The legal profession crossed a significant threshold in 2025: For the first time, more lawyers are using generative AI than not, even as firm leaders express widespread concern about the technology’s reliability, according to the 2025 State of the Legal Industry report released today by SurePoint Technologies. The tension between adoption and apprehension defines the
Employment reform in motion – why additional time may not heal the system
From 1 December, the Acas early conciliation period was extended from six to twelve weeks. The intention was clear: to ease growing administrative pressures on Acas at a time of rising demand. But while the extension may give Acas more breathing space, it raises a broader question for employers and employees alike – does more time meaningfully improve early resolution, or does it simply prolong uncertainty in a system already struggling to cope?
The Perils Of Pro Hac
Over more than 40 years of practice, I’ve worked in jurisdictions in which I was not admitted to practice and served as local counsel to lawyers not admitted in jurisdictions where I was. It’s hardly uncommon, but it is fraught with the potential for very serious problems. As Eugene Volokh notes, those problems smacked…
Artificial Development: The Benefits and Risks of AI in Construction
Artificial intelligence is becoming part of everyday practice for contractors and design professionals, and the legal implications are evolving. Two issues have emerged as particularly important: who owns AI-assisted design work, and what happens when data is shared with AI tools.Design documents have long been protected by copyright, and design and construction contracts have taken…
Baltic and Nordic Angel Networks Pool €300,000 for Latitude59 Pitch Competition as Cross-Border Startup Investing Deepens
Editor’s Note: Cross-border startup investing is becoming more structured and more consequential across the Baltic and Nordic regions. The decision by EstBAN, LatBAN, and FiBAN to pool up to €300,000 for the Latitude59 pitch competition reflects a deeper integration of regional angel networks and growing confidence in early-stage companies building across borders. This development matters…
What the March 20 ‘National AI Legislative Framework’ Means for US Employers Right Now
On March 20, the White House published a “National AI Legislative Framework” outlining policy recommendations for Congress to develop a unified federal approach to AI legislation and regulation. While our cross‑disciplinary AI team prepared a more detailed analysis (copied below), here is the employment‑law tl;dr:
- No immediate legal change. The framework does not impose new obligations on employers, and it does not include draft legislation or an executive order directing federal agencies. Instead, it sets out legislative recommendations for Congress, reflecting the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI statute.
- Preemption is the through‑line. The recommendations are consistent with the administration’s December 2025 Executive Order and July 2025 AI Action Plan, and they expressly support broad federal preemption of state AI laws that impose undue burdens. At the same time, the framework contemplates carve‑outs to preserve states’ traditional police powers—such as protecting children and preventing fraud.
Takeaway for Employers
Unless and until Congress enacts federal legislation with preemptive effect, state and local AI laws remain fully in force. That matters: a growing number of jurisdictions already regulate how employers use AI in hiring, promotion, performance management, and other employment decisions—including California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City, among others. For now, compliance remains a decidedly multi‑jurisdictional exercise.
For support developing your AI adoption strategies, including compliance with regulations outside of the US like the EU AI Act, please contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.
White House Outlines AI Legislative Agenda with National AI Legislative Framework
By Brian Hengesbaugh, Justine Phillips, Lothar Determann, Keo McKenzie, Cristina Messerschmidt, Susan Eandi, Caroline Burnett, Joshua Wolkoff, Alysha Preston, Stanislav (Stan) L. Sirot, Brian Zurawski and Avi Toltzis
On March 20, 2026, the White House published a four-page document with “Legislative Recommendations” in its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Framework”). The AI Framework does not include specific draft legislation or an executive order, but instead contains recommendations for Congress, setting out the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI legislative package. The AI Framework is not legally binding either for on Congress or on private sector companies. The AI Framework, building on Executive Order 14365, outlines eight key policy areas for federal AI legislation aimed at preempting restrictive state laws and bolstering AI innovation.
Background
The AI Framework represents the latest significant step in the Trump administration’s technology agenda and is consistent with, and builds on, its past actions regarding the national AI strategy going back to the very first days of President Trump’s second term. Within the first week of returning to the presidency, President Trump revoked the Biden-era Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”, which he swiftly replaced with Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”. Executive Order 14179 established the national AI policy to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security,” but provided few specifics.
AI Sanctions & Warnings! $10K in Oregon for bad AOB
Law360 has Ore. Atty Sanctioned $10K For Brief With Fabricated CitationsAn Oregon appellate court has ordered an attorney to pay $10,000 for filing an opening brief containing fabricated case citations, quotations that “do not exist anywhere in Oregon case law” and other inaccuracies, according to an opinion. — The case is Henry Doiban et…
Why AI Alone Isn't Enough in Life Sciences Investigations
For complex investigations in high‑stakes environments such as the life sciences industry, subject matter experts who understand nuance, challenge assumptions, and know how to interpret and connect data and AI play the most important role.
ACEDS Midwest AI Series: eDiscovery and AI Webinars
This isn’t just one webinar – the ACEDS Midwest AI Series is a series of six webinars over the next six months open to everybody!
The post ACEDS Midwest AI Series: eDiscovery and AI Webinars appeared first on eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin.
Tips for Avoiding the Pitfalls of AI in Legal Practice: Missouri’s Evolving Rules on AI Disclosure
Missouri Case Highlights the Problems
The advancement of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) tools has revolutionized many industries, including the legal profession. However, the use of Gen AI in legal practice is not without significant risks. As discussed below, Kruse v. Karlen highlights the importance of accuracy, ethical responsibility, and compliance with procedural rules when…