSITY

TRUSTED ADVISORS AND LEADERS IN THE AGE OF AI

How AI and Document Management System Convergence Can Unlock Value

USING AI TO UNLOCK HIDDEN VALUE

DMS AND AI: A POWERFUL PARTNERSHIP

PREPARING YOUR DATA BEFORE INTEGRATION

AN INTEGRATED AI AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DELIVERS VALUE

From Vision to Execution: How Morgan Stanley Built Consensus and Delivered Change with Strategic Design

Why In-House Counsel Candidates Struggle at In-Person Interviews in the Zoom Era

1 Comfort in a Controlled Environment

2

Over-Reliance on Limited Body Language

3 Transactional vs. RelationshipBased Communication

4

Energy and Engagement Differences

5 The Challenge of Thinking Quickly

HOW TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE IN IN-PERSON INTERVIEWS

CLOSING THE ZOOM GAP

Yes, Emails Contain Business Records: Here’s How to Handle Them

MANY EMAILS ARE NOT TRANSITORY

THE REGULATORY ANGLE

CLASSIFICATION IS KEY

STRIVE FOR BALANCE

How Legal Departments Should Face Workplace Complaints From HR Employees

AVOIDING LEGAL PITFALLS WHILE INVESTIGATING THE MATTER

REGARDING EVIDENCE WITH DAN REGARD

The Evolution of Evidence: From Testimony to System-Generated Data

WHAT IS SYSTEM-GENERATED DATA (SGD)?

HOW SGD IS TRANSFORMING LITIGATION

1

Replacing Human Testimony with Digital Trails

2

More Facts, Fewer Inferences

3

Changing the Role of the Expert Witness

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF EVIDENCE

CLOSING

CONVERSATION

Articles inside

The Evolution of Evidence: From Testimony to System-Generated Data

How Legal Departments Should Face Workplace Complaints From HR Employees

Yes, Emails Contain Business Records: Here’s How to Handle Them

Why In-House Counsel Candidates Struggle at In-Person Interviews in the Zoom Era

How AI and Document Management System Convergence Can Unlock Value

Why Human Expertise Drives Real Success in an AI-Driven Legal World

HSR Filings Just Got More Complex—Here’s How Legal Teams Are Adapting

What DeepSeek Can Teach Legal Teams About Creating Stronger GenAI Policies

Editor's Desk