By Samuel W. Apicelli and Chloe Vizzone
The most important observation in a recent federal order about artificial intelligence was not about a fabricated case—it was about the lawyers who are expected to catch one. In Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian warned that overreliance on AI may stunt the development of young lawyers and ultimately harm clients. He suggested that firms consider having lawyers prepare an initial draft without AI assistance.
By Thomas W. Sankey, Joseph T. Walsh and Nicolette J. Zulli
If your employees or clients are using AI tools like ChatGPT to prepare for litigation, you need to know this: A Texas court just waded into the question of whether those conversations are discoverable, and the answer is more nuanced than you might expect. In a June 2026 ruling that is among the first of its kind in Texas, the Business Court addressed head-on whether a party’s ChatGPT “conversations” are protected attorney work product or fair game in discovery. The short version? The protection held, mostly. But the court also imposed disclosure obligations that should have every litigant rethinking how they use AI behind the scenes.
By Samuel W. Apicelli and Brandon A. Chan, Ph.D.
A protective order can preserve access to useful AI tools while protecting discovery. In Corent Technology, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., the parties negotiated provisions allowing specified enterprise tools and case-specific AI workspaces, subject to restrictions on training, access and deletion. For legal departments, the order offers a concrete starting point for deciding how counsel and experts may use AI with litigation materials.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
For most broker-dealers, generative AI continues to become more deeply integrated into day-to-day workflows.
On July 13, 2026, Reuters reported that Morgan Stanley will test digital assistants later this summer that will interact with wealth management clients at all hours of the day. The bank already uses AI agents internally to support its financial advisors.
This follows similar moves by Morgan Stanley’s competitors, such as Goldman Sachs, which announced in February its partnership with Anthropic to build agents for trading, transaction accounting, and client onboarding. A KPMG survey conducted this past June found that 51% of banks were already piloting AI agents.
The regulatory framework is struggling to keep up with adoption at such a scale, leaving firms to confront three pressing questions by themselves: Are AI prompts and outputs records that firms should be legally required to retain? What do firms owe customers if their data were to touch a third-party AI model? And what should an AI-use policy actually say?
Here is where regulators and the largest firms currently stand on each.
Continue reading “AI and Broker-Dealer Compliance: What Firms Need to Know Now”Alex W. Karasik, a partner and member of the firm’s Class Action Defense Team, was quoted in the 2026 Spring edition of SHRM HR Quarterly in the article “Is AI Quietly Undermining Your Overtime Exemptions?”
Read the full article for Alex’s insights on the SHRM HR Quarterly website.
By Courtney L. Baird and Ryan S. Crawford
In an issue of first impression, a federal court held that information a defendant input to a consumer generative AI system on his own initiative is not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. That holding extended to documents the defendant generated using AI and later shared with counsel.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has historically vetoed legislation surrounding automation. However, as he sets his sights on the White House, Newsom has been slow to set new regulations surrounding artificial intelligence while facing mounting pressure from the state’s unions. Duane Morris Partner Alex Karasik discussed the legal risks California employers should keep in mind when implementing the new technology.
Read the full article in International Employment Lawyer.
By Mark Lerner
Following a refusal to grant a copyright registration to Stephen Thaler for a work whose sole author was identified as “Creativity Machine,” a generative AI Thaler created, the D.C. Circuit affirmed that works authored exclusively by artificial intelligence are ineligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act, which the court read to require human authorship, in keeping with the Copyright Office interpretation and prior case law. A petition for certiorari and a supporting amicus brief now ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question of whether the Copyright Act requires human authorship, arguing that the statute’s text, structure and purpose do not categorically impose such a requirement and that existing doctrines leave room for AI to be recognized as the author of protected works.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
Duane Morris will host the third session of its Wearable Webinars Series, Product Liability and IP Strategies for Wearables, on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern.
Agatha Liu, Ph.D., will cover how wearables with diagnostic, monitoring or therapeutic claims fall under the FDA’s software as a medical device framework, including predetermined change control plans, good machine learning practices and real-world performance monitoring of adaptive algorithms.
Duane Morris will present a webinar, Navigating the Future of Finance & AI Regulation: A Webinar on Emerging Legal Frameworks for AI and Digital Assets Reform, on Wednesday, November 12, 2025 | 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern.
Continue reading “Webinar: Navigating the Future of Finance & AI Regulation”