08 WEEKLY BRIEFING • NOVEMBER 2, 2026

Technology
& Law Weekly.

The developments worth knowing before you practice.

CURATED BY THE
TECHNOLOGY LAW STUDENT ASSOCIATION

EDITOR'S NOTE

Legal AI needs review and controls.

This week’s updates put two questions side by side: how much work can AI handle, and how will lawyers check and control it? For students, learning the tool means learning both. Follow the sources, understand the permissions, and know when a task needs closer review.

ISSUE 08

Five articles from this week.

COURT GUIDANCE

New York courts issued practical guidance for AI-assisted filings.

The statewide guidance directs attorneys to independently verify citations, quotations, and factual assertions in AI-assisted work. It does not impose a separate statewide AI disclosure or certification requirement, though individual courts may have their own rules.

Why it matters: Before submitting AI-assisted work in a clinic or internship, verify both the substance and the requirements of the particular court.

Read the court announcement ↗

LEGAL OPERATIONS

Clio announced AI workflows spanning intake, matter work, and drafting.

At ClioCon, Clio introduced expanded automation and drafting features. Its U.S. Clio Work drafting editor uses matter details and provides source citations for review.

Why it matters: For students considering small-firm or solo practice, AI increasingly affects how the whole office operates, not just how a brief gets written.

Read Clio’s recap ↗

LEGAL RESEARCH

LexisNexis expanded Protégé’s research and verification tools.

The announced update combines analytics, dockets, news, and firm documents in one interface. Shepard’s Verify is designed to assess quotations and whether cited authority supports a proposition, beyond checking that a case exists.

Why it matters: A real citation can still be used incorrectly. Practice checking the holding, context, and subsequent treatment.

Read the LexisNexis announcement ↗

IN-HOUSE PRACTICE

Harvey connected legal intake to Claude.

Harvey’s new Claude artifact lets business users submit legal requests and track responses. Harvey says routine questions draw on approved legal guidance, while requests needing judgment route to lawyers.

Why it matters: In-house teams need clear lines between questions that can follow established guidance and those that require individual legal review.

Read the Harvey announcement ↗

CONFIDENTIALITY

Harvey made iManage ethical-wall enforcement generally available.

Harvey says its integration applies information barriers maintained in iManage Security Policy Manager to connected Harvey resources, with audit logs recording access and policy events.

Why it matters: Connecting AI to firm documents must not give colleagues access to restricted client matters. Confidentiality depends on permissions as well as careful prompting.

Read the product announcement ↗

WHAT TO WATCH

Verification has to go beyond citations.

Watch whether verification tools catch misleading uses of real cases, how firms preserve information barriers across connected AI systems, and whether workflow automation reduces total work after review and correction are counted.

TLSA QUESTION OF THE WEEK