Welcome to the September edition of The Briefing Room, a monthly collection of ideas, developments, and resources for lawyers and legal professionals.
This month’s materials turn repeatedly to a question that is becoming harder to avoid: as legal work becomes more automated, data-rich, and AI-mediated, what remains nondelegable?
Brendan M. Kenny Interviews Daniela Alexander of LegalType
In this The Briefing Room Podcast interview (click here to view), Brendan M. Kenny speaks with Daniela Alexander, founder and CEO of LegalType, about her company’s effort to improve the everyday mechanics of legal work.
LegalType develops lawyer-focused keyboards and related tools built around the symbols, shortcuts, formatting needs, and repetitive production tasks that legal professionals encounter in drafting, research, client communication, and document review. The company has also introduced a universal keyboard for iPhone and iPad intended to bring legal-writing-oriented functionality across mobile applications.
The conversation explores the practical side of legal technology: how better-designed tools can reduce friction in routine work, support consistent formatting, and help lawyers devote more attention to analysis, advocacy, and client service.
LinkedIn Roundup
- Amanda Haverstick and “that” phobia
- Yisrael Gelb and punchy prose
- Kyle Bahr and hallucination database
- Cedric Bond on legislative history
- Chris Schandevel on the power of “so”
- Patrick Hagen on the em dash
- Marilyn Bush LeLeiko and paragraph length
- Joe Regalia and having a fresh writing style
- Adriana M. de la Torre on the passive voice
- Carolyn Elefant and the cause of hallucination
- Nicole Black on AI-transcribed meetings
- Brendan Palfreyman and in camera review and sealing
Podcasts of the Month
E172 | Grants, GVRs, and Per Curiams: Checking in on the New Petition-for-Review Rules
In Episode 172 of the Texas Appellate Law Podcast, hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders revisit the Texas Supreme Court’s revised petition-for-review rules after several months of practice under the new regime. The episode concerns the rules as adopted—not merely proposed—and addresses the revised 1,000-word introduction, record citations, preservation, unbriefed issues, waiver letters, settlement considerations, grants, grant-vacate-remand orders, and per curiam dispositions.
OpenAI Launches Legal-Specific Model, AI Regulation in the News, and More
The September 18 edition of Legal Tech Weekly is a weekly roundup and review of developments in legal technology and innovation. Its headline topic is OpenAI’s launch of a legal-specific model or configuration, accompanied by developments in AI regulation and other legal-tech news.
Episode 326 – A counter-counterclaim
Episode 326 of The Podium and Panel Podcast, “A counter-counterclaim,” provides practice points on counterclaims: (1) map the pleading architecture before responding; and (2) identify each claimant, each theory, each party alignment, the applicable compulsory-counterclaim rule, any available Rule 12 or equivalent defenses, insurance implications, and the procedural consequences of adding or omitting a claim.
No Associates, No Apologies: How CALG Flattened the Pyramid
In this episode of The California Appellate Law Podcast, hosts Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis speak with Ben Feuer, chair of Complex Appellate Litigation Group (CALG), about the firm’s deliberately nontraditional structure: no associate tier, a roster built around experienced appellate lawyers, flexible and remote work, and compensation tied to a percentage of billings rather than fixed salaries. Feuer explains how the model draws on the experience of former court attorneys, retired justices, clerks, and laterals while seeking to avoid the fixed-cost and leverage pressures of the traditional law-firm pyramid. The conversation also addresses CALG’s approach to AI—limited use subject to verification and reliability concerns—and returns to a foundational appellate lesson: sophisticated tools and firm structures cannot replace disciplined issue selection, a credible account of the record, and a persuasive statement of facts.
Law Journal Articles
AI governance and the verification gap
“The Duty That Stops at the Judge’s Desk: Eleven Artificial Intelligence Governance Instruments, Listed by a Supreme Court Itself As Fit for Adoption, Measured Against a Single Question: Does Any of Them Require a Litigant to Verify the Legal Authorities Cited in Their Own Filing?” examines eleven AI-governance instruments that a supreme court identified as appropriate for adoption. It evaluates each against one deliberately narrow question: whether the instrument requires a litigant to verify the legal authorities cited in the litigant’s own filing.
Citing AI in court filings
“How to Cite Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings” offers guidance about when citations to artificial intelligence are necessary in court filings.
Rule 11 and AI-generated hallucinations
Alberto Rodriguez, Harboring No Hallucinations: Amending Rule 11 for the Generative AI Era (2026) (unpublished manuscript), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7336419, surveys Rule 11 decisions involving attorneys who submitted filings reliant on AI-generated legal hallucinations and argues for a Rule 11 amendment adapted to the generative-AI context.
Structured court data and open infrastructure
“The SCALES Project: Structured Federal District Court Data and Open-Source Code” describes the construction and organization of a dataset based on federal district-court docket sheets and benchmarks SCALES against three commercial data providers.
AI as relational milieu
“Beyond the Artifact Fallacy: AI as a Relational Milieu” argues that legal and policy responses can fail when they treat AI as a discrete artifact rather than as a dynamic environment shaped by relationships, feedback loops, and systems of optimization.