Ep. 4: Your Software Just Became an AI Company

Disclosure: this episode’s hosts, Mia Hale and Mark Dawson, are AI-generated voices. The script is written and fact-checked by the AI Tools For Law team. Nothing in this episode is sponsored.

Download the MP3 · 10:56

Stories and sources

News from Oct. 26–27, 2026. Vendor claims are attributed to the vendor; we note what each announcement did not disclose.

Your software just became an AI company

Top story

On Oct. 26, at ClioCon 2026, Clio unveiled a new brand and now calls itself a legal AI company; it says it serves more than 400,000 legal professionals in over 130 countries (company figures) and remains committed to solo and small firms. Ask your main vendor whether your data trains AI, where it's stored, how to delete it, and which AI features are on by default, and keep the written answers. Four common ethics duties to check in your state's rules: competence, confidentiality, client communication and reasonable fees. Check your state's ethics rules and any bar guidance on AI before you roll this out. This isn't legal advice. Your state's rules control.

Judges, AI and the paper pile (Florida)

Courtroom Watch

The Florida Bar News reported on Oct. 27 that Florida judges began trying a generative AI legal research tool on July 1. A chief judge said judges don't use it for decision making and check its work. She said AI is adding to court workloads. A recent state court technology commission report shows filings by self-represented litigants have doubled, and she said they are growing much longer. Keep your own filings short and verified.

The company behind the company

Industry

On Oct. 26, Anthropic, an AI model developer, said it filed a registration statement with the SEC for a proposed initial public offering and plans to list on the Nasdaq as "ANT"; as of Nov. 5, 2026, share count and price range are not set. Don't assume the vendor you pay built the AI inside its product: ask which model providers it uses and whether they keep anything you send.

Court papers by email (Virginia)

The Short Docket

A Supreme Court of Virginia rules committee wants public comment, due before Jan. 15, 2027, on requiring email service of pleadings after the first filing in courts of record unless the parties agree otherwise. Wherever you practice, make sure court email isn't filtered and someone watches the address your courts have on file.

Terms explained in this episode

Practice management software: The system a firm uses to run matters, calendars, documents and billing.
Training: When a vendor uses your documents to teach its AI.
Generative AI: Software that writes something new, like a draft or a summary, when you type a question or an instruction, rather than just finding a match. It can sound confident and still be wrong.
Hallucinate: When an AI tool confidently makes something up.
Self-represented litigant: Someone in a court case without a lawyer.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): The U.S. agency that oversees the sale of stock.
Registration statement: The paperwork a company files with the SEC before selling stock to the public.
Initial public offering (IPO): The first time a company offers its shares to the public.
Nasdaq: A U.S. stock exchange.
Ticker symbol: The short code a stock trades under.
AI model: The engine that reads and writes text inside an AI tool.
Model provider: The company that builds the underlying AI model a software product uses.
Rules committee: A group that drafts changes to a court's procedures.
Public comment: A period when anyone can send in views before a decision.
Pleadings: The main papers in a case, like the complaint and the answer.
Service: Formally delivering court papers to the other side.
Courts of record: Courts that keep a formal record of their proceedings.

Transcript

Cold open

Mia: The software a lot of small firms run their practice on just got a new logo.

Mark: And a new job title. Clio now calls itself a legal AI company.

Mia: Same software on Monday morning, though?

Mark: Same software. But it's a very good excuse to reread the fine print.

Mia: Nobody has ever said that sentence with enthusiasm.

Mark: Stay with us. We'll keep it short.

Mia: This is Legal AI This Week, from the AI Tools For Law team. I'm Mia Hale.

Mark: And I'm Mark Dawson.

Mia: Coming up: what it means when your practice software rebrands around AI, judges trying AI research tools, and a chief judge who says AI is adding to the paper pile. Plus a big AI developer heading for the stock market, and court papers by email.

Mia: So, Clio. On October twenty-sixth, at its annual conference, ClioCon, it unveiled a new logo and a new brand. And in its announcement, it now calls itself a legal AI company, not just a practice management company.

Mark: Practice management software, for anyone who skipped that meeting, is the system a firm runs matters, calendars, documents and billing in. For a lot of small firms, it's the filing cabinet and the front desk in one.

Mia: And it's not a small company. Clio says it serves more than four hundred thousand legal professionals in over a hundred and thirty countries. Its own figure. It also says its commitment to solo and small firms hasn't changed.

Mark: Noted.

Mia: Okay, I'll be the skeptic. It's a logo. Companies repaint the sign all the time. Why should a five-lawyer firm care?

Mark: Because the sign tells you where a company is putting its effort. When your main vendor calls itself an AI company, expect more of the product to involve AI. And AI features touch client data.

Mia: So the logo itself is harmless.

Mark: Completely. It's the reminder that matters.

Mia: A reminder to do what, exactly? Say you've got ten minutes and a cold coffee.

Mark: Ask three questions, straight from our guide to AI tools for small firms. One: is my data used to train AI? Training means the vendor uses your documents to teach its AI. Two: where is my data stored? Three: how do I delete it?

Mia: Three questions. That sounds like a list for every vendor, not just this one.

Mark: It is. Start with whichever system holds the most client information.

Mia: At some firms, the software list is email and good intentions.

Mark: Then it's a short list.

Mia: Do new AI features just switch on, though? Does a firm wake up one morning and find its calendar has opinions?

Mark: It varies by vendor. So add a fourth question: which AI features are on by default, and can an administrator turn them off?

Mia: In writing, I assume?

Mark: In writing, and in the file. If a client ever asks how you protect their information, you can show them.

Mia: And the ethics side? A listener is thinking, "I'm a lawyer, not an engineer."

Mark: Quick definition first. Generative AI is software that writes something new, like a draft or a summary, when you ask it. It doesn't just find a match. And it can sound confident and still be wrong. When you use it, four common ethics duties come up, so check them in your state's rules. Competence, confidentiality, client communication and reasonable fees.

Mia: Translate the four duties for me.

Mark: Competence means you know roughly what the tool does, and you check its work. Confidentiality means you keep client information safe. Communication means you tell clients what they need to know. And on fees, keep them reasonable.

Mia: And the details depend on where you practice, I assume.

Mark: Right. Check your state's ethics rules and any bar guidance on AI before you roll this out. This isn't legal advice. Your state's rules control.

Mia: Now the courts. This one's from Florida, so it's one state's news, but I suspect every litigator will recognize it. The Florida Bar News reported on October twenty-seventh that Florida judges began trying an AI research tool on July first, when the state offered access.

Mark: A generative AI legal research tool, to be exact.

Mia: Judges using AI. After some of the stories on this show, that sounds brave.

Mark: Careful, more than brave.

Mia: The chief judge the paper spoke with said judges don't use it for decision making.

Mark: Because they know it can hallucinate, which means confidently make something up. So they still check that the final product is accurate.

Mia: So the same rule we keep giving lawyers.

Mark: The same rule. The tool finds. A person decides, and a person verifies.

Mia: Is it saving them time, at least?

Mark: She said it's too early to tell how much time it saves.

Mia: So, a new tool, used very carefully. Very courthouse.

Mark: It's the cautious version.

Mia: But that wasn't her main point. She said AI is adding to court workloads. And a recent state court technology commission report shows filings by self-represented litigants have doubled. She said they're getting much longer, too.

Mark: Self-represented litigants are people going to court without a lawyer.

Mia: So more paper, and longer paper, landing on the same judges.

Mark: That's why she floated the idea of a page limit for AI-generated documents, not just a limit on how many get filed. That was her suggestion, not a rule.

Mia: A page limit. Three of the most feared words in litigation.

Mark: That's two words.

Mia: It felt like three.

Mark: She also said only a small minority of self-represented litigants are abusing the system.

Mia: Which is worth remembering before anyone assumes bad faith. So what does this mean for a small firm that isn't in Florida?

Mark: Two things. First, the judge reading your filing may be buried. Short, verified filings are easier to read. Padding doesn't help you.

Mia: Here's my pushback. If the other side floods you with long AI-written filings, shouldn't you use AI just to keep up?

Mark: For sorting and summarizing, maybe. It can help you find what actually needs a response. But you still read what matters yourself, and anything you file gets checked the way it always has.

Mia: So you answer volume with judgment, not with more volume?

Mark: Exactly. And second, if filings in your case get out of hand, look at what your court's rules allow and raise it with the court the proper way. Those rules vary by court and by state.

Mia: Next, a big AI company is going public. Anthropic, an AI model developer, said on October twenty-sixth that it filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mark: Quick definitions. An AI model is the engine that reads and writes text inside an AI tool. The Securities and Exchange Commission is the U.S. agency that oversees the sale of stock.

Mia: And a registration statement?

Mark: The paperwork a company files with that agency before selling stock to the public. This one is for a proposed initial public offering, the first time a company offers its shares to everyone.

Mia: It plans to list on the Nasdaq under the symbol A-N-T. As of November fifth, twenty twenty-six, the number of shares and the price range haven't been set.

Mark: Nasdaq is a U.S. stock exchange, and A-N-T is the ticker symbol, the short code the stock would trade under.

Mia: So, no stock tips today.

Mark: Not today, not ever.

Mia: Then why is this on a show for law firms? Is the AI inside a firm's software always built by the vendor the firm pays?

Mark: Not something you can assume. A model provider builds the underlying AI. Your vendor builds the product you actually log in to.

Mia: The company behind the company.

Mark: Fair way to put it. The announcement is about stock, not products. But it adds a question to the list from earlier.

Mia: Which is?

Mark: Which model providers sit underneath your product, and do they keep anything you send?

Mia: Quick one. Virginia, so again, one state. A Supreme Court of Virginia rules committee wants comments on a proposal.

Mark: A rules committee drafts changes to a court's procedures. Asking for comments means a public comment period: anyone can send in views before a decision.

Mia: The proposal: after the first filing, pleadings in courts of record would be served by email, unless the parties agree otherwise. The Virginia State Bar announced it on October twenty-sixth.

Mark: Some definitions. Pleadings are the main papers in a case, like the complaint and the answer. Service means formally delivering court papers to the other side. And courts of record keep a formal record of their proceedings.

Mia: The proposal leaves out incarcerated people, and self-represented litigants who don't agree in writing. Comments are due before January fifteenth, twenty twenty-seven.

Mark: And even if you don't practice in Virginia, check the email address your courts and opposing counsel have on file.

Mia: Isn't email riskier than paper, though? Things land in spam.

Mark: That's the point of checking. Make sure court mail isn't being filtered, and that someone's actually reading that inbox.

Mia: Including during vacation.

Mark: Especially during vacation.

Mia: So, Mark. Three moves for Monday morning.

Mark: One: send your main software vendor those five questions, and keep the answers.

Mia: Two?

Mark: Keep filings short and verified, whatever the other side sends.

Mia: And three?

Mark: Make sure someone watches the inbox where court papers land.

Mia: And check your state's rules on all of it. This isn't legal advice.

Mark: That's Legal AI This Week, from the AI Tools For Law team. New episode every Friday at aitoolsforlaw dot A I. Sources are in the show notes.

Mia: Spotted an error? Email hello at aitoolsforlaw dot A I.

About the show

Not legal advice. Corrections: hello@aitoolsforlaw.ai.

Listen on Spotify · Apple Podcasts · RSS. Written version: the newsletter.

All episodes