Latest / Legal Late Night / Deconstructing Harvey's $11 Billion Valuation and Navigating a Bar Grievance with Suzanne Thompson
Transcript
- Jared Correia (00:00): Hello, everybody. We've got a show that promises to be at least mildly interesting for your listening and watching enjoyment. For the monologue, I talk about Harvey's decision to build its own frontier AI solution. And in the interview, we're quizzing Suzanne Thompson, chief bar counsel at the main board of overseers of the bar about some crazy stupid ethics edge cases. In the counter program, its shit real Mainers say was Suzanne who is not even really a real Mainer. But first, let's talk about how Harvey was like, "Fuck all that noise. We're going for it. " Harvey is an absolutely unhinged 1950 movie that was nominated for Best Picture and is 88% certified fresh on run tomatoes, not bad. In the film, Jimmy Stewart, the town weirdo, spends his time hanging out at bars with an invisible six foot three inch rabbit that mostly only he can see and hear. (01:07): Actually, I take it back. That sounds awesome. And in the end, the Jimmy Stewart character is observed to have the best life of all the town folks. And so he is left to his own devices to live out his days hanging out with his imaginary friend. It's a beautiful story really. Although the rabbit character itself never actually appears in the film, the Mandela effect dictates that some individuals expressly remember that it does. Harvey is also the name of a legal tech company that offers an AI tool set for accessing legal research tasks, analyzing and drafting documents and building magentic workflows. The company was valued at $11 billion following a $200 million funding round, which brought its total investment number to one billion. Remember the quaint days when Clio was the first $1 billion legal tech company? It took them like 15 years to get there. (02:03): Harvey is effectively a 50K buy-in if you're interested in it for your law firm and the company has suggested that it has an AAR of over $200 million. So this is definitely a big business we're talking about here. A problem with an $11 billion evaluation in the legal tech AI space, however, is that you're sort of bound to using everybody else's stuff. LexisNexis and Westlaw have a lot of proprietary legal research data. More troubling. Harvey relies on a mix of frontier AI models, OpenAI is a tool and anthropics specifically to generate results. And if you're Harvey and an AI legal tech company, not a giant white rabbit that relies on someone else's AI tech to actually function and that someone unplugs you, however unlikely that might be, well, your $11 billion evaluation just went poof. Now, if you believe in that Harvey valuation, I don't really, but if you did, it's the longest of long-term bets anyway. (03:10): But Harvey is attempting to make that bet safer as the first legal tech company to atempt to build its own frontier AI model. It makes sense, of course. I think that every software developer ever would build his own proprietary tools at every turn if money and time were not objects. That way you're not beholden to anyone else and can't be held hostage by outside vendors as much. Plus there's the innovation gap inherent when it comes to building on someone else's platform. When the frontier AI models come out with new stuff, companies like Harvey have to ingest that and revise their own softwares around those changes, which means you're always lagging behind as a vendor and as a user. One attorney I recently spoke to came up with the analogy that buying legal tech built with frontier AI models was fine with him because it was like acquiring a trained dog rather than one that would pee all over your rug. (04:04): In this case, we're talking about the length of time for the training and the fact that it actually reoccurs regularly whenever the big provider builds an update. So if Harvey can pull this off, they won't need OpenAI or Anthropic anymore and they can save significant costs over time, which also helps them to charge for access to the services and tokens, however much they please as long as the market bears it. That's all their money now. OpenAI Anthropic not getting a cut. Of course, building a Frontier AI model costs a hell of a lot of money upfront and it better be just as good as what your current combination of third party models are offering. Or you might witness client flight of biblical proportions. They'll just switch to vendors that'll still use the original Frontier models. But if it works, not only does Harvey get to control its own Frontier model can, one, also control all the training data that enters that model and how it's used without any interference from third party vendors, which is why the idea that lawyers would have any more control over training, assuming often than they would in current frontier models is laughable. (05:20): The company still controls all that. It's just a different company. Two, also offer its tool to other legal tech vendors or non-legal tech vendors for that matter in the same way that Anthropic and OpenAI lend their resources to Harvey right now. There's a lot of money in this project if it goes right. One of the reasons why no other legal tech company has done this before, besides not having the funding that Harvey does, is because Harvey is effectively betting its whole company on this endeavor. If this doesn't work, this will be a staggering, very public setback and not working could have a whole host of forms, not just creating a frontier model that pales in comparison to the existing ones it uses. But I could also see a situation in which Anthropic, which has been throwing some of its weight around in legal space recently, acquires a tent pole legal product like a research tool or a case management software and turns it into its own version of Harvey with its frontier model already built. (06:23): That would be very bad for Harvey if it happens in the near term, but Harvey can't stop that anyway. It can just rage against the dying of the light, which it's sort of doing. Maybe Harvey doesn't have a choice. They probably don't, but you certainly do. It makes good sense for attorneys to keep a weather eye toward all these fast-paced changes reflecting artificial intelligence and practice in order to become or remain a studied consumer of the most important technology perhaps ever developed. Maybe you don't need to speak to it in public, but it makes sense to keep track of the movements of this white rabbit. And if you really want to go down a rabbit hole, stay tuned. Next up, it's me and Suzanne Thompson of the main board of overseers of the bar talking about some wild legal ethics issues of which you certainly have questions and for which we have answers. (07:14): We're prepositioned forward here at legal late night, which continues after this. Well, I've effectively run out of things to say, which is awkward because this is a podcast. So I'm going to plan my summer vacation in Maine. It's vacation land everyone.That's real. It's on the license plates. All right, maybe I'll do that later, but I do have some good news. I've got a guest today who's a real Mainer in my opinion. That is Suzanne Thompson, the Chief Bar Counsel at the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar. Suzanne, welcome to the show. How are you? Suzanne Thompson (07:57): I'm good. Thanks. I Jared Correia (07:59): Have a couple questions. I've always wondered this. Main Board of Overseers of the Bar. Are you paid by the preposition? Why couldn't we just go with Main Board of Bar Overseers like everyone else in America? Suzanne Thompson (08:15): Great question. I don't know. And I claim my Maine via Massachusetts. I'm born and raised in Massachusetts. So when I came to this job, it was Board of Overseers, which is not correct. So I had to retrain myself. Jared Correia (08:29): Yeah. It's a whole thing. Okay. So you, I believe, have just been promoted to Chief Bar counsel. Is that correct? Suzanne Thompson (08:37): Yeah, in April. Jared Correia (08:38): Congratulations. Thank you. How's it going so far? Suzanne Thompson (08:41): Good, good. It's busy. Jared Correia (08:43): Keeping those attorneys in line. Suzanne Thompson (08:45): Trying. Jared Correia (08:46): I suppose we should start with what is a Board of Bar Overseers and what do you do? I would assume most people know, but it might be called different things in other states. Suzanne Thompson (08:57): Yeah. So the legal practice is self-regulating. And what the Board of Overseers in Maine... I suppose I should back up. Every state is different. The function of a disciplinary regulatory agency in each state is different. Some fall under the court, some fall are independent. It kind of runs the gamut. In Maine, the Board of Overseers does a number of things. We take care of CLE and CLE compliance. We take care of registration. There's a component of our office that does fee arbitration when there are fe disputes. Our office actually manages guardian ad litem complaints as well as the judicial conduct committee falls under our office. So we do a really wide range of things in this office. We're small but mighty. And then Bar Council's department or office, which is what I am head of, we handle disciplinary complaints, grievance investigations primarily, but we also do CLE and education. (10:05): And obviously we do the low map with you. So we do that Jared Correia (10:09): Program Suzanne Thompson (10:09): On a recurring basis. So one of Jared Correia (10:11): The things - Always a delight. Suzanne Thompson (10:13): Yeah, it's always fun. And that's I think a real big component of when you're talking about attorney discipline and regulation is being proactive and providing people with the resources so that they're not getting into trouble. It's preventative. So I think that's another thing we're looking at. Yeah. Yeah. Jared Correia (10:33): I think part of the movement, and obviously every state has something like this. Sometimes it's called something different. Sometimes it has different functions. Sometimes it's part of the bar, but this is a component everywhere. Now, I think there's been a trend to be more proactive about reaching out to attorneys before they get in trouble rather than waiting for that to happen and then kind of penalizing them. Is that fair to say? Suzanne Thompson (11:05): I don't know if it's... I mean, I can only speak to what we try to do in Maine. Jared Correia (11:08): Okay. Well, yeah, let's talk about that. What are you doing? Suzanne Thompson (11:11): Yeah. I mean, I think there's definitely a recognition and awareness across most bars jurisdictionally that attorney legal practice is a high burnout practice. It's a high risk practice, really. It comes with a lot of increases in substance use, increases in depression, things of that nature. So most states have - Jared Correia (11:33): Statistically true if people don't know about that. There are a number of statistics out there about that. Suzanne Thompson (11:38): Right. And I'm not a MAP or a LAP director, so that's not my kind of realm. And we have a wonderful MAP program in Maine. So the Maine Assistance Program for judges and lawyers. Most jurisdictions have something like that. Sometimes they're called LAP programs. Usually they're - Jared Correia (11:52): Like psychological support for lawyers, counseling, that kind of thing. Yeah. Suzanne Thompson (11:57): So I think there's a shift to recognizing the inherent stressors that our profession puts on us. On the flip side of it, my job is a little bit different because I have to make sure... My primary role is making sure that the public is safe. So it's ensuring that we have a healthy bar is part of that. Those go part and parcel. But at the end of the day, my job is public protection and making sure that attorneys are complying with the rules so that their clients are served and the public is protected. So we certainly are attuned to the fact that attorneys have these pressures and we try to, when we can, offer things like alternative to discipline contracts, which provides an alternative way for attorneys to get some support. I think that the thing that we're always balancing in doing that is the risk and the harm. (12:50): So there are certainly some situations where the harm is too extensive to allow us to do that. And our rule actually kind of outlines what factors we need to consider if we're going that route. Jared Correia (13:01): Right. And part of this is the money piece of it because attorneys have to safeguard their client's property. In certain cases they have to follow IOLTA rules and you guys manage that too. Oversight on that. Suzanne Thompson (13:14): So we don't manage the IOLTA funds. So what happens in Maine is the interest from the IOLTA funds goes to the Maine Justice Foundation, but we do enforce the bar rules as it pertains to how - Jared Correia (13:28): If somebody is not doing it correctly or they bounce a check Suzanne Thompson (13:33): On their ILTA. So we do that. So the bar rules have a rule that kind of outlines what are appropriate IOLTA funds in Maine, what institutions you can use. And then the rules of professional conduct have, it's rule 1.15 that talks about how you have to safeguard funds. And then if there is an insufficient fund notice, we get notice of that. And that's something that we do investigate when they come into our office. Jared Correia (13:57): This might be a good time to shout out Aria who runs the main board of overseers of the Suzanne Thompson (14:03): Bar. She's our executive director. Yeah. If you haven't met her, she is absolutely incredible. So fortunate. Jared Correia (14:09): She's a trip. Yes. She's really fun. Okay. Suzanne Thompson (14:11): So fortunate. Jared Correia (14:12): I mean, I think ethics attorneys get a bad name, but Aria's fun. And so are you. I Suzanne Thompson (14:18): Don't know. I think Aria's probably more fun than me, but she's been doing this for a long time and really I don't know of anyone else who's better suited to run her office. Jared Correia (14:28): Yeah. Super involved. Suzanne Thompson (14:29): She knows everyone. She's Jared Correia (14:29): Invested in everyone. Suzanne Thompson (14:31): Yeah, she's great. Jared Correia (14:33): But let's talk about you, Suzanne. I always ask people this because I find it interesting. I don't think anybody is in kindergarten and being like, "Damn, I would love to be a lawyer." How did you decide this is it? I want this to be my job. Suzanne Thompson (14:51): Lawyer in general? Jared Correia (14:52): Yeah. Suzanne Thompson (14:53): I mean, I think it's little steps along the way from college on through. I went to school at a small liberal arts college and I actually studied political science and - Jared Correia (15:04): Which one? Can you tell me which one? Suzanne Thompson (15:05): Yeah, sure. St. Mike's. Jared Correia (15:06): Oh, St. Mike's. Suzanne Thompson (15:08): Yeah. Jared Correia (15:08): Hell yeah. All right, Suzanne Thompson (15:10): Go ahead. I studied political science and I had a dual major in political science and English literature, which I feel like is not uncommon for lawyers.That tracks. I was really, really interested in Shakespearean literature when I was in Jared Correia (15:27): College. Fellow. I was an English major as well. Suzanne Thompson (15:30): Yeah. Well, I worked with a professor, a wonderful professor who was compiling a Bariorum edition of Hamlet. So I edited lots of to be or not to be soliloquies to see if they matched up with the quarter portfolio. That was my student job. And I was Jared Correia (15:45): Really Suzanne Thompson (15:45): Interested in that. But looking ahead, the idea of getting a PhD in teaching wasn't really my jam. My sister has a PhD. She's an Egyptologist. I saw her do that whole thing. Oh, that's cool. Yeah, she's very cool. So I saw her do that whole thing and I was kind of like, "That's not the path I want to take." So I took a few years off after college and I worked at Harvard actually. I did project management training at Harvard. And it was, "All right, we're going to either look at a business degree or we're going to look at a law degree." And I went back actually to St. Mike's and my professors and I talked to them. I still had great relationships with them. And one of my advisors, because I had two advisors for my dual major suggested I try law school. And I had done an internship my senior year, I think, at the Vermont Children's Forum and done a lot of policy litigation work, which I really like. (16:37): So I figured, all right, I'll go to law school and I'm going to do policy work and litigation. I'm not going to litigate, not litigation. I'm going to do policy work and advocacy, not going to do litigation.That is not my bag. I do not want to do that. I feel like all of this tracks for a lot of attorneys, right? Yes. Jared Correia (16:51): And Suzanne Thompson (16:51): Then I had a clerkship my first summer at the probate and family court in Massachusetts and just absolutely loved it. I loved everything about the practice area. I loved being in the courts. I loved watching the litigation. So my first year of law school going into my second, I kind of was like, "This is the area I want to be in. " And I tracked. I went to Suffolk like you. So there were all sorts of courses I could take and I kind of tracked it towards that. And then I did a probate and family clerkship in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court. Yeah. And then the rest is history. I did family practice in Maine for 13 years before I came to the board. Yeah, you Jared Correia (17:26): Had your own law practice, right? Yeah. Suzanne Thompson (17:28): I was a partner in a small firm. I mean, it was great. It was busy, but there's high burnout. So I experienced a lot of the same things that we were talking about. I was an attorney in my own practice. I had a small firm in 2020. Lots of stuff happened in 2020. Did it? Yes. I mean, maybe. Must Jared Correia (17:49): Have missed that. No. Suzanne Thompson (17:51): So I'm trying to think of something else that happened in 2020, but I can't. Jared Correia (17:55): I know it's true. Suzanne Thompson (17:57): Who won the World Series? Was there a World Series? I don't know. Anyway. Yes. Jared Correia (18:01): I think the Nationals won. Did they? Suzanne Thompson (18:03): So yeah. It could be Jared Correia (18:04): Wrong. Somebody's going to fact check me on that. Suzanne Thompson (18:07): Yeah. I think - No, Jared Correia (18:09): It was the Dodgers. Dodgers beat the race. Nice Suzanne Thompson (18:12): Correction. Go Jared Correia (18:12): Ahead. My Suzanne Thompson (18:13): Husband would know that. I don't know that. But no, so 2020 came and I think for me in the specific practice area I was in, it shifted a little bit. It changed and it became more difficult. The cases were more difficult. People became a little bit more challenging just all over. Not my clients. I had some wonderful clients, but there were all sorts of things. And it just was the time for me to make a transition. Gotcha. So yeah, here I am. Jared Correia (18:41): As a former Shakespearean scholar, did you see Amnet? Suzanne Thompson (18:45): I have not. Okay. Jared Correia (18:47): All right. Watch it. But it's on my list. Come back and give us your star rating. All right. So you leave the practice and you end up at the Board of Overseers of the bar. And I think for a lot of attorneys, I know a lot of attorneys who are like, "Ah, that'd be a cool job, but I don't want to work in discipline of my colleagues." Were you thinking about that? Is that something you had to get over? What appealed to you about this job? Suzanne Thompson (19:16): So I was a former law clerk and I love research and I love rules. I Jared Correia (19:21): Can attest to the fact that you love both. I love both. Suzanne Thompson (19:24): I mean, it's just - Jared Correia (19:25): Whenever we do a presentation together, you have 47 notebooks that Suzanne Thompson (19:30): Get slammed down on Jared Correia (19:30): The desk. Suzanne Thompson (19:31): Always has been. Always has been. So to me, and in my firm, whenever anyone had an issue, I would be the one that would be the person talking about the rules and doing the analysis with them. And it was something I really enjoyed. And frankly, I knew the people who worked at the board and they were attorneys that I really thought would be great to work with and great to learn from. So that was also a draw. I feel like my kids play sports pretty competitively. And we always say one thing we always say to them is, listen, playing with really good people makes you better. I think the same thing is true in work. Working with people who are really skilled and invested, it makes you better. So that was a huge draw. And it was a natural time to shift. It had younger kids who were kind of approaching teen years and it provided a level of stability hours and all of that mattered too. (20:28): So it was a really good shift. Okay. Jared Correia (20:31): So you and I do ethics presentations from time to time. And I like to do, let's ask some freaky ethics questions that no one wants to talk about. I will tell you, I have a hard time getting ethics presenters to do stuff with me because I don't want to do cookie cutters. I can read the rules. That's easy. But what about the thorny issues? So can we do some thorny issues? Suzanne Thompson (21:01): We can try. Jared Correia (21:03): Do you want to give a disclaimer before we start? Suzanne Thompson (21:05): I mean, I'm here as myself. So I'm not here representing the board or the position of the board. I am here as myself. And if I can't answer something, I won't answer it. Jared Correia (21:17): Great. Okay. That'll make for terrible podcasting, but you just tell me so we can edit it out. Let's start with this. Maine, the state of Maine, formerly part of Massachusetts, if people are not aware, look that up. Irrevocable retainers, I believe, are allowed in Maine. Non-refundable retainers. Non-refundable... All right. That seems nuts to me. Can you tell the people what that is and why it's allowed in Maine? Suzanne Thompson (21:48): Sure. So Maine is kind of in the minority on this. And what a non-refundable retainer is, is essentially you're paying... It's called all sorts of different things. There's an ABA opinion that kind of delves into this a little bit more, but you're basically paying an attorney and you're saying that that money is the attorneys upon receipt and it can't be refunded regardless Jared Correia (22:11): Of - And in most states, you have to give it back based on the amount of work you've done, right? Suzanne Thompson (22:16): Right. That's why saying it's a retainer is a little bit of a misnomer because when you have a flat fee, they're flat fees, flat fee, non-refundable retainer. They have to comply with the rules. So we have specific rule requirements that have to be met if you're engaging in that type of fee arrangement. But if that's what happens and you comply with the rules, it's under 1.8, you comply with the rules, essentially you get that money and that is your money. So that's why I say it's kind of a misnomer to call it a retainer because it's expected that it's going to go into your operating account, not your client house trust account. And I think what gets people a little bit up in arms is there's an idea that, all right, I could take that retainer and two weeks could go by and my client could decide that this is not a good fit and they want to fire me and I can say, that's great. (23:08): I keep your money. It's not that simple. Jared Correia (23:12): Okay. Glease proceed. Suzanne Thompson (23:14): Okay, proceed. It's not that simple. Jared Correia (23:18): Suzanne, why is it not that simple? Suzanne Thompson (23:20): It's a cliffhanger. It's not that simple because your fee still has to be reasonable. So 1.5 still applies. So your fee still has to be reasonable even if it's non-refundable. So typically what we say to people is, yeah, you take a non-refundable fee, but you still track your time. And you still have to explain if you got 10 grand for criminal representation and two weeks later your client says, no, peace out. I want to hire someone else. You still have to explain why it's reasonable for you to keep that 10 grand. There's still that Jared Correia (23:48): Reasonable Suzanne Thompson (23:48): Requirement to it. Jared Correia (23:49): Okay. Suzanne Thompson (23:50): So I think people are like, "This is nuts. Why would you do this? " But you have to look at both the fact that there are specific rule requirements that have to be complied with and the fact that at the end of the day, like any other fee, it has to be reasonable. Jared Correia (24:05): And I forget, is Maine the only state that has this? It's like a small number, right? Suzanne Thompson (24:09): No, no. It's a minority. I couldn't tell you what other states have it. There was an ABA opinion on fees that issued in, I want to say it was 2022 or 2023. It's actually, if anyone's interested in this, and I feel like it's probably a very small subset of human beings. Jared Correia (24:24): No. If they are, they'll probably be listening to this podcast. Suzanne Thompson (24:27): It's a really good ADA opinion. And it talks about the titles, what these are called, what these type of payment arrangements are called in different places and what is or... Like I just said, we call it a non-refundable fee or non-refundable retainer, but that's not really what it is. It talks about that. What it is called, what it isn't called, what it should be called. And actually our rule probably calls it a non-refundable fee, not retainer. Jared Correia (24:52): Okay. I like how you're like, "This is a really good ABA ethics opinion." I'd be like, "Hey, did you catch a new episode of House of the Dragon last night?" I Suzanne Thompson (25:00): Told you, rules and research. It's not a lie. I Jared Correia (25:07): Like to talk about... That must be amazing. I like to talk about bartering. When we do these programs together, I like to be like, "Can I trade legal services for a goat? Because that's what I wish it was like. " You know what? But I don't think that's actually happening regularly. Or is it in Maine? Suzanne Thompson (25:27): Well, I mean, I'm sure that someone has traded livestock for legal services. Jared Correia (25:34): Oh, definitely. Especially back in the day. Suzanne Thompson (25:36): Right. Or even like, I mean, God, you know how many people have farm shares here?That's Jared Correia (25:41): True. Suzanne Thompson (25:41): Buy a whole cow. Jared Correia (25:43): But I'm thinking more along the lines of what I see from time to time is like, "Hey, I'll write this contract for you. You bill me a website." Or, "Set up my email and I'll review this thing for Suzanne Thompson (25:56): You. " Yeah. I mean, I think you have to be careful that you're not engaging in business with a client. So that's one thing you want to make sure you're not doing because there are specific, again, we're back into all the weird stuff I feel like is in 1.8. Jared Correia (26:10): And 1.8 is what? What's the title of that rule? Do you know that? I think Suzanne Thompson (26:13): It's like conflicts of interest. Jared Correia (26:17): Oh right, right, right. Yes. I think you're right. For those listening at home, 2.1 is goat trading. Suzanne Thompson (26:24): 1.8 is conflict of interest specific rules, current clients specific rules. And that's what talks about you can't - Jared Correia (26:31): Look at, you had the book ready. I can hear the pages. Suzanne Thompson (26:34): It's always on my desk, Jared. Someone made fun of me a few years ago. I was traveling for a CLE and someone I was traveling with, I was in a session and someone asked about our rules and I reach into my bag and I pulled out a book and someone's like, "You have a phone and you brought your book on the plane? Yeah, I brought my book." That's Jared Correia (26:55): Great. Yeah. So you can barter. You can barter. But the question is, how do you do it Suzanne Thompson (27:01): Effectively? Yeah. Yeah. And I think in Maine - More ethically. Obviously you have to mine the rules as it pertains to engaging in business with a client. And the rules go through all of that and you can't have an interest in the subject matter of litigation, all that stuff. And if you're engaging in business with a client, you have to go through all the rules and it tells you it has to be in writing and they have to be advised of the opportunity to seek all these rules. So I think the number one thing, let's say you're in a place where it's fine for you to engage in that bartering. You've gone through the business with a client. I think the number one area I've seen people get in trouble with is not defining the value of what they're bargaining for. That's the number one problem. (27:41): So you have to be able to, because it all goes back to reasonableness. You have to be able to say, it would usually cost about $2,000 for me to do that contract work you want me to do. The goat is worth $2,000. It's an expensive goat. Even swap. I don't know how much goats cost. Actually, I feel like they're not - Jared Correia (28:02): Less than that. Suzanne Thompson (28:03): Less than that. The $2,000 goat. Jared Correia (28:09): So you're valuing the input basically is Suzanne Thompson (28:12): The idea. Yeah, you're valuing... I mean, because when someone comes back at the end of the day, if this goes south and it ends up on my door, I have to be able to look at whether it was reasonable, which requires valuation. Jared Correia (28:30): Let's move from goats to the furthest possible extreme from goats. Are you going to Suzanne Thompson (28:36): Ask about robots? Which I think Jared Correia (28:37): Is artificial intelligence. No, I'm not going to ask you about robots yet. Can we start with marketing? So AI, everybody wants to use it because it's cheap. Virtual reception, chatbots. What do you tell people when they ask you about that from an ethics standpoint? Because I think there's a lot of fear there. Suzanne Thompson (29:01): Yeah. So I will say I have not had in... I mean, you and I talk about this, I feel like a lot. Jared Correia (29:10): Yeah. But no one has reached out to you and been like, "I am doing AI virtual receptionist. How do I not fuck it up?" Suzanne Thompson (29:18): No, not that it strikes... It's a memory for me. Doesn't stand out to me. Yeah. I think the thing that I think about when you raise this is prospective client issues. That's often what I think about. You need to make crystal clear. I'm trying to think. I have had someone reach out about automated forms, right? Having automated forms on their website, which I think you can kind of extend into that maybe. Yeah, it's Jared Correia (29:52): A similar thing. You just get more control over those I think. I think when people look at AI, they're like, "Oh my God, this thing could say anything." Just like a person... Say anything. Suzanne Thompson (30:01): Sure. And I think of duty to prospective clients. So when is that communication and that connection creating a potential client relationship? So that's one thing I think about. And I think that's a pretty easy thing to guard against. Our favorite thing, disclaimers. Jared Correia (30:25): Love good disclaimer. Suzanne Thompson (30:26): Any attorney who sends an email has a 15 paragraph disclaimer at the end of that email, most attorneys. So I mean, I think making it crystal clear to whoever comes onto that page, what they're looking at and what it is and what it isn't. The other thing I worry about a little bit is supervision. Making sure that the Jared Correia (30:47): Information Suzanne Thompson (30:48): That's being provided, you know what it is. And that gets to your point of you lose that control aspect. But knowing what information is being provided and being able to kind of monitor that and how you're going to have eyes on that because you want to make sure that an agent that you are using isn't providing inaccurate information. Jared Correia (31:09): Right. So that's a training thing. That's an oversight thing. Okay. So I'm glad you brought this up. Now we can talk about robots. Suzanne Thompson (31:18): Always. Always. Jared Correia (31:20): So the big question for me is you got AI now and traditionally when you vet a software, you're vetting the software to use and deploy, but then you don't have to oversee it like you would a human employee, but AI is more like that. So is the supervision rule, does that extend to AI? Do you have responsibilities in terms of AI beyond just the vetting of the tool? T me, this is kind of unresolved at this point. I don't know if you have thoughts. Suzanne Thompson (31:56): Well, I would argue whatever technology you employ in your office, you have an ongoing duty to vet it. I don't think you use it and set it and walk away, right? Jared Correia (32:05): Oh yeah, that's fair. Like the Ronco PO grill. Suzanne Thompson (32:08): I mean, I think it depends on what that is, but if you're using cloud-based software, which everyone is using now, and those terms change and your data isn't going to be maybe maintained in the same way but the same security protocol, that's on you to make sure that that's being complied with. So I think that's kind of similar. It's the same thing as any technology attorneys are using. You have to know what it does and you have to be able to use it confidently, which feels like really basic, but I mean that's what it is. So if that technology is going to be working autonomously, then yeah, I think you need to provide oversight for it. Jared Correia (32:54): Good stuff. Even the robots, when the robots come? Suzanne Thompson (32:58): I mean, when the robots come, we're going to be dead. Jared Correia (33:02): Or we'll have universal basic income and we'll all be painting. Suzanne Thompson (33:06): All I keep on thinking about is, I'm assuming you've seen The Matrix, is the first scene in the Matrix. I see all these data centers being built and all I keep on thinking is this first scene in the Matrix where there are all those towers and energy towers. Jared Correia (33:20): What a time to be alive. I want to ask you a related question. Somebody was asking me this the other day. I have an answer. I'm wondering if yours is the same. So an attorney asked me, do you think there are going to be specific changes to the ethics rules that reflect AI? Is there going to be an AI ethics rule or rules? I don't think so. I think the rules are going to be the same and they're going to be applied to AI. Your thoughts. Suzanne Thompson (33:47): I agree. I think - Jared Correia (33:51): And then the obvious question is, is that the right approach or not? Suzanne Thompson (33:54): Yeah. I mean, I think this was a question that everyone was asking back when Mada V. Avianca came out in what, was that 2023 or 2022? Jared Correia (34:01): Yeah, the first big hallucination case. Suzanne Thompson (34:04): Yeah. I think that was a big question. And I'm pretty sure you and I talked about it then. I thought about it and I read a lot about it and I did a lot of research and I looked at a lot of rules. Looked at your boks. Of course. There's a binder on my shelf over there for my AI research. Jared Correia (34:20): Of course Suzanne Thompson (34:20): There is. Jared Correia (34:23): I like how you're like bell from Beauty and the Beast. Suzanne Thompson (34:28): There's no substitute for reading. Such a fun mom. No, but I mean, I think that was a question and we looked at it and at the end of the day, it feels like the rules we have are adequately addressing the challenges that are raised by AI right now. That doesn't mean that things might not be amended, right? So specifically comments, I can certainly see additional comments being Jared Correia (34:57): Added. Yes, definitely. Yeah. Suzanne Thompson (34:59): The main bar rule competence rule one doesn't have the ABA language about maintaining technical competence. It doesn't actually have that in our rule, but the footnotes or the comments rather infer that. And then we have professional ethics commission's guidance on cloud computing that specifically articulates that. So like with any other area of law, I think you're going to find that the rules work well as they are and that where you need to supplement, it's going to be done in other ways. It's going to be done in case law. It's going to be done in professional ethics opinions. It's going to be done in footnotes, things like that. I could be wrong. Jared Correia (35:36): I think you're right. Last question for you. I think most people, when they run into an ethics issue, blow a statute of limitations or something less than that, they're like, "Damn, my legal career is over. I'm totally fucked." But there's this concept of remediation, which I think is kind of undercover. So do you want to talk a little bit about that and how that works? Suzanne Thompson (35:59): Yeah. I mean - Jared Correia (36:00): Because a lot of attorneys that call me, I think when they have an ethics issue, their first thing is like, "How do I hide this? " And I'm like, "No, don't. That's the worst idea." Suzanne Thompson (36:10): There are two things I say to people when you get a grievance complaint. When that drops on your doorstep, respond to it. So many attorneys don't respond to it. They think it's like a nothing and they don't respond to it. And that creates an independent rule violation. It's never going to be good. It's never going to work out because then all I have is the information that's been provided to me by a complainant in a vacuum. So that's number one, respond to it. And number two, if you did something that violated a rule, acknowledge it and tell me why it happened and what you're doing to prevent it. Remediation does matter. And none of us are perfect. I miss things when I was in practice. I would be sitting waiting for a call, a conference Jared Correia (37:05): Call. Suzanne Thompson (37:05): I started getting on conference calls like 10 or 15 minutes early because I would be working on a draft and I know I had a conference call and I get so wrapped up in what I was writing. It would be five minutes past my start time. So everyone makes mistakes like that. I think the problem that we have is when those mistakes create substantial harm, that's more of a problem. If you blow a statute of limitations and it precludes your client's claim from moving forward, well, that's going to be a significant issue that we're going to have to address and figure out. (37:40): Does that mean your legal career is over? No. There are so many steps between engaging in something that violates the rules and disbarment or suspension. There are so many different avenues between that. And as we started saying, if you say to me, I missed this court date and it has to get reset and my client's case is getting kicked out, but the court is resetting it so there's minimal harm. Obviously your client's ticked off and there's delay, which isn't great, but there's minimal harm, but this is why it happened. And this is how I fixed my calendar system.That might still be the type of thing that I have to look at an investigation, but it's much more likely to result in me saying, okay, maybe I send this to a grievance commission panel, but I think it's a dismissal. Or I think it's a dismissal with a Jared Correia (38:28): Warning, Suzanne Thompson (38:28): Which is non-discipline. Jared Correia (38:30): Jump in, try to fix it, be honest and don't let it mushroom. Suzanne Thompson (38:35): Yep. Absolutely. Jared Correia (38:36): The more you know, the more you Suzanne Thompson (38:37): Draw. I said to someone today on the phone, my favorite thing in this job is a reasonable explanation. I love a reasonable explanation. When someone gives me an honest, reasonable, supported explanation, that's great. That's what I want. I Jared Correia (38:52): Want to end on that note. Will you stick around for one last segment? Suzanne, I'll promise you it'll be fun. Suzanne Thompson (38:57): Yeah. Jared Correia (39:03): Welcome back everybody. It's The Counter Program. It's a podcast within a podcast. This is a conversational space where we can address usually unrelated topics that I want to explore at a greater depth with my guests. Expect no rhyme and very little reason. Suzanne, welcome back. Hi. I know you're not from Maine, but I'm going to make you my duly authorized representative for the whole state because I am bringing back one of my favorite recurring segments for you in which we analyze and interrogate local dialect and phrasing. That's right. It's shit real Mainers say, which hopefully you picked up over the course of your time in Maine. During this segment, I will provide you with some common words and phrases a real Mainer would say. And I'm going to ask you to explain in some detail to the audience or provide some local color. And I will tell you, as somebody who's main adjacent and who a long time ago had a Maine seacoast accent before I lost it, I know some of these terms. (40:11): So are you ready? Suzanne Thompson (40:14): I'm ready. I grew up outside Worcester. Can you tell? Jared Correia (40:17): No, not at all. Suzanne Thompson (40:18): Yeah, not at all. Jared Correia (40:19): Impressive. We've cleaned ourselves up. Okay. Main term number one, stove up, which means you are heavily battered, smashed, physically ruined or utterly broken. Often used to describe vehicles or even the human body. But let me give the people at home a descriptive sentence and then feel free to jump in. My back is all stove up from shoveling out last night. Suzanne Thompson (40:48): This Jared Correia (40:48): Is a real thing. I've never heard Suzanne Thompson (40:49): That one. Jared Correia (40:50): Okay. You guys start using it in private conversation. Suzanne Thompson (40:52): I'm married to a manor. Jared Correia (40:54): A real mainer? Suzanne Thompson (40:55): A real mainer. And I've never heard that one. Jared Correia (41:00): You got to ask about this. You know what you should do? You should be like, "Man, it's a hard day at work today. I'm all stove up from carrying my ethics books around." I think that's what Suzanne Thompson (41:08): I'm going to do. He's going to be so impressed. All Jared Correia (41:10): Right. Report back, please. Suzanne Thompson (41:12): I Jared Correia (41:12): Will. Suzanne Thompson (41:12): Absolutely. Jared Correia (41:14): Just a side fact here. Stove is also like what happens when a boat overturns. That's the term for that nautical term. So in New Bedford, where I'm from, Massachusetts, we have a statue with the guy that invented the toggle harpoon. His name's Lewis Temple. And there's a phrase under the statue that says a dead whale or a stove boat, which means you kill the whale or your boat overturns and you die. I just wanted to throw some uplifting stuff in here. Suzanne Thompson (41:44): Yeah. Call back to New Bedford. New Jared Correia (41:46): Bedford. I'm always... Yes, thank you. I'm always here. I'll say it that way too. Suzanne Thompson (41:50): My husband was his first job out of college. He was a sports reporter and then editor for the Taunton Daily Gazette. Twenton Tigers. Jared Correia (41:58): Oh yeah. Suzanne Thompson (41:59): So Jared Correia (42:00): That was the Taunton Gas. Taunton Suzanne Thompson (42:01): Tigers. Taunton Tigers. Yeah. That was his Jared Correia (42:03): Somponio. Hopefully some Taunton High School grads are listening. All right. I'm not going to do the definition because I think you might know this one and you can feel free to explain it. A - up or as a way to begin a sentence. Suzanne Thompson (42:20): All right. Totally wrong. Jared Correia (42:22): Did I say it wrong? Suzanne Thompson (42:23): Like that? Jared Correia (42:24): My husband Suzanne Thompson (42:25): Says that one. Jared Correia (42:27): Really? Suzanne Thompson (42:28): Yeah. My husband has a shirt that says however A apostrophe you. I don't even know how it is, but yeah. I'm not saying it even correctly. People who are listening to this will realize that I'm like a Massachusetts girl trying to say it. We should Jared Correia (42:46): Have had your husband on for the segment. Suzanne Thompson (42:48): I can't do it right. It's like a - Jared Correia (42:49): But this is the thing. What it is it starts the sentence, right? Yeah. Suzanne Thompson (42:55): Or like, yep. Yep. Or like, yep, fub. Yeah. Jared Correia (43:00): This is the main version of yes, I agree. Yeah. And I found online that there are three different variations of it, like a crisp agreement, like hell yeah. Or a passive keep talking. I agree. Go ahead. And then there's the drawn outside version, which reflects the reality of a difficult situation. I know. I feel like you're pretty good with this. Okay. Suzanne Thompson (43:26): If you really heard it, you would realize how bad I am. Jared Correia (43:30): We'll see. Maybe we can edit in. Maybe we can edit in your husband saying some of these phrases. Suzanne Thompson (43:34): Maybe. Jared Correia (43:35): Here's another one. These I have heard, and then we're going deep. We're getting into some niche main stuff. Hard telling, not knowing. The equivalent of a verbal shrug in which the speaker effectively indicates that she has no idea and wouldn't be able to find an answer. It looks like it might rain this afternoon. Hard telling, not knowing. That's a thing, right? Suzanne Thompson (43:59): Yep. That's definitely a thing. Jared Correia (44:01): People say that Suzanne Thompson (44:02): Actively. There's an accent with Jared Correia (44:03): That too. Suzanne Thompson (44:04): I can't really do it. Hard telling not knowing. The main accent when you hear it, you're kind of like, you know it. And sometimes, and we had a guy who was our wood stove guy. I couldn't understand the thing he said. He'd come in to clean the stove. Jared Correia (44:22): Can I just say the fact that you have a wood stove guy? Suzanne Thompson (44:25): I know, right? Jared Correia (44:25): That's another main thing. Suzanne Thompson (44:27): Yeah. Yeah. But Nate would have to translate. I would have no idea what he was saying. Yeah. So Nate's a Mainer. I mean, Nate's a Mainer, like flannel shirt, put the ax on the back, go chop wood kind of mainer. But Jared Correia (44:41): I think the people across the country, they will conflate the Boston accent and the main accent. And I think they're very Suzanne Thompson (44:47): Different. Oh, they're so different. Real Maine accent, it's thick and it can almost be hard to understand. Jared Correia (44:59): Yes. Suzanne Thompson (45:00): So can a Boston accent, but I don't know. I understand a Boston accent better than a Maine accent, I Jared Correia (45:04): Guess. Okay. Here's one I'd never heard before. I'm interested to know if you have. A door yard. The specific area of the yard or driveway immediately outside the house's most frequently used entrance. Usually the side or kitchen door. The formal entrance being effectively decorative in nature. Suzanne Thompson (45:24): I have not heard that one. I feel like I'm not representing well. I Jared Correia (45:27): Have not heard that one. You're a terrible Suzanne Thompson (45:29): Maner. I know. Aside Jared Correia (45:30): From - When you leave the office, there might be people with pitchforks waiting out there going like, "Hey up." Suzanne Thompson (45:35): I should do Jared Correia (45:35): Some. Can I say, my house is designed in this fashion. I have a front door that no one uses. So do I. Because you walk directly into the house and we have a side door with a mudroom in front of our house. Yep. Yes. I feel like this is the better design construct though. Suzanne Thompson (45:53): I don't even know if my front door works anymore, honestly. Jared Correia (45:56): Yeah. Yeah. I think it's a better design construct because I don't want someone with their crusty ass feet walking into my house. Go to the mudroom, take off your shoes and then enter the house. Suzanne Thompson (46:09): Yeah, that's critical to me. Jared Correia (46:10): Because civilized out here. Suzanne Thompson (46:12): I feel like February through May, the mudroom is critical. Jared Correia (46:19): You've got mud, you've got snow, you've got leaves. Leaves are underrated. Hassle. I got two more for you. Bed lunch. A bed lunch. A late night snack eaten right before turning in for sleep. Oh, I might use that one, but I've never heard it. Thereby distinguishing it from a midnight snack, which usually requires waking up and making something to eat. Suzanne Thompson (46:45): I mean, I've never heard it, but I definitely have bed lunches. Jared Correia (46:49): What time does a bed lunch occur? Suzanne Thompson (46:52): I mean, I suppose it depends on when you go to bed, right? Jared Correia (46:59): An hour before bed? Two hours before bed? Suzanne Thompson (47:02): I'm trying to get a good dinner. I think it Jared Correia (47:02): Happens in Suzanne Thompson (47:03): Bed. Jared Correia (47:04): And what do you eat? What does a bed lunch consist of? Oh, cheese and crackers. Okay. I was going to - Yeah, for sure. We don't have this in Massachusetts, but I was thinking cheese and crackers would be the way to go. Suzanne Thompson (47:14): It's like a little charcuterie breakup. We're dead. That is not an Jared Correia (47:17): Eater. Oh, you're throwing on some meat on there too? Yeah, for real? Suzanne Thompson (47:21): Little projutto. Jared Correia (47:23): Crumbs in the bed, not a problem? Suzanne Thompson (47:25): I'll eat on my husband's side. Jared Correia (47:27): Oh, that's really smart. Okay. That's where the plate is. My last term I believe describes you, from away. Do you want to tell people what that is? Suzanne Thompson (47:41): Means you're not from Maine. As proven by my responses. Yeah. You know what's crazy about being from away though? If you are not born in Maine, you are from away. So my in - laws have lived in Maine 50 years. They are from away. It does not matter. Jared Correia (48:02): Because they moved there when they were adults. Suzanne Thompson (48:05): Yep. They are. I mean, I would argue even if you're a kid, if you were not born in Maine, if you came from another place and landed in Maine, you are from away. Jared Correia (48:17): It's a good way to keep the posers out, I guess. Suzanne Thompson (48:19): Yeah. And you can never not be from away. I will always be Jared Correia (48:24): From Suzanne Thompson (48:24): Away. Jared Correia (48:24): But you can't recover from that. You got to be born in the Suzanne Thompson (48:27): State. And I'm pretty sure that my answers to this quiz did not help me Jared Correia (48:30): In my from away Suzanne Thompson (48:31): Status. Jared Correia (48:32): Yeah, you're never going to live this down. Ever. I found a phrase online, which I though was interesting. People explain this by saying, if a cat has kittens in the oven, you don't call them biscuits, which is an interesting way to phrase it. So you got to be born in Maine. Any other Maine related items that you would like to address before we finish up? Anything I missed? Suzanne Thompson (49:02): Yeah, I don't think so. I'm trying to think. Jared Correia (49:05): I got them all. Suzanne Thompson (49:06): We love our lakes. Jared Correia (49:08): Yes. Lobster. Suzanne Thompson (49:09): We love Maine Maple Sunday is a big deal every year. Jared Correia (49:14): What is Suzanne Thompson (49:14): That? I mean, I will say I live with four Mainers. None of them like lobster. Jared Correia (49:21): Really? What's a Maple Sunday? What is that? Suzanne Thompson (49:25): It's in March. So there's a time in March, I think it's like the second or third weekend in March, someone can correct me, but it's like when the seasons kind of shift and all of a sudden the maple syrup starts running because the climate changes and all Jared Correia (49:37): Of the Suzanne Thompson (49:37): Maple houses around Maine open up and you can go do tours and they have apple cider donuts and tastings and activities, kids' activities. Yeah, it's fun. Jared Correia (49:46): I'm open to it. I'm also skeptical because of how much Mainers don't like outsiders. So I'm afraid it might be a purge. Suzanne Thompson (49:53): No, no, it's definitely a tourist thing. Jared Correia (49:55): Okay. Suzanne Thompson (49:56): I mean, I think the cool thing about Maine in the summer, I was sitting in a soccer game last night and another parent was like, "Are you going anywhere this summer?" And someone's like, "No, this is the only... Why would anyone leave Maine in summer?" Mainers feel that way. They were like, Jared Correia (50:09): "Are you from away or something? Wht's your Suzanne Thompson (50:10): Problem?" Yeah, pretty much. And my daughter and I were just out shopping, I guess, on Saturday or Sunday. And we're like, "Oh, that looks like a craft fair. Let's check it out. " And we walked into this, what we thought was a craft fair and it ended up being Oyster Festival. There were 40 booths with oysters from a 20 mile radius. And it was like only in Maine. Can you just walk randomly into the middle of Oyster Festival? And all of this stuff is from my town 15 minutes away and we just got plates and we just ate bunches of oysters. It was cool. So Maine in the summer is definitely the place to Jared Correia (50:45): Be. I would say New England in the summer is kind of amazing, except for Connecticut, because Connecticut's not really New England and Connecticut Suzanne Thompson (50:51): Sucks. I always kind of forget about Connecticut. Jared Correia (50:54): I hate Connecticut. Suzanne Thompson (50:55): No, just to Connecticut. I never spent a Jared Correia (50:57): Lot of time Suzanne Thompson (50:58): In Jared Correia (50:58): Connecticut. I hate Connecticut. Suzanne Thompson (51:00): I never spent time in Connecticut. Rhode Island, I spent a ton of time in. Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine. Yeah. Jared Correia (51:11): Now that I've assessed my varied degrees of love or hate for all the New England states, Vermont, you're cool too. Oh, Vermont is very cool. And New Hampshire. I think we can wrap this up. Suzanne, thanks for coming on today. Suzanne Thompson (51:24): No problem. Thanks for having me. Jared Correia (51:26): All right. Take care. We'll have to have you back sometime. Thanks for our guest today. That was Suzanne Thompson, who is chief bar counsel at the main board of overseers of the bar. To learn more about Suzanne and the main VBO, visit mebaroverseers.org. That's M-E-B-A-R-O-V-E-R-S-E-E-R-S.org, M-Ebaroverseers.org. Now, because I'll always be a '90s kid watching homie declown on In Living Color, but whose true passion is burning CDs for anyone who would listen, I'm now just doing the modern version of that, which is creating Spotify playlists for every podcast that I record where the songs are tangentially related to an episode topic. For this week's playlist, I've been songs with the word main in the title. Not to state, just the regular word. It's the main event. And it's all brought to you by Harvey. Those crazy motherfuckers building their own AI platform and hiring suits people to do their advertising. (52:27): I never watched suits. I guess that's the kind of shit you do when you have $200 million in funding. I wouldn't know. But that's also precisely why Harvey did not actually sponsor this podcast because I don't think they would prefer the phraseology. Join us next time when I drink an entire bottle of cough medicine and just stare into the camera like this. I