Proskauer's perspective on commercial litigation trends and legal developments
Artificial Intelligence not only requires practitioners to adapt their methodology and strategy—it also demands that the rules governing our practice shift as well.
Changing core procedural rules, like the Federal Rules of Evidence, is never easy, but staying informed and ready to adapt is essential. Proposed FRE 707, “Machine-Generated Evidence,”…
The personally identifiable and health information of consumers that a company collects can be a serious consideration behind why another company would acquire it, especially given the use of data to train AI health models. This begs the question of what responsibility the acquiring and acquired companies have to protect…
Generative artificial intelligence tools have quickly become part of everyday legal practice. Lawyers are using these tools to draft briefs, summarize cases, and streamline research. But as recent cases make clear, those efficiencies come with a serious risk: sometimes, AI simply makes things up.
Courts across the country are now…
On April 14, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the “Court”) entered an order in connection with certain unresolved discovery disputes in White v. Walmart, Case No. 25-cv-01120, finding Plaintiff’s counsel’s “exclusive reliance” on AI to identify discovery deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses does not “satisfy counsel’s obligation to meet and confer in good faith before asking the Court to wade into a discovery dispute,” and that while AI is a “useful tool,” it is “not a substitute for good lawyering.” Id. at 4.
Courts issued two seemingly conflicting rulings on whether AI generated materials are protected. Heppner (S.D.N.Y.) found that documents created with a consumer version of Claude AI were not privileged or work product because the tool exposed data to a third party provider. Warner (E.D. Mich.) reached the opposite result the…
A recent decision in United States v. Heppner appears to be the first federal ruling to directly address attorney‑client privilege and work‑product issues arising from a non‑lawyer’s use of a consumer-grade insecure AI tool for legal research. The court held that materials generated through Anthropic’s consumer version of Claude were…
The Department of Justice and eight state attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in August against RealPage Inc. – a Texas-based software company that provides property management software – and several landlords using its software. This case adds to the growing number of antitrust cases targeting algorithmic pricing tools, and is another example of federal regulators taking a tough stance on new AI technologies.
On September 10, minutes after the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, an Instagram post set the political world abuzz: Taylor Swift endorsed Harris in the race. The announcement from one of the world’s biggest stars was newsworthy in itself, but IP lawyers likely took note of why she chose to post. Swift explained that she felt compelled to share her views after a photo featuring an AI-generated image of her appearing to endorse Donald Trump was posted online. The image was shared by Trump himself on his social media platform Truth Social, and was circulated widely by his supporters. Swift wrote that the image “really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation.”
Proskauer and our platform provider LexBlog each use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze traffic. Each of us also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. If you are happy for us to store these cookies on your device please click ‘Accept Cookies.' For more information, please see here and here.
