“Fox Rothschild Blocks DeepSeek’s AI Model for Attorney Use” —
- “Fox Rothschild LLP blocked its lawyers from accessing tools from DeepSeek, the Chinese artificial intelligence startup, citing concerns about the privacy risks it may pose to client data.”
- “The swift action comes as other Big Law firms, such as Polsinelli and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, are responding to the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence by implementing guardrails on their lawyers’ use of new technology.”
- “Fox Rothschild’s 900-plus attorneys use AI tools and, like many other firms, it doesn’t generally bar its lawyers from using ChatGPT, although it imposes restrictions on the use of AI with client data, Mark G. McCreary, the firm’s chief artificial intelligence and information security officer, said. But DeepSeek, launched by a Chinese investor, poses unique security challenges.”
- “‘It’s one thing to have a risk that somebody makes a mistake with ChatGPT,’ McCreary said. ‘It’s a completely different risk for someone to make a mistake with China.’”
- “McCreary, who chairs Fox Rothchild’s artificial intelligence practice and co-chairs its privacy and data security practice, said it was prudent to ban the app while details are still emerging, like how and where DeepSeek stores data.”
- “DeepSeek in its privacy terms says it collects and stores data in servers in China, Bloomberg News reported. ‘Hundreds’ of companies are working to block DeepSeek, whose AI chatbot recently rocketed to the top of Apple Store app downloads.”
- “A data breach this week illustrates further security concerns with DeepSeek, aside from the technology’s national origin, McCreary said. The cloud security company Wiz on Wednesday revealed it had discovered chat data and ‘highly sensitive information’ from DeepSeek on a public platform.”
- “AI concerns aren’t limited to Wilson Sonsini’s own use of new models, Datesh said. Vendors that law firms use rely on AI models on the back end and there could be an issue if those vendors switch from a known entity like ChatGPT to DeepSeek’s R1, she said.”
- “‘We expect them to kind of make sure that they’re alerting us when LLMs are changing that are not on our approved LLM list,’ Datesh said about vendors.”
- “Vendor concerns are less acute with the legal world’s leading technology tools, because the companies that make them understand that the protection of law firm data is integral to their ability to retain customers, McCreary said.”
- “‘I’m not real worried about somebody deciding they’re gonna save some money and go use DeepSeek,’ he said.”
See also: “DeepSeek data breach: A grim warning for AI security”
“DC Judge Declines To DQ Jenner & Block In Casino Dispute” —
- “A D.C. federal judge on Wednesday [1/22] rejected a bid from three Native American tribes to disqualify Jenner & Block LLP from a lawsuit that seeks to block the operation of a new casino in Oregon.”
- “The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Karuk Tribe and Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation had accused the firm of switching sides by representing the Coquille Indian Tribe in the D.C. litigation, having previously advised the three tribes in connection with the challenged casino. But U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled during a hearing that no such attorney-client relationship was ever established, so Jenner & Block is free to represent the Coquille tribe.”
- “The concurrent disqualification clash centered on Jenner & Block’s prior dealings with the plaintiff tribes.”
- “The three tribes alleged in a disqualification motion that Jenner & Block attorneys, including partner Keith Harper, had represented them in 2022 in connection with their opposition to the planned Medford casino. Allowing the firm and Harper to now represent their opponent would ‘give Coquille an ‘unfair advantage,” the tribes said.”
- “The Coquille tribe, on the other hand, contended in court filings that Jenner & Block’s discussions with the plaintiff tribes ‘were part of a business-development effort that never progressed to an attorney-client relationship.’”
- “Judge Mehta agreed Wednesday, finding that an attorney-client relationship never existed.”
