Blog
Essays, field notes, legal-tech analysis, and how FlowCounsel™ builds and delivers.
Legal Tech
AI sanctions keep rising because too many legal AI systems still hide the workflow lawyers are responsible for verifying.
April 3, 2026
Legal Tech
ABA Formal Opinion 512 sets the professional framework. United States v. Heppner shows what weak workflow boundaries look like in practice. Together they point toward reviewable, bounded, auditable legal AI systems.
April 2, 2026
Legal Tech
ABA Formal Opinion 512 is not just a warning about hallucinations. It is a practical blueprint for how legal AI systems should handle review, confidentiality, supervision, provenance, and billing.
April 2, 2026
Legal Tech
United States v. Heppner is not a general ban on AI in legal work. It is a warning about public consumer tools, confidentiality, and the system boundaries legal AI platforms need in practice.
April 2, 2026
AI & Technology
Legal AI memory is not about how much text fits in a model window. The real work is persistent state, bounded retrieval, cache discipline, and consistency across a workflow.
April 2, 2026
AI & Technology
The future of legal AI is not stuffing more client data into longer prompts. The better path is scoped memory, bounded retrieval, and systems that know what not to load.
April 2, 2026
AI & Technology
The first question in legal AI is not which model a product uses. The first question is whether the system enforces a real boundary between draft output and legal effect.
April 2, 2026
Legal Marketing
Not all directory listings are equal. Use a practical framework to evaluate which directories produce attributable inquiries and which are just another invoice.
March 25, 2026
Legal Marketing
Most firms try to fix their pipeline by buying more leads. The higher-leverage fix is following up on the leads they already have.
March 24, 2026