The Geek In Review

Ray Brescia joins The Geek in Review this week to unpack a role with peak academia vibes, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life at Albany Law School. Greg frames the title as “Chief Curator of Smart People Ideas,” and Ray embraces a “player-coach” approach, coaching faculty scholarship, unblocking stalled projects, and connecting peers across disciplines. The throughline is community, research momentum, and a practical view of how ideas move from draft to impact.The conversation then pivots to the core thesis of Ray’s book, Lawyer 3.0. Ray maps the legal profession across three eras: Lawyer 1.0 as a low-barrier “amorphous bar,” Lawyer 2.0 as the institutional buildout of law schools, bar exams, ethics codes, and modern law firms, and Lawyer 3.0 as the next inflection point driven by technology. Ray ties prior shifts to urbanization, immigration, and industrial-scale commerce, then parallels those forces with today’s generative AI and analytics reshaping research, drafting, discovery, and service delivery.Ray retells the famous milkshake study, then translates the idea into legal services: clients are not shopping for “a lawyer,” clients are shopping for problem resolution. This reframing pushes law firms to examine intake, scoping, and service design through the lens of client outcomes, business problems, and life problems, not internal practice labels. The milkshake becomes a metaphor for product-market fit in law, with fewer crumbs on the steering wheel.Ray contrasts “bespoke services” with productized pathways, including a Model T style offering that meets most client needs at lower cost, plus higher-cost custom work when risk or complexity demands. Ray highlights expert-system style workflows such as Citizenshipworks, describing a TurboTax-like experience for straightforward matters, with “red flags” triggering referral to a lawyer. The same logic extends to limited scope representation and “lawyer for the day” programs in high-volume courts, where informed consent, reasonable scope, and “first, do no harm” reduce the chance of clients feeling abandoned midstream.The final stretch tackles law firm AI adoption, hallucination risk, and professional responsibility. Ray stresses minimum competence: verify cases, verify quotations, verify sources, and treat generative outputs as drafts or starting points, not final work product. The panel discusses guardrails, education, and workflow design for large firms, plus the rising reality of clients arriving with AI-generated “research.” Ray’s crystal ball points toward more commoditized legal services at scale, a latent market of underserved people, and stronger interdisciplinary collaboration between lawyers and technologists so legal education aligns with Lawyer 3.0 realities.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | Substack [Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Transcript

Sateesh Nori joins us on The Geek in Review for an episode that flips the usual legal innovation conversation away from law firm efficiency and toward survival-grade help for people stuck in housing courts and legal aid queues. They open with news from Sateesh himself, he has started a new role with LawDroid, working with Tom Martin, and he frames the mission in plain terms. Legal tech should stop orbiting lawyers and start serving the person with the problem, especially the person who does not even know where to begin.Sateesh traces his path into law through debate, literature, politics, and a desire to push back on a family tradition of medicine. He describes his work as a long, continuous pursuit of fairness rather than a single turning point, and he admits the early myth that drew many into the profession, the dream of dramatic courtroom advocacy. The conversation quickly lands on the core tension, the legal system sells itself as rule of law and due process, yet ordinary people experience confusion, delay, and closed doors.From there, Sateesh offers his critique of the current AI gold rush in legal. Too many products promise “faster horses” for lawyers, while the access to justice gap remains untouched because the real bottleneck sits upstream. People need early guidance, clear pathways, and tools that reduce friction before problems metastasize into crises. He argues for technology as “life-preserving tools,” not lawyer toys, and pushes the industry to center tenants, families, and workers navigating high-stakes issues without counsel.The episode gets concrete with Depositron, a tool Sateesh helped bring to life with LawDroid to help renters recover security deposits through a simple, mobile-friendly workflow. He shares back-of-the-napkin math showing how large the problem is in New York, and why small, focused tools matter at scale. Greg ties the theme to earlier Geek in Review conversations about courts as a service, with the reminder that users experience the justice system like a bureaucracy, not a public utility built for them.Finally, Sateesh expands the lens to systemic redesign, triage and intake failures, burnout in legal aid, and the hard truth that the current one-on-one model leaves most people unserved. He explores funding ideas ranging from public investment to small-fee consumer tools that sustain themselves, and he sketches future-facing concepts like AI-assisted dispute resolution to provide faster closure. In the crystal ball segment, he predicts a reckoning for the legal market as AI reshapes client expectations, with major implications for law students, staffing models, and the profession’s sense of purpose.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | Substack [Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LawDroidLawAnswers AIDepositronRoxanne AI (Housing Court Answers)Housing Court AnswersJosef Sateesh Nori, The Augmented Lawyer (Substack)Transcript

Quinten Steenhuis brings a builder’s mindset to legal innovation, rooted in early Indymedia activism where scavenged hardware became community infrastructure. That scrappy origin story carries through a dozen years of eviction defense at Greater Boston Legal Services, with a steady focus on tools that help people solve problems without waiting for a savior in a suit. Along the way, Quinten also lived the unglamorous side of mission tech, keeping systems funded, supported, and usable when budgets get tight and priorities get loud.The conversation then jumps to Suffolk Law’s approach to generative AI education, including a required learning track for first-year students. Quinten frames the track as foundational training, then points to a deeper bench of follow-on courses and the LIT Lab clinic where students build with real tools, real partners, and real stakes. The throughline stays consistent, exposure alone solves nothing, so Suffolk puts reps, projects, and practice behind the syllabus.A standout segment tackles the “vaporware semester” problem, where student-built prototypes fade out once finals end. The LIT Lab fights that decay by narrowing tool choices, standardizing around DocAssemble, and supervising work with a clinic-style model, staff stay close, quality stays high, and maintenance stays owned. Projects ship through CourtFormsOnline, with ongoing updates, volunteer support, and a commitment to keep public-facing legal help online for the long haul.Then the episode turns toward agentic workflows, with examples from Quinten’s consulting work in Virginia and Oregon. One project uses voice-based intake to screen for eligibility, confirm location and income, gather the story in a person’s own words, and route matters into usable categories. Another project speeds bar referral by replacing slow human triage with faster classification and better user interaction patterns, fewer walls of typing, more guided choices, more yes-or-no steps, and fewer dead ends.In the closing stretch, Quinten shares the sources feeding his learning loop, LinkedIn, Legal Services Corporation’s Innovations conference, the LSNTAP mailing list, podcasts, and Bob Ambrogi’s LawSites, plus the occasional spicy Reddit detour. The crystal ball lands on a thorny challenge for both academia and practice, training lawyers for judgment and verification when AI outputs land near-correct most of the time, then fail in the exact moment nobody expects. Quinten’s bottom line feels blunt and optimistic at once, safe workflows matter, and the public already uses general chat tools for legal help, so the legal system needs harm-reducing alternatives that work.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Suffolk Lit LabLemma LegalPipe CatLinks (as shared by Quinten):Transcript

Cat Moon and Mark Williams return to The Geek in Review wearing two hats, plus one tiara. The conversation starts at Vanderbilt’s inaugural AI Governance Symposium, where “governance” means wildly different things depending on who shows up. Judges, policy folks, technologists, in-house leaders, and law firm teams all brought separate definitions, then bumped into each other during generous hallway breaks. Those collisions led to new research threads and fresh coursework, which feels like the real product of a symposium, beyond any single panel.One surprise thread moved from wonky sidebar to dinner-table topic fast, AI’s energy appetite and the rise of data centers as a local political wedge issue. Mark describes needing to justify the topic months earlier, then watching the news cycle catch up until no justification was needed. Greg connects the dots to Texas, where energy access, on-site generation, and data-center buildouts keep lawyers busy. The point lands, AI governance lives upstream from prompts and policies, down in grids, zoning fights, and infrastructure decisions.From there, the episode pivots to training, law students, and the messy transition from “don’t touch AI” to “your platforms already baked AI into the buttons.” Mark shares how students now return from summer programs having seen tools like Harvey, even if firms still look like teams building the plane during takeoff. Cat frames the real need as basic, course-by-course guidance so students gain confidence instead of fear. Greg adds a perfect artifact from the academic arms race, Exam Blue Book sales jumping because handwritten exams keep AI out of finals, while AI still helps study through tools like NotebookLM quiz generation.Governance talk gets practical fast, procurement, contract language, standards, and the sneaky problem of feature drift inside approved tools. Mark flags how smaller firms face a brutal constraint problem, limited budget, limited time, one shot to pick from hundreds of products, and no dedicated procurement bench. ISO 42001 shows up as a shorthand signal for vendor maturity, though standards still lag behind modern generative systems. Marlene brings the day-to-day friction, outside counsel guidelines, client consent, and repeated approvals slow adoption even after a tool passes internal reviews. Greg nails the operational pain, vendors ship new capabilities weekly, sometimes pushing teams from “closed universe” to “open internet” without much warning.The closing crystal ball lands on collaboration and humility. Cat argues for a future shaped by co-creation across firms, schools, and students, not a demand-and-defend standoff about “practice-ready” graduates. Mark zooms out to the broader shift in the knowledge-work apprenticeship model, fewer beginner reps, earlier specialization pressure, and new ownership models knocking on the door in places like Tennessee. Along the way, Cat previews Women + AI Summit 2.0, with co-created content, travel stipends for speakers, workshops built around take-home artifacts, plus a short story fiction challenge to write women into the future narrative, tiara energy optional but encouraged.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Judge Scott Schlegel of the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal joins The Geek in Review for a candid, funny, and unflinchingly practical conversation about AI inside the judicial system. Schlegel wears multiple hats, appellate judge, former prosecutor, reform-minded builder, plus a podcaster and Substack writer who speaks plainly about what works and what fails when technology hits real people on real timelines. The throughline stays consistent, courts do not need more hype, courts need competence, guardrails, and a process mindset.Judge Schlegel tackles the messy reality of AI disclosures, certifications, and uneven court rules across jurisdictions. His core message lands fast, judicial authority lives with the judge, not an AI system. From there, he outlines why chambers guidance matters, along with a structured, step-by-step approach for responsible drafting support, including prompt discipline and workflow thinking. The goal stays simple, faster decisions without surrendering judgment to “bot overlords.”The discussion then shifts to constraints judges live with every day, budgets, procurement rules, security anxiety, and the gap between shiny vendor demos and courthouse reality. Schlegel argues for a scrappy, process-first approach using small pilots, one chambers, one workflow, one measurable result. He compares the moment to early “cloud” adoption lessons, pay for the right security, avoid free tools where the user becomes the product, and treat sensitive records with strict care. Courts will see broader adoption as enterprise-grade options become attainable and baked into trusted platforms.Then comes the part that lingers in your head after the episode ends, deepfakes and voice cloning as a near-term threat to due process, especially in domestic violence and protective order contexts. Schlegel explains why judges tend to err on the side of safety, and why “damage done” shows up long before expert testimony arrives. His practical recommendation focuses on pretrial practice, require disclosure, surface manipulation concerns early, and reduce surprises at trial. He even shares a simple family safety habit, a private “secret word” to confirm identity during urgent calls, since voice cloning tools lower the barrier for fraud.Finally, Schlegel offers a sharp warning about confirmation bias, large language models often aim to please the user, which benefits advocates and harms neutral decision-making. His answer: an “AI alignment test” mindset, deliberate prompting, and refusal to outsource the white-page moment to a model. For the future, he points toward structural change courts rarely receive funding for, true legal technologists who redesign case management and public-facing guidance at scale. If courts stop printing emails and living in wire baskets, progress follows, and yes, somewhere in a parallel universe, Schlegel still wants a hologram machine.Judge Schlegel, his court, and his workJudge Schlegel bio page. Judge Scott SchlegelLouisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal profile page for Judge Schlegel. Fifth Circuit Court of AppealJudge Schlegel’s Tech & Gavel landing page. Judge Scott SchlegelTech & Gavel on Apple Podcasts. Apple PodcastsAI-in-courts guidance, plus his newsletter“AI in Chambers: A Framework for Judicial AI Use” (includes the download link). Judge Scott SchlegelSchlegel Tech Substack newsletter. [sch]Legal Tech SubstackDeepfakes, provenance, and content credentialsC2PA, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, “About” page. C2PAListen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Join Sarah Glassmeyer, a legal tech analyst, and Niki Black, a strategist for solo and small firms, as they reflect on the wild world of legal tech in 2025. They discuss the overwhelming emergence of generative AI, noting its rapid adoption among solos and smaller firms. The conversation unveils a shift towards business-tier AI alternatives while cautioning against the perils of hallucinations. They share insights on regulatory implications, the challenges of using multiple tools, and speculate on AI's impact on billing practices, making for a thought-provoking year-end recap.

For decades, “the record” has meant one thing: a text transcript built by skilled stenographers, trusted by courts, and treated as the backbone of due process. In this episode of The Geek in Review, Marlene Gebauer and Greg Lambert sit down with JP Son, Verbit’s Chief Legal Officer, and Matan Barak, Head of Legal Product, to talk about what happens when a labor shortage, rising demand, and better speech technology collide. Verbit has been in legal work since day one, supporting court reporting agencies behind the scenes, but their latest push aims to modernize the full arc of proceedings, from depositions through courtroom workflows, with faster turnaround and more usable outputs.A core tension sits at the center of the conversation: innovation versus legitimacy. Marlene presses on whether digital records carry the same defensibility as stenographic ones, and JP frames Verbit’s posture as support, not replacement. Verbit is not a court reporting agency; their angle is tooling that helps certified professionals and agencies produce better outcomes, including real-time workflows that once required heavy manual effort. The result is less “robots replace reporters” and more “reporters with better gear,” which feels like the only way this transition avoids an industry food fight in every courthouse hallway.From there, the discussion shifts into the practical, lawyer-facing side: LegalVisor as a “virtual second chair.” JP describes it as distinct from the official transcript, a real-time layer built to surface insights, track progress, and support strategy while the deposition is happening. Matan adds the design story, discovery work, shadowing, and interviews to build for what second chairs are already doing, hunting inconsistencies, chasing exhibits, and keeping the outline on track. A key theme: the transcript is not going away, because lawyers still rely on it for clients, remote teammates, and quick backtracking, but the value climbs when the transcript turns into a live workspace with search, references, and outline coverage in front of you while testimony unfolds.Accuracy and trust show up as recurring guardrails. Greg pokes at the “99 percent accurate” claims floating around the market, and Matan makes the point every litigator appreciates, the missing one percent contains the word that flips meaning. Verbit’s “human in the loop” posture and its Captivate approach focus on pushing accuracy toward the level legal settings require, including case-specific preparation by extracting names and terms from documents to tune recognition in context. The episode also tackles confidentiality head-on, with JP drawing a hard line: Verbit does not use client data to train generative models, and they keep business pipelines separate across verticals.Finally, the crystal ball question lands where courts love to resist, changing the definition of “the record.” Marlene asks whether the future record becomes searchable, AI-tagged video rather than text-first transcripts. JP says not soon, pointing to centuries of text-based infrastructure and the slow grind of institutional acceptance. Matan calls the shift inevitable, arriving in pieces, feature by feature, so the system evolves without pretending it is swapping the engine mid-flight. Along the way, there are glimpses of what comes next, including experiments borrowing media tech, such as visual description to interpret behavior cues in video. The big takeaway feels simple: the record stays sacred, but the work around it no longer needs to stay stuck.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Jennifer McIver, Associate Director of Legal Operations at Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions, shares her journey from aspiring forensic pathologist to legal ops leader. She emphasizes the importance of data visibility and effective dashboards over cluttered reports. Jennifer warns against overwhelming intake forms that lead to meaningless 'Other' categories. She also discusses the practical use of AI in enhancing productivity while tackling law firm pricing challenges and the value of strong partnerships through transparency and communication.

Join John Tertan, Founder of Narrative, as he delves into the complexities of law firm pricing and the messy data that plagues the industry. With a rich background in big law, John explains how his company aims to improve decision-making in law firms by grounding it in accurate data. He discusses the importance of substance over flashy tech, the pain points driving firms to seek help, and the future of pricing models. John's journey from associate to innovator brings valuable insights into legal tech's transformative potential.

Join Steve Matthews, founder of STEM Legal and Slaw.ca, Sarah Sutherland, legal tech expert from Parallax Information Consulting, and Jordan Furlong, insightful legal market analyst. They dive into two decades of legal publishing evolution, discussing the risks of relying on 'rented land' for professionals. The trio reflects on the fallout from Twitter's changes, the growing appeal of Substack, and the essential role of lawyers as truth-tellers in a disinformation era. They also explore how AI will reshape content creation, emphasizing the need for human verification in publishing.