https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/Explore expert legal analysis, insights, and product updates on the US LexisNexis Legal Insights blog to stay informed and ahead in the legal tech field.en-USTelligent Community 9https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/law-books/b/law-books/posts/health-care-in-corrections-why-intake-continuity-of-care-and-documentation-matterTue, 28 Apr 2026 19:32:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:5311ca70-9e91-4c47-be81-d6c3dd91f543Lorella BainHealth Care Is Also an Operational Issue In correctional settings, health care is often framed as a clinical responsibility. But in practice, we know that it is also deeply operational. It affects staffing, communication, risk management and increasingly, litigation exposure. As recent cases make clear, many lawsuits do not stem from a single dramatic event. More often, they grow out of routine breakdowns that build over time: missed symptoms, delays in evaluation, interruptions in medication, failures to accommodate disability-related needs, poor follow-up or gaps in communication between custody and clinical staff. Recent correctional litigation shows that medical and mental health care failures remain a major source of court involvement, including delays in care, ADA-related issues and broader systemic deficiencies. For correctional professionals, that pattern is not surprising. Facilities are responsible for large populations with complex medical and mental health needs, all while operating under constant pressure and limited resources. In that environment, everyday processes carry weight. Intake, medication verification, sick call follow-up, specialty referrals, housing decisions, and documentation all play a critical role. When those processes work, they support both patient care and facility stability. When they break down, they can quickly become central issues in litigation. Intake as the First Point of Risk Identification One of the clearest lessons from recent cases is that intake and admission often provide the first opportunity to identify risk. That is the stage where staff begin to determine whether an individual has chronic medical conditions, active symptoms, withdrawal concerns, mobility limitations, mental health needs, medication dependencies, or disabilities that may require accommodation. If those issues are missed at the outset, the consequences can extend well beyond the medical unit, affecting housing, discipline, programming, and day-to-day operations. That is why intake should not be viewed as a routine checkpoint. It sets the stage for continuity of care. Recent litigation has included claims involving the alleged denial of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. In Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. , for example, the allegations centered on denial of medication and inadequate screening for incarcerated individuals with OUD. Cases like that underscore a larger operational reality: when someone enters a facility already relying on medication, treatment, or monitoring, any delay in verification or continuation of care can create immediate risk. It can also lead to destabilization, grievances, emergency transport, or more serious outcomes. Delays in Care Can Become Serious Liability Several recent cases have centered on delayed diagnosis and follow-up. In one Oregon case review, the presentation described claims that medical staff waited months to order imaging for an incarcerated person reporting persistent complaints, debilitating pain and weight loss. An outside review also found a backlog of nearly 600 medical appointments, with some incarcerated women reportedly waiting six months or longer for routine tests, screenings, referrals and initial health assessments. The lesson is difficult to ignore: in corrections, liability does not arise only from emergencies. Routine delays can also become the basis for serious claims. Tanner v. Colorado Department of Corrections reinforces that point. Tanner alleged that staff failed to send him to the hospital for roughly 36 hours despite a dangerously high fever, low oxygen levels, vomiting, and repeated pleas for help. By the time he arrived at the hospital, he was in septic shock and the delay allegedly resulted in catastrophic, permanent injuries, including the amputation of his left hand, partial amputation of his right hand and loss of large portions of both feet. The case later led to an $8 million settlement. Whether the issue is delayed emergency treatment or slow follow-up on chronic symptoms, the core question is often the same: did the facility recognize the seriousness of the situation, respond reasonably and document its actions? Communication Between Custody and Clinical Staff This question brings communication into focus. In a correctional environment, health care does not happen in isolation. Officers are often the first to notice when someone is struggling to breathe, unable to eat, limping, vomiting, confused, unable to get off a bunk, or repeatedly complaining of worsening pain. Medical staff may understand the clinical implications, but they depend on timely and accurate information from the housing unit. When communication between custody and clinical teams is inconsistent, informal or incomplete, serious concerns can be missed. A practical response is to strengthen cross-functional review and communication. Consider doing a weekly high-risk medical and mental health review team that includes security, operations, disciplinary leadership, shift command, medical and mental health staff, and legal representatives. That process can be further strengthened by meeting summaries, documented action plans for each high-risk inmate and more structured communication between custody and clinical teams. These are not simply sound administrative practices. They are systems that help facilities identify problems earlier, clarify responsibility and demonstrate that known risks were taken seriously. Documentation as an Operational Safeguard Documentation is equally important. In correctional litigation, actions that are not documented may be treated as actions that never happened. If an individual repeatedly complained of symptoms, was referred for evaluation, had medication concerns reviewed or was placed on a follow-up plan, the record should clearly reflect it. Good documentation is not only useful in defending claims after the fact. It also strengthens operations in real time by helping supervisors understand what has already occurred, alerting staff to unresolved concerns and reinforcing accountability for follow-through. Health Care and ADA-Related Obligations Recent cases also show that health care-related risk increasingly overlaps with disability law. The California case highlighted in the presentation included allegations of inadequate medical and mental health care alongside ADA-related failures, including insufficient accommodations and barriers to programming access. That distinction matters. The legal standard is not limited to whether care was constitutionally adequate. Facilities must also consider whether individuals with medical or mental health limitations have meaningful access to movement, services, housing and programs. Questions Correctional Leaders Should Be Asking For correctional leaders, the broader takeaway is not simply that care should improve in general terms. It is that the operational systems supporting care deserve close attention. Some questions to consider as you are assessing this: Are intake screenings thorough enough to identify urgent needs? Are medications verified and continued without unnecessary interruption? Are chronic complaints escalated when symptoms persist or worsen? Are officers and clinicians sharing information in a consistent, structured way? Are accommodations being considered and documented? Are high-risk cases being reviewed across disciplines instead of remaining siloed? Those questions matter because many of the most significant vulnerabilities are not hidden in rare or unusual events. They arise in ordinary moments such as a sick-call request that sat too long, a medication that was not restarted promptly, a symptom that was noted but never escalated, or a concern one department assumed another was handling. In corrections, those routine moments often determine whether care holds together or begins to fail. Contact Us Learn how LexisNexis® can help your organization support legal access with current, authoritative legal resources designed to help correctional teams navigate evolving legal requirements with greater confidence. Contact us at lexisnexis.com/corrections . The Broader Lesson If we’ve learned anything from the aforementioned cases, it is that correctional liability often takes shape in the gaps between policy and practice . Intake, medication continuity, follow-up, communication, accommodations, and documentation may seem routine, but they are often where the greatest risks emerge. When those systems function well, they support timely care, safer operations and stronger decision-making across the facility. When they fail, the consequences can be serious for both incarcerated individuals and the facility. That is the final takeaway: in corrections, health care is not sustained by clinical care alone, it is sustained by the operational discipline behind it.CorrectionsLaw Bookshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/product-features/posts/product-spotlight-erodTue, 28 Apr 2026 14:18:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:942dedd2-2b77-40ac-80de-e4634098faadVirginie De SmechtThere’s a moment that most litigators dread: you’re preparing to depose the other side’s expert witness, or your own expert is about to be deposed, and a damaging detail surfaces that you never saw coming. A prior inconsistent opinion buried in a transcript from eight years ago, a disciplinary action from a licensing board or testimony in a dozen similar cases that cuts directly against the position your expert is now being asked to defend. These aren’t hypotheticals, they happen every day. And given that the vast majority of civil disputes settle before trial, the deposition is often the highest-stakes moment in the entire case for shaping damages, hardening positions or triggering deals. An expert who gets shredded in deposition often doesn’t get a second chance; the damage is already done. Related Post: What Is Legal Analytics The expert witness blind spot Whether a case settles or goes to trial, expert witnesses can make or break the outcome in a dispute. This is why expert witness vetting isn’t just a trial preparation task, it’s a core litigation strategy tool that matters from the moment that an expert is identified. The problem often isn’t lack of diligence; it’s lack of access. Expert witnesses accumulate histories across years of testimony, hundreds of cases and multiple jurisdictions. That history lives in court records, deposition transcripts, unpublished rulings on motions to exclude, and disciplinary databases scattered across dozens of sources. No attorney has time to run all of that down manually … but the consequences of not running it down can be severe. This challenge runs in both directions: Litigators need to know whether their own expert is bulletproof before opposing counsel finds a crack in deposition; and Litigators need to know everything possible about the other side’s expert before they sit down across the table from them or before they take the stand at trial. “Expert witness research is central to litigation strategy. Critical expert history can significantly impact outcomes but is often difficult to access. EROD surfaces this information efficiently, delivering actionable insights that help attorneys evaluate experts with confidence and avoid surprises during deposition, motions, or trial.” - Eric Wright, Senior Vice President, LexisNexis This is the research problem that Lexis®️ Expert Research On-Demand (EROD) was built to solve. Related Post: Product Spotlight: Lexis Verdict Settlement Analyzer Beyond the CV: What a real vetting process looks like EROD is a professional research service, not a database subscription, that puts experienced research analysts to work on a litigator’s specific request. The lawyer is not handed a login and left to search on their own, they submit a request and receive a packaged, curated report from LexisNexis. These reports draw on a proprietary database of more than 488,000 expert witnesses, combined with access to more than 40,000 news sources and 92 billion public records through exclusive LexisNexis content holdings. That breadth is what makes the service capable of surfacing information that simply doesn’t show up in conventional research, such as unpublished rulings, hard-to-find deposition transcripts and disciplinary actions that never make headlines. Types of expert witness reports available The core report types address the most common litigation needs: A Testimonial History Report maps an expert’s prior casework (e.g., how many times they have testified, in what types of cases and for which side); Enhanced Challenge Reports leverage proprietary algorithms to compile and analyze the record of motions challenging that expert’s admissibility under Daubert , Frye or other standards; and Disciplinary Action Reports surface professional sanctions and licensing board actions. EROD can also compile articles and published writings by the expert, which can be valuable for identifying statements that cut against their anticipated opinions at deposition or trial. Related Post: Casemap AI Delivers Time-Saving Transcript and Document Summarization for Litigators The litigator’s strategic weapon Most attorneys instinctively think of expert research as a tool for going after the other side’s witness. To be sure, that is a primary use case, but experienced litigators use it equally to protect their own experts. Consider what opposing counsel is doing to prepare for your expert’s deposition. If there are inconsistencies in your expert’s prior testimony, gaps between their published writings and their anticipated opinions, or professional disciplinary history that could be exploited during deposition or trial, you want to know about it before opposing counsel does. EROD’s research capabilities work the same way regardless of whose expert you are examining. The service is also particularly valuable in jurisdictions that limit discovery. In those situations, identifying who the opposing party has retained as an expert can itself require serious investigative work. EROD is a strategic weapon for identifying opposing experts even when disclosure has been restricted, giving litigators a meaningful head start on preparation. Expert witness resources for litigators Expert Research On-Demand is a transactional “pay as you go” service from LexisNexis that allows litigation teams to find and evaluate expert witnesses with the help of dedicated research analysts. Legal professionals request specific information about an expert and a LexisNexis research team will explore potential weaknesses, conflicts or other vetting criteria established in a confidential discussion. EROD was recognized as a TechnoLawyer “Hot Product” for 2025. For pricing information or to register for a new account, get started here . Expert witness research and vetting FAQ’s How do you research an expert witness effectively? Research goes beyond a CV and includes prior testimony, case history, and deposition transcripts. Review this record helps identify inconsistencies and potential risk. The goal is to be fully prepared before deposition or trial. What should be included in an expert witness vetting process? A strong vetting process includes testimonial history, admissibility rulings, publications, and disciplinary actions. This helps assess credibility and identify patterns that could impact performance. It ensures the expert can withstand scrutiny. Why is expert witness research important in litigation? Expert witnesses can influence strategy, settlement, and case outcomes. Missing a prior inconsistency or credibility issue can weaken your position. Early research helps avoid surprises and strengthens preparation. Where can you find expert witness information? Information is spread across court records, deposition transcripts, regulatory filings and new sources. These sources are often fragmented and time-consuming to search manually. Comprehensive research requires pulling from multiple data sets. How do attorneys identify weaknesses in an opposing expert witness? Attorneys analyze prior testimony, published work, and admissibility challenges. They look for inconsistencies, exclusions, or disciplinary history. These insights support stronger cross-examination and motion strategy.Expert Research On-DemandERODhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/ai-for-practice-of-lawMon, 27 Apr 2026 14:19:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:7df98885-a858-4bed-bbe7-7cb45cf5cd6fVirginie De SmechtHow AI is transforming the practice of law for attorneys Ask any lawyer what the practice of law involves on a day-to-day basis and you will get an answer that goes far beyond writing briefs or reviewing contracts. You are likely to hear about a variety of judgment calls that involve deciding how to approach a matter, choosing which legal strategies to deploy, determining the best way to tackle a specific task, or how to make sure that legal work can withstand scrutiny from clients, opposing counsel, courts and regulators. Understanding that range of daily activity is more important than ever right now because the technology entering legal workflows is increasingly powerful — but that tech needs to be aligned with how legal work actually gets done. This is the second post in a four-part series exploring how LexisNexis is redefining the standard of legal practice in the age of AI. The first post introduced the series and outlined three pillars shaping that new standard. Here, we take a deeper look at the importance of building AI that is purpose-built for how lawyers actually work. How the practice of law is changing with AI The core of legal practice has always been built on a progression: a lawyer assesses the situation, applies the relevant expertise and data, follows a structured legal process, and then delivers a defensible work product. Whether the task is drafting a motion, analyzing a contract or preparing for trial, that sequence is what has always separated competent legal work from guesswork. What has changed in recent years is the speed and scale at which these steps can be augmented by technology, with a sea change occurring since the widespread availability of artificial intelligence tools. Seven in 10 attorneys now use AI at least once a week in their legal practice, according to a Law360 Pulse report in March 2026, with double-digit growth in use for research, document summarization and drafting. But adoption alone doesn’t tell the full story. The Law360 Pulse survey also revealed a rising discomfort that many of them share over whether the necessary safeguards around those tools have kept pace, with 44% saying they now see both the pros and cons of AI adoption in the legal industry. That was in sharp contrast to last year’s survey, where 73% of frequent AI users held a positive view of the technology. “Attorneys who frequently use artificial intelligence tools are starting to feel less positive and more neutral about the technology’s adoption in the legal industry,” reported Law360 . Why generic AI falls short in legal work Legal work requires tools that understand the difference between a first draft and a defensible document. It demands technology that can Shepardize a citation, extract a clause in context or validate an argument against secondary sources — not just produce text that reads like it might be correct. The ongoing list of risks assumed by attorneys who placed their trust in work product created by general-purpose AI tools is serious. This mismatch isn’t just organizational, it’s architectural. Most AI tools available today were built for use by individuals and small businesses who need assistance with answering questions, drafting emails or summarizing text. They are impressive at generating language. But generating language is not the practice of law. This is where purpose-built legal AI separates itself from the pack. Rather than retrofitting general-purpose models to handle legal tasks, purpose-built tools are designed from the ground up around the key aspects of the practice of law. The best of these tools were developed according to a time-tested understanding of specific skills, data requirements and workflows that define how lawyers actually do their jobs. Three key elements of AI built for the practice of law At LexisNexis, we have focused on three core concepts that mirror how legal work gets done: 1.Legal skills in AI for lawyers These are the discrete capabilities required to handle specific tasks with trusted data. For example, they might include summarizing a deposition transcript, extracting key terms from a contract, Shepardizing a citation or running a conflict check. These are not generic writing tasks, they are specialized functions that require domain-specific training and access to authoritative legal content. 2.Legal workflows and AI automation These are repeatable, multi-step legal processes that chain those skills together. Drafting a legal memorandum, for example, isn’t a single action so much as it is a sequence of actions: research the issue, analyze the relevant authorities, draft the argument, review and validate the citations. A technology platform designed for the practice of law understands that sequence and supports it end to end. 3.AI agents for legal tasks These are goal-driven systems that can take on a request, figure out the steps required, and use the available skills and workflows to complete it. For example, when a lawyer asks an AI assistant to analyze a contract and redraft several clauses based on their organization’s playbook, the system needs to plan the work, execute each step in the right order and refine the output. It’s not good enough to use an AI tool to produce a block of text and then hope for the best. This layered architecture of Skills, Workflows and Agents is what makes AI feel less like a chatbot and more like a capable associate who understands how legal work actually gets done. What’s next for AI in the legal industry In the next post in this series, we’ll explore the second pillar of the standard of legal practice in the age of AI: why trust in legal AI must be built on authoritative data … and what happens when it isn’t. Experience Lexis+® with Protégé™ Lexis+ with Protégé delivers purpose-built, end-to-end legal AI workflows with an intuitive user interface designed to make trusted legal work possible with one prompt. New workflow capabilities within Lexis+ with Protégé automate drafting, review, analysis and citation checking into scalable and repeatable legal processes that simplify complex legal work and deliver consistent, high-quality results across teams. Learn more about Lexis+ with Protégé’s capabilities or request a free trial today. or request a free trial today.Lexis+ AIProtégéLexis+ with ProtegeProtegeLexisNexis Protegehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/standard-of-legal-practice-in-aiFri, 24 Apr 2026 13:25:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:21a0410d-712c-4ab2-9e37-7b4d79d53959Virginie De SmechtA majority of lawyers are now using AI tools in their work, but trust in the technology has not kept up with the speed of adoption. Firms are investing, experimenting and, in many cases, struggling to reconcile AI’s promise with the very real risks of unreliable outputs from the patchwork of general-purpose AI tools that don’t speak the language of law. Against this backdrop, LexisNexis is making a bet that the future of AI isn’t just about faster text generation. Our view is that it’s about building technology that mirrors the way lawyers actually work : grounded in authoritative data, structured around legal processes and designed to earn the kind of trust the profession demands. AI in Law Today: Adoption vs. Trust Big Tech companies are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into AI infrastructure. These general-purpose large language models are remarkable at producing fluent, confident prose. But legal professionals have learned the hard way that these tools are far less reliable at producing accurate legal citations, jurisdiction-specific analysis or work product that will survive scrutiny from a partner, opposing counsel or federal judge. For example, a chatbot can summarize a contract, but it doesn’t know your firm’s standard clause language. It can draft interrogatories, but without awareness of jurisdiction-specific rules or the particulars of your case. And critically, it can’t verify whether its citations are accurate or whether the law it references is still good law. These problems with general-purpose AI tools have led legal professionals to be skeptical of AI outputs. Indeed, s urveys show that most firms have begun formally using some form of AI in their workflows, but firm leaders remain deeply concerned about reliability. The takeaway isn’t that AI is failing to deliver results for legal professionals, it’s that AI without the right foundation presents important risks to law firms. The message for the moment in which we find ourselves as a profession is that the standard of practice needs both AI fluency and trustworthy data underneath it. Three Pillars of Modern Legal AI Practice LexisNexis is framing our approach around three interconnected ideas, each of which will be explored in greater depth in upcoming posts on this blog: 1. AI Built for Legal Workflows Generic AI tools were not designed with legal workflows in mind. Lexis+ with Protégé is built around how lawyers actually work : drafting, analysis, validation and citation checking. The platform introduces a layered architecture of legal skills (e.g., discrete tasks like summarization or clause extraction), workflows (multi-step processes like research-to-memo) and agents (goal-driven legal AI assistants that plan, execute and refine complex requests). The idea is that when a lawyer asks Protégé to analyze a contract and redraft clauses against their organization’s playbook, the system doesn’t just generate text — it mirrors the decision-making process a lawyer would follow. 2. Trusted Legal AI Powered by Authoritative Data Lawyers don’t trust AI outputs on blind faith. Rather, they trust citations, precedents and their own verified work product. LexisNexis seeks to come alongside legal professionals by delivering trustworthy AI-powered tools that are private, secure and authoritative. Our 200 billion-plus document repository (with four million new documents added daily) connects with our customers’ own work product uploaded into secure vaults and — where appropriate — general web data to enable the creation of finished, verifiable legal work within a private and secure environment. Our conviction is that high-quality AI-powered outcomes require grounding from authoritative sources, not just a large language model’s best guess. 3. AI-Powered Draf ting as a Legal Process Perhaps the sharpest distinction that we draw in our vision for the standard of legal practice in the age of AI is between text generation and legal drafting. Drafting in law isn’t just writing, it’s building a structured and supportable legal argument. Protégé is designed to treat drafting as a legal process , not an output, with tools that extend across Microsoft 365 and Copilot to support defensible AI-powered drafting wherever lawyers are already working. The emphasis is on producing work that can withstand scrutiny, not just save lawyers time. What’s Next for AI in the Legal Practice This post is the first in a four-part series exploring how LexisNexis is redefining the standard of legal practice in the age of AI. In the weeks ahead, we’ll take a deeper look at each of the three pillars described above, examining a few key themes: what it means to build legal AI that is purpose-built for the profession; why authoritative data is the non-negotiable foundation of trust; and how AI-powered drafting is evolving from novelty to necessity. E xperience Lexis +® with Protégé™ Lexis+ with Protégé delivers purpose-built, end-to-end legal AI workflows with an intuitive user interface designed to make trusted legal work possible with one prompt. New workflow capabilities within Lexis+ with Protégé automate drafting, review, analysis and citation checking into scalable and repeatable legal processes that simplify complex legal work and deliver consistent, high-quality results across teams. L earn more about Lexis+ with Protégé’s capabilities or request a free trial today.Lexis+ AILexis+ with ProtegeLexisNexis Protegehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/me-s-data-center-ban-moreWed, 22 Apr 2026 17:06:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:3a9fbdb1-6f38-42f4-a9f5-58d81e1a2aa5Alyzza AustriacoME Lawmakers Pass Data Center Ban The Maine Legislature passed a bill ( HB 207 ) that would make the state the first to temporarily ban the development of large data centers. The measure would impose an 18-month moratorium on new data centers that use more than 20 megawatts of power and create a council of government officials, experts and other stakeholders to come up with plans for future data center development. Gov. Janet Mills (D) said the measure would have to include an exemption for a proposed $550 million project in the town of Jay in order for her to support it. ( MAINE PUBLIC RADIO, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) VA Gov Signs Data Center Bills Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) signed a pair of bills ( HB 153 and SB 94 ) that would require data center developers and those seeking to use 100 megawatts or more of electricity to conduct a site assessment of the noise impact of their project on nearby homes and schools. She also signed a pair of measures ( HB 496 and SB 553 ) requiring authorities that provide water to data centers to publicly disclose the facilities’ water usage. ( CARDINAL NEWS , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ibogaine-drawing-attention-from-state-lawmakers-and-trump-moreWed, 22 Apr 2026 17:03:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:f2d4746e-bfb1-48b7-8f1c-d887796f2f58Alyzza AustriacoState and Federal Funding Flowing for Ibogaine Research President Donald Trump signed an executive order providing up to $50 million in federal funding for states to conduct research on ibogaine, a psychedelic drug that hasn’t received FDA approval for any medical use but has shown promise for treating opioid use disorder and PTSD. Several states, including Arizona, Mississippi and Texas have already approved funding for clinical trials on the drug, and ibogaine bills are also advancing in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Tennessee. ( PLURIBUS NEWS ) State AGs Pushing for Federal Drug Pricing Transparency Rules A bipartisan group of attorneys general led by Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond (R) is calling for new federal rules to increase prescription drug pricing transparency. The AGs want the U.S. Department of Labor to require pharmacy benefit managers to report revenue details twice a year. They also want to make sure the new rules don’t override existing state laws and that federal regulators coordinate their enforcement efforts with state attorneys general. ( MCCARVILLE REPORT ) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/privacy-concerns-about-smart-glasses-catch-legislators-eyesWed, 22 Apr 2026 13:15:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:bd056ddc-b91a-4ac8-afe9-f6c86018619bMary Anne PeckSmart glasses, like Ray-Ban Meta frames, allow wearers to take photos and videos, listen to music and make calls without ever picking up a phone. The technology, however, can also permit users to record others without them noticing and that has begun to worry some state legislators. This year lawmakers in California and Louisiana have introduced legislation addressing burgeoning privacy concerns over smart glasses and other wearable devices. California’s SB 1130 , the Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act by Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes (D), would update the Golden State’s privacy laws by creating a brand-new crime: using a wearable device to capture audio or video of another person at a place of business where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy without explicit consent. The current version of the bill would also ban anyone from disabling any light or other indicator on a wearable recording device that shows it is capturing audio or video, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale, acquisition, and use of technology that allows the disabling of such an indicator. “Californians have a constitutional right to privacy, and our laws must evolve as quickly as technology, to prevent harm,” Reyes said in a press release. “Secretly recording someone under the guise of prescription-style glasses—especially when many people don’t even know this technology exists—has real consequences. We have an obligation as lawmakers to put a stop to it.” A spokesperson for Meta told WIRED magazine , “Our terms of service clearly state that users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and for using Ray-Ban Meta glasses in a safe, respectful manner.” He added that “as with any recording device, people shouldn’t use them for engaging in harmful activities like harassment, infringing on privacy rights, or capturing sensitive information.” He also pointed out that the company’s glasses have an LED recording light that makes it “unequivocally clear that content is being captured.” But WIRED noted that “the internet abounds with simple guides on how to keep recording while the light is covered.” Louisiana’s HB 410 by Reps. Laurie Schlegel (R) and Kathy Edmonston (R) takes a different approach than California’s measure, prohibiting an in-person participant in a conversation where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy from using a portable device to record the conversation without notifying all parties involved. The measure, which has already been passed by the House, includes a number of exceptions. For example, it would not apply to public or semi-public meetings; law enforcement or first-responder activities; recordings made to preserve evidence for civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings; recordings of public officials performing official duties in public places; and lawful recordings of police by private people who are not interfering; as well as recordings of conversations made by nonparticipants or by participants located at their own residences. But violators of the measure’s provisions would be liable for damages, including court costs and attorneys’ fees. An article last month in the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report said HB 410 “faces opposition from the Louisiana Press Association, which warns it could hinder journalism and newsgathering, setting up a broader debate over privacy, free speech and the limits of emerging tech.” The proposal was reportedly introduced in response to the rise of social media posts showing women recorded without their consent. So-called “ manfluencers ” or content creators preaching misogynistic views secretly record their interactions with women using smart glasses , then post the videos online for others in the “ manosphere ” to mock. Lawmakers’ Concerns about Smart Glasses Focus Mainly on Schools At least 10 states considered bills this year referring to “AI glasses” or “smart glasses,” according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Most of the measures, including one enacted in Utah ( HB 42 ), are aimed at prohibiting the use of such glasses in schools. But Louisiana’s smart glasses bill ( HB 410) and a measure in California ( SB 1130 ) that refers to “wearable recording devices” rather than “AI glasses” or “smart glasses,” address broader privacy concerns about the devices. Wearable Devices Pose Host of Privacy and Workplace Concerns In addition to facilitating harassment, smart glasses and other wearable devices pose new compliance challenges for businesses. In a December 2025 National Law Review commentary on compliance risks associated with AI smart glasses, attorney Joseph J. Lazzarotti of the firm Jackson Lewis PC wrote that facial recognition, voiceprint capture and eye tracking capabilities of some AI glasses could potentially violate biometric-privacy laws. The commentary pointed to a 2022 class-action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs alleged that beauty brand Charlotte Tilbury violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act by using virtual try-on tools that captured facial geometry without proper disclosures or consent. The case was later settled , with Charlotte Tilbury denying wrongdoing. But Lazzarotti argued that similar legal theories could apply to AI glasses that process visual or audio data constituting biometric information. There are also worries that smart glasses could be used to illegally surveil employees in the workplace, aid in corporate espionage or run afoul of workplace safety regulations. “While these devices offer numerous benefits, they also present unique legal challenges, particularly in California, where privacy and workplace safety are paramount,” wrote employment attorney Sahara Pynes for the Fox Rothschild law firm blog. “Employers must navigate these issues carefully to ensure compliance with applicable laws and maintain a safe and respectful work environment.” Privacy concerns don’t end there, either. Meta is facing a federal class-action lawsuit alleging that the company’s advertising of its AI Ray-Ban glasses, using messages like “ designed for privacy, controlled by you ,” contradicts Meta policy providing for human review of customers’ footage when they share it with Meta AI, which the plaintiffs also claim the company failed to adequately disclose. Given that the smart glasses market only began taking off in the last few years , driven by strong demand for Ray-Ban Meta frames, it’s not surprising these issues are just beginning to surface. And as we’ve seen with the adoption of new technology in the past, legislators typically step in as soon as an innovation starts to become popular. Smart glasses may be about to do just that. Google has announced that AI glasses from its Android XR partners could be available in 2026. Samsung has also said publicly that AI glasses are part of its roadmap. And Apple is widely reported to be working on its own smart glasses, although the company hasn’t officially announced that. —By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalTechnologySpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/product-features/posts/how-practice-area-workflows-tailor-automationThu, 16 Apr 2026 19:33:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:fc28fa04-83ac-4aa6-8377-9cd70844bacdVirginie De SmechtLegal work has never been a one-size-fits-all endeavor across all areas of practice. A labor and employment attorney navigating a wrongful termination claim operates in a fundamentally different world than a transactional lawyer closing a multimillion-dollar M&A deal. These two lawyers face different challenges, statutes, document types, deadlines and risk profiles. But for years, legal technology has largely treated all lawyers the same, offering various productivity tools that require significant customization or, worse, constant manual effort to fit real practice contexts. That mismatch has been targeted in recent years with the emergence of practice area workflows — and now the technology has caught up to lawyers’ needs. As AI-powered workflow automation matures in the legal industry , the most significant development is targeted automation, built around how specific practice areas actually function. Why General-Purpose AI Falls Short Many legal professionals have experimented with general-purpose AI tools. The experience tends to follow a predictable arc: the output is impressive at first, but quickly reveals its limits. A chatbot can summarize a contract, but it doesn’t know your firm’s standard clause language. It can draft interrogatories, but without awareness of jurisdiction-specific rules or the particulars of your case. And critically, it can’t verify whether its citations are accurate or whether the law it references is still good law. The problem isn’t AI capability … it’s AI context. Legal work depends on deep, domain-specific knowledge layered with procedural precision. A litigation attorney preparing for discovery needs more than a smart drafting assistant; they need a system that understands the sequence of tasks involved — from document review and case timeline construction to interrogatory drafting and motion preparation — and can move through those steps in a structured, repeatable way. How Practice Area Workflows Deliver Better Results Practice area workflows go beyond individual AI prompts. They are guided, multi-step processes that mirror how legal work actually gets done within a specific domain. Rather than asking a lawyer to chain together a series of ad hoc AI interactions, a well-designed workflow handles a full task from start to finish, preserving context across each step and grounding outputs in authoritative legal sources throughout. For example, consider a real estate transaction that requires legal counsel. The workflow might begin by organizing uploaded deal documents, proceed to a due diligence review flagging key provisions and risks, then draft relevant clauses or agreements based on what was surfaced, and then receive a quality control review of primary and secondary legal content to ensure the analysis is accurate and citable. What would have taken hours of fragmented work across multiple tools becomes a single, structured process with consistent and reliable outputs. For litigators, the value proposition is equally clear. Workflows can automate the extraction of key facts from complaints, flag procedural issues, generate draft motions grounded in relevant case law and verify that all cited authority is still good law. No need for lawyers to manually navigate between research databases, drafting platforms and citation checkers. Where the Legal AI Market Is Headed AI-powered legal workflows will help law firms standardize how legal work gets done across a team within each area of practice. The key way this will happen is by encoding institutional knowledge into repeatable systems. In most firms, quality depends heavily on individual habits and experience. A senior associate might know to run a Shepard’s® check on every brief, but a junior lawyer may overlook this sometime. A partner might have a preferred structure for deposition outlines, but the rest of the team may not know about this approach. When a firm builds a practice area workflow that reflects its standards — e.g., its preferred clause language, quality-check sequence, jurisdictional defaults, etc. — every attorney who runs that workflow benefits from it, regardless of their seniority. Consistency becomes structural, rather than aspirational. This is where an integrated platform such as Lexis+® with Protégé™ demonstrates its value, offering legal professionals pre-built and customizable AI-powered workflows grounded in authoritative legal content. By connecting research, drafting and review into intelligent, verifiable processes, these breakthrough tools represent a new model for how legal work gets done and enable firms to build consistency at scale. Experience Lexis+ with Protégé Building on the authoritative agentic AI capabilities available from Lexis+ AI — including conversational research, personalized legal drafting, document upload, summarization and analysis — legal professionals can now automate their work to an even greater extent using Lexis+ with Protégé, the new integrated flagship platform from LexisNexis that replaces Lexis+ AI. Lexis+ with Protégé delivers purpose-built, end-to-end legal AI workflows with an intuitive user interface designed to make trusted legal work possible with one prompt. New workflow capabilities within Lexis+ with Protégé automate drafting, review, analysis and citation checking into scalable and repeatable legal processes that simplify complex legal work and deliver consistent, high-quality results across teams. Explore the capabilities of our AI assistant for legal professionals and request a free trial today.ProtégéLegal WorkflowsLexis+ with Protégéhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/key-litigation-trends-of-federal-class-action-statisticsThu, 16 Apr 2026 18:33:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:d962dc38-e27f-4ec3-bcac-b404d7423f73Virginie De SmechtAfter several years of relative stability, federal class action filings jumped in 2025 to more than 12,200 cases, a roughly 25 percent increase year over year and the highest total in at least a decade. The newly released Lex Machina 2026 Class Action Litigation Report examines the factors behind the increase in class action lawsuits and the implications for law offices moving forward. Request your copy now on  the Lex Machina Litigation Reports page . “Our Class Action Litigation Report helps legal teams assess the rising class action risk,” said Eric Wright, senior vice president for Lex Machina at LexisNexis. “As filings increase, customers need clear insight into where cases are being filed, how they are progressing, who the key players are, and where financial exposure is rising. Lex Machina helps firms and in-house counsel assess risk earlier, forecast timing more accurately, budget with greater confidence, and pursue smarter litigation and settlement strategies.” Have federal class action lawsuits recently increased? Yes, federal class action lawsuits have recently increased. After years of relative stability, federal class action filings surged in 2025 to more than 12,200 cases, marking a year-over-year increase of about 25 percent as well as the highest volume in at least the past decade. This increase reflects renewed litigation activity following pandemic-era disruptions and signals sustained momentum in the years. What are the latest trends in class action cases? Consumer protection class actions have emerged as the dominant force in federal litigation, accounting for nearly half of all filings over the past decade. In 2025 alone, these cases exceeded 7,600 filings, representing a nearly 50 percent year-over-year increase and fueling the broader rise in class actions. Substantial damage awards and litigation timelines in recently terminated class action cases also underscore the heavy financial stakes involved. From 2023 through 2025, courts approved more than $32 billion in class action settlement damages, highlighting the significant financial exposure associated with these cases. Class certification and settlements typically occurred more than two years after filing, while trials took closer to four years. At the same time, filing patterns in class actions are shifting across jurisdictions. The Southern District of New York remains the most active district, but the Central District of California is gaining ground fast. Several other major districts are expanding their share of filings. What industries are seeing the most class action suits? Companies with large workforces and broad geographic footprints have faced the highest number of class action lawsuits in recent years. Leading the list are several technology firms, retailers, financial institutions, health insurers, and manufacturers, including those in pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer packaged goods. Repeat-player behavior is intensifying with certain plaintiffs, firms, and defendants appearing at unprecedented levels. Data from Lex Machina shows a continued rise in repeat-player activity on both sides of the federal class actions docket. Where can I find statistics on federal class action cases? In Lex Machina, the LexisNexis Legal Analytics platform, you can find powerful statistics and exclusive insights for filing patterns and litigation outcomes in federal class actions. The service is also available as an API . Lex Machina is built on comprehensive information derived from court filings that has been carefully cleaned, tagged, and normalized through a unique combination of artificial intelligence and manual review by subject-matter experts. By extracting key details like motion outcomes, trial verdicts, damage awards, and the attorneys involved, the platform transforms raw court records into structured insights for commercially relevant cases across federal courts and an expanding range of state courts – now including  docket-level data for more than 1,300 venues . Lex Machina provides detailed information about outcomes in class action cases throughout federal district and circuit courts. Legal and risk professionals use Lex Machina to inform decisions throughout the class action lifecycle, from evaluating exposure and estimating claim value to choosing venues, shaping arguments, negotiating settlements, and assessing trial and appellate strategies. The platform also supports business development by helping firms spot high-potential clients, showcase their record of success, and evaluate prospective lateral hires. “Lex Machina provides crucial timing analytics, including data on key case milestones, that have transformed our approach to forecasting, calendaring, and legal budgeting,” said Mary Parker, associate attorney at Fields Han Cunniff. “Relying on these timing metrics perfectly supplements our traditional research and gives our firm a competitive edge.” Is your law office ready to make data-informed litigation decisions? Visit the  Lex Machina product page  for more information and to sign up for a demonstration and customized analytical report.Lex Machinahttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/junk-fee-ban-advancing-in-ilWed, 15 Apr 2026 21:05:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:754743c0-71ae-4da6-b7e9-876e2d8ddae0Alyzza AustriacoIL House Passes ‘Junk Fee’ Bill The Illinois House passed a bill ( HB 228 ) that would amend the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to prohibit businesses from advertising, displaying or offering a price for goods or services that doesn’t include all mandatory fees and surcharges. The “junk fee” ban is similar to one the chamber passed two years ago, but vague language has been tightened up to make it easier for businesses to comply with it and easier for the attorney general’s office to enforce it. Gov. J.B. Pritzker called for lawmakers to pass the legislation in his State of the State address this year. ( CAPITOL NEWS ILLINOIS ) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/anthropic-s-new-ai-model-too-powerful-for-public-use-moreWed, 15 Apr 2026 21:01:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:8f9909fd-7386-4ed1-b74a-a3480ca5fa93Alyzza AustriacoAnthropic Not Releasing New AI Model to Public The artificial intelligence company Anthropic—recently in the headlines for demanding that the Pentagon agree to certain limitations on the use of its technology—announced last week that it would not be releasing its new AI model to the public because it is too powerful. Company executives said the new model, called Claude Mythos Preview, is capable of autonomously scanning for and exploiting vulnerabilities in software programs, including all of the major operating systems and browsers. The company said it would allow a group of about 40 technology companies, including Apple and Amazon, to use the new model to find and patch security vulnerabilities in critical software. ( NEW YORK TIMES ) Ballot Measures Aimed at Limiting Data Center Development Voters in the city of Port Washington, Wisconsin, became the first in the country to approve a ballot measure to limit the construction of data centers. Similar proposals are already on the ballot in at least three other cities, and a proposed initiative is also circulating in Ohio. ( PLURIBUS NEWS ) MN Lawmakers Aim to Prohibit Data Center NDAs Fast-moving legislation in Minnesota ( HF 4077 / SF 4379 ) would prohibit local government officials from signing nondisclosure agreements for projects involving public funding. Local governments have signed contracts with major tech companies like Meta, agreeing not to share information about proposed data centers with the public. ( MINNESOTA REFORMER ) ME Data Privacy Bill Remains Alive The Maine Senate approved legislation ( HB 1220 a ) that would allow companies to collect and store only the data that’s necessary to provide a good or service; prohibit them from collecting biometric information unless necessary; and ban them from advertising directly to children or selling children’s data. The measure failed in the House the week before, but the Senate’s vote sends it back to the House for reconsideration. ( PORTLAND PRESS HERALD , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ct-bill-focusing-on-ai-in-employmentWed, 15 Apr 2026 20:59:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:54cca8a4-06ad-4d1d-ba42-354975993f36Alyzza AustriacoCT Lawmakers Target AI in Employment A bill (SB 435) before Connecticut’s legislature would require employers to disclose to job applicants when they are communicating with artificial intelligence, when their resumes will be scanned by AI, or when AI will be involved in the hiring process at all. The measure would also require employers to inform unions before deploying AI and prohibit the use of AI that undermines an existing labor agreement. ( CT INSIDER , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesLabor & Employmenthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/washington-joins-states-limiting-employer-mandated-worker-microchippingWed, 15 Apr 2026 14:38:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:c5ca4e59-ff38-433b-802a-c08be6ee56a7Mary Anne PeckOn March 11, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed HB 2303 . The law, which takes effect June 11, bars employers from requesting, requiring or coercing workers or job applicants to accept a subcutaneous microchip implant, while exempting devices used for diagnosis, monitoring, treatment or prevention of a health condition. The law also provides a private right of action, allowing employees harmed by employers that violate the law to seek injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The legislation is part of a broader state trend toward preemptive limits on employer-driven microchip implants. At least 11 other states already had laws prohibiting the mandatory microchipping of employees in place before Washington enacted HB 2303, according to LexisNexis® data. The laws in Alabama ( Code of Ala. § 25-1-4 ) and Nevada ( Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.870 ) make forced microchipping a felony. “Microchips may seem like science fiction, but the technology is here,” said Washington Rep. Brianna Thomas (D), the author of HB 2303, in a press release . “The concept is pretty simple. Don’t chip me, bro!” In all seriousness, she added, forced microchipping “creates an opportunity for employers to track employees during work hours and at home. That is scary. We recognize that the power dynamic between an employer and an employee makes true freedom of choice nearly impossible. This is a big step to help protect our employees from being microchipped by their employer.” Legislators Remain Concerned about Employer Surveillance In the House Bill Report for HB 2303, legislative staff wrote that the practice of implanting microchips into workers “has not yet occurred in Washington.” But lawyer Scott Prange of the national law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP wrote that while this forced employee microchipping isn’t happening “in any widespread way—at least not yet,” the technology not only exists but is “increasingly normalized in certain contexts.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the VeriChip system for medical use in 2004, allowing an implanted ID number to be used to retrieve patient identity and authorized health information from a secure database. “Outside healthcare, these implants—typically about the size of a grain of rice—can function as ID badges or enable contactless payments,” Prange wrote. “In practical terms, an RFID chip could replace access badges, unlock doors, access computer networks, enable cashless purchases, and streamline everyday workplace tasks. From an employer perspective, proponents point to potential benefits like reduced administrative costs, improved efficiency, and even the ability to track certain aspects of employee activity.” Prange said legislators are concerned about microchipping because of “the broader implications to worker surveillance and individual autonomy.” “Because these devices are embedded and not easily turned off (or removed), it becomes far less clear where an employee’s privacy rights begin and end—particularly for workers expected to remain connected or responsive outside traditional working hours,” he wrote. “HB 2303 reflects the legislature’s efforts to ‘hardwire’ boundaries before that monitoring crosses from devices employees carry to the bodies they inhabit.” Worker Microchipping Laws Enacted in Dozen States At least 11 states have laws in effect prohibiting employers from requiring employees to be implanted with a microchip or other permanent identification marker as a condition of employment, according to LexisNexis data. Washington enacted a worker microchipping ban ( HB 2303 ) this year that takes effect on June 11. Three other states considered bills this year dealing with worker microchipping. Human Microchipping Remains Rare The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs reported in 2024 that more than 50,000 people had received microchip implants that can act as credit cards, swipe keys or allow them to instantly share social media information. In 2017, a Wisconsin company called Three Square Market held a “ chip party ” where 41 of its 85 employees volunteered to be microchipped in what company leaders said was the first U.S. use of technology already used in Europe. Microchipping has also drawn a fair amount of interest in Sweden; NPR reported in 2018 that more than 4,000 Swedes elected to implant the devices, with the company Biohax International dominating the market. In the United States, microchipping is much more common for pets and other animals. And legislative efforts are currently focused there. As of April 10, over 40 bills mentioning some form of the word “microchip” had been introduced by state lawmakers, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. But only four of those measures concern human implantation: Washington’s new law, HB 2303; Minnesota SF 4881 , which, like the Washington bill, would prohibit employers from requesting, requiring or coercing employees or job applicants to be microchipped and create a private right of action for violations; Oklahoma SB 1656 , a much broader bodily-autonomy bill that would establish a “right to refuse any vaccine, medication, microchip, external tracker, or other manufactured product” and prohibit public and private entities from requiring such things in order to receive “public services, admittance to an educational institution, employment, consumer goods or services, access to a place of public accommodation, or any other privilege or right;” and Tennessee HB 1877 , which would have barred government entities from requiring a microchip or other permanent ID marker in order to receive benefits or services, and barred employers from requiring microchipping as a condition of employment, with violators subject to civil penalties up to $10,000, as well as private lawsuits for actual and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The measure would also have made it a Class E felony for individuals, including certain insurance licensees and professional bondsmen, to require someone to be microchipped. But after being referred to subcommittee on February 2, the measure was withdrawn. The other 30-plus measures deal with the microchipping of animals. Although human microchipping remains uncommon, Washington HB 2303 fits a wider state trend of setting privacy and autonomy limits before implantable technology becomes an issue in the workplace and elsewhere. —By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/counsellink/b/counsellink/posts/data-maturity-and-modern-gcs-credibility-through-insightWed, 15 Apr 2026 12:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:751fde82-fc2d-43db-9c05-12e0f204d61eJayme SoulatiThis is the second of three articles in the GC Leadership Series, examining how modern General Counsel align strategy, data and governance to lead high-performing legal departments. In today’s legal department, data maturity is no longer optional. It is expected. Boards ask about legal spend trends. CFOs ask about rate pressure. Executive teams ask whether internal investments are delivering measurable impact. The modern General Counsel must respond with clarity not only about outcomes, but about how those outcomes are measured. Data maturity goes beyond having dashboards or reporting tools. It reflects the legal department’s ability to structure information, interpret patterns and translate operational insight into strategic narrative. And that level of maturity requires alignment. From Visibility to Data Maturity Many legal departments now have access to reporting across: Legal spend Matter volume and cycle times Vendor performance Budget adherence Workflow efficiency Operational visibility is no longer rare. It is increasingly standard. The differentiator is not access to data. It is the ability to use that data to drive strategic decisions. Mature legal departments do not simply collect metrics. They: Prioritize the right metrics Align reporting with enterprise goals Anticipate executive questions Use trends to inform forward-looking decisions Data becomes part of decision architecture, not just reporting cadence. The Interpretation Imperative In most organizations, legal operations compiles and structures performance data. The GC remains accountable for how that data is framed and defended at the executive level. This division of responsibility works when priorities are aligned. A 6% increase in outside counsel spend may reflect business growth, regulatory complexity, or unmanaged rate inflation. Reduced internal headcount growth may signal efficiency or hidden strain. Numbers do not speak for themselves. They require interpretation grounded in enterprise strategy. When GC and legal operations are aligned, reporting becomes proactive rather than reactive. It anticipates scrutiny and contextualizes tradeoffs. Technology as Infrastructure, Not Decoration The shift toward data-driven leadership does not happen organically. It requires infrastructure. Enterprise legal management platforms and integrated reporting systems provide the structural backbone that feeds both sides of the equation: Legal operations gains visibility into performance patterns and cost trends. The GC gains defensible insight to support executive decision-making. When technology is fragmented, reporting becomes manual and interpretation becomes inconsistent. When systems are integrated, data becomes reliable enough to anchor strategic discussions. Technology, in this context, is not about automation alone. It is about coherence. It ensures that operational metrics and executive narratives are built from the same foundation. When Reporting and Strategy Drift Without coordination, even sophisticated reporting can create unintended tension. Operational metrics may emphasize cost discipline while executive leadership prioritizes risk tolerance or growth enablement. Technology utilization data may exist without a clear narrative about return on investment. In these moments, the issue is not insufficient data. It is misaligned framing. Alignment ensures that operational insight reinforces, rather than complicates, strategic messaging. Data Maturity as Strategic Capital Legal departments remain cost centers. As more work moves in-house and investment decisions become more visible, justification becomes essential. Aligned data becomes strategic capital: Supporting headcount discussions Informing vendor negotiations Clarifying technology investment decisions Strengthening credibility with finance Legal operations safeguards the integrity of the information. The GC ensures that information supports enterprise priorities. Together, they transform reporting into influence. From Reporting to Executive Confidence Structured dialogue between GC and legal operations leaders around metrics, assumptions, and narrative framing is foundational to modern legal leadership. Mature departments recognize that data is not a byproduct of operations, it is a strategic asset. Because in today’s environment, credibility is not built on the volume of data presented, but on the clarity and cohesion behind it.General Counselhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/law-books/b/law-books/posts/michigan-attorneys-get-the-latest-business-entity-law-in-one-authoritative-deskbookTue, 14 Apr 2026 18:56:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:550388fd-bc07-46da-a6df-85d5097a3cd6Joshua LloydBy Eric Geringswald | CSC Statutory Coverage for Michigan Practitioners Legal practitioners in Michigan need a comprehensive statutory resource to conduct research effectively, complete transactions efficiently, and advise clients with confidence. CSC’s Michigan Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated is that resource. The 2026 edition of Michigan Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated is now available, featuring the full text of Chapter 449 (Partnerships) and Chapter 450 (Corporations) from the Michigan Compiled Laws Service, as well as related sections covering taxation, trademarks, securities, arbitration, and civil procedure, in addition to Articles 1, 8, and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. All statutes are current through Act 7 of the 2026 Michigan legislative session. Annotations, Practical Tools and Digital Access The book is fully annotated with case notes from state and federal courts interpreting the law. New case notes are listed in a Table of New Annotations, and new cases are marked with a gray bar in the body of the book for fast identification An up-to-date Fee Schedule provides a list of required filing fees for Michigan business services, and readers also get online access to more than 60 Michigan forms for incorporation and formation, qualification, mergers, dissolution, and name reservation for all entity types via the LexisNexis® Store download center. A listing of forms and contact information for the Corporations Division is included in the book’s appendix. Michigan Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated is available as a softbound book or as an eBook, compatible with dedicated eReader devices, computers, tablets and smartphones that use eReader software or applications. It's also available on the LexisNexis® Digital Library. To learn more about the 2026 Edition of Michigan Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated , call 1.800.533.1637 or visit us online at lexisnexis.com/csc .CSCCorporate LawMichiganStoreLaw Bookshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/practical-guidance/posts/practical-guidance-march-2026-highlightsTue, 14 Apr 2026 14:17:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:9035bcbe-bc6a-4e4e-9cc4-dc5f05911b40Virginie De SmechtPractical Guidance continues to expand its collection of workflow-focused legal resources with the March 2026 update. This release introduces new templates, trackers, practice notes, and jurisdiction-specific materials across a wide range of practice areas. The updates reflect ongoing attention to practical drafting, compliance support, and visibility into legal developments. From corporate governance and securities regulation to employment compliance and international data protection, this month’s additions are designed to support day-to-day legal work with current, task-oriented resources. Corporate and transactional tools expand across business entities and capital markets Business Entities content grows with a series of new templates supporting corporate governance and formation tasks. These include bylaws for California corporations and multiple board resolutions for appointing officers across jurisdictions such as California, Delaware, Florida, New York, and Ohio. A shareholders’ agreement for a Florida corporation and a membership interest purchase agreement for a California LLC add further drafting support. Benefit corporations are also addressed with new bylaws for a Florida benefit corporation. Capital Markets and Corporate Governance updates focus on both regulatory coverage and board-level guidance. Blue Sky Regulations Q&A coverage now spans all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with expanded treatment of securities offering registration exemptions. A new Shareholder Engagement Strategies Board Memorandum for 2026 and updated market trends guidance on financial disclosures in M&A transactions provide additional context for corporate decision-making. Client alert digests track recent regulatory developments, including SEC rulemaking related to Section 16(a) reporting and statements addressing tokenized securities. Construction and infrastructure content addresses regulatory and market developments Construction updates introduce new jurisdiction-specific materials on public construction projects prevailing wage requirements across multiple states, including Utah, Arizona, Washington, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. Additional content highlights broader industry developments, including coverage of data center expansion trends and tariff and trade considerations for 2026. A client alert digest examines the implications of AI use in construction arbitration, alongside materials addressing infrastructure projects under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. Data security and privacy adds global coverage and program development tools The Data Security and Privacy practice area expands with resources supporting vulnerability disclosure and bug bounty programs. New materials include both a development checklist and a corresponding practice note. International coverage grows significantly with the addition of Multilaw Data Protection Guides for jurisdictions including Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia, Israel, the UAE, Japan, and others. These additions extend comparative insight into data protection requirements across multiple regions. Environmental and regulatory content introduces litigation templates and state Q&A coverage Environmental updates include new materials addressing New Jersey environmental justice law and regulations. Litigation-focused templates are added for Endangered Species Act and RCRA citizen suits, including complaint and answer templates. State-level coverage expands with Recycling and Solid Waste Management Q&As for jurisdictions such as Oregon, the District of Columbia, Alabama, and Alaska. Labor and employment focuses on AI, workplace compliance, and policy tools Labor and Employment additions include a practice note on the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, outlining its risk-based framework and implementation timeline for U.S. employers. Additional guidance addresses health and safety obligations in joint employment relationships. New templates and tools support workplace compliance, including a wage overpayment recoupment notice and authorization template and a decisional flowchart for illness and injury recordkeeping under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Real estate and corporate compliance resources support leasing and operational decisions Real Estate updates introduce both transactional and operational tools. New leasing materials include a short-form industrial or warehouse lease for Alabama and a residential leasing resource kit for Florida. Property management resources expand with checklists for selecting and terminating property managers in commercial and multifamily contexts. A Corporate Transparency Act compliance checklist provides additional support for entity-level regulatory obligations. Client alert coverage includes developments affecting investment in single-family housing. Securities litigation and white collar content strengthens compliance and enforcement coverage Securities Litigation and White Collar updates add materials focused on compliance programs and enforcement strategy. New resources include guidance on maintaining an effective DOJ corporate compliance program and a presidential clemency checklist. Additional content addresses cooperation credit in SEC investigations for both companies and individuals, along with a series of ethics checklists for securities lawyers across multiple jurisdictions. Client alert digests provide analysis of DOJ enforcement trends and updates to SEC enforcement priorities and processes. Trusts and estates adds resource kits and probate templates Trusts and Estates content expands with a new Transfer on Death Deed Resource Kit, which compiles related templates available within the practice area. Additional probate and estate administration templates include family settlement agreements, petitions, and related correspondence for North Carolina matters. Broader platform coverage across litigation, finance, and regulatory practice areas The March 2026 update also includes expanded content across additional practice areas. Bankruptcy materials include new trackers, resource kits, and Chapter 11 checklists, along with expert analysis on recent developments. Civil Litigation content adds early case assessment materials across multiple jurisdictions and guidance for associate development. Corporate and M&A updates introduce market trends practice notes addressing termination fees, purchase price adjustments, and deal protections. Federal Government content expands with practice notes and checklists covering constitutional law, contracting, and agency processes. Finance and Financial Services Regulation updates include materials on refinancing provisions, EBITDA considerations, fair lending claims, and litigation tools. Healthcare, In-House Advisor, Intellectual Property, and Life Sciences sections also add new templates, checklists, and articles addressing current regulatory and operational topics. Real Estate and Tax sections further expand with lease abstract templates across multiple states and new tax-focused practice notes and trackers. Trusts and Estates continues to grow with additional drafting resources and articles. FAQs 1. What is included in the Practical Guidance March 2026 update? The update includes new templates, trackers, practice notes, and client alert digests across multiple practice areas, including corporate, litigation, employment, and regulatory topics. 2. Are Practical Guidance new resources jurisdiction-specific? Yes. Many additions include state-specific templates, checklists, and Q&A materials covering jurisdictions such as California, Florida, New York, and others. 3. Do Practical Guidance updates include international content? Yes. The Data Security and Privacy section adds Multilaw Data Protection Guides covering multiple international jurisdictions. Explore the latest Practical Guidance updates here . For the latest legal developments in your practice area, sign up for the weekly Practical Guidance Newsletter .Practical Guidancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/product-features/posts/legal-ai-for-microsoft-365-copilot-how-lexisnexis-protege-enhances-legal-workTue, 14 Apr 2026 12:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:54cb7934-0ee0-46dd-8bcb-59feddb7261abengBy Madeleine Graham, Product Lead, Protégé for Copilot and Teams, LexisNexis Legal & Professional What Is Microsoft 365 Copilot for Legal Professionals? Microsoft 365 Copilot is reshaping how legal professionals work by embedding AI into the tools they already use every day. Across Microsoft 365 applications, Copilot can help teams summarize information, generate first drafts, organize notes, and streamline collaboration. For legal professionals, that means less time spent on repetitive administrative work and more time focused on analysis, judgment, and client service. Whether reviewing discussion threads, organizing notes, or developing work product, Microsoft 365 Copilot helps accelerate everyday tasks inside a familiar environment. For many law firms and corporate legal departments, Microsoft 365 is the center of daily work. Bringing AI into that workspace helps legal teams improve productivity without forcing major workflow changes. Read Microsoft’s perspective on AI agents in the legal workplace How LexisNexis Protégé Extends Microsoft 365 for Legal Work Microsoft 365 Copilot improves productivity across everyday tasks, but legal work requires more than general-purpose AI. Legal professionals need answers grounded in authoritative legal sources, reasoning informed by legal context, and results they can trust. LexisNexis Protégé™ brings that legal intelligence into Microsoft 365 through a custom agent in Copilot. It helps legal professionals work within familiar Microsoft applications while drawing on trusted LexisNexis® sources and, where available, organizational knowledge. Explore LexisNexis Protégé, AI assistant for legal professionals Together, Microsoft 365 Copilot and LexisNexis Protégé ™ (US) enables legal professionals to: Ask complex legal questions and receive grounded answers supported by authoritative sources Explore legal implications without leaving Microsoft 365 workflows Draft clauses, arguments and memos informed by legal context and trusted sources Work faster and smarter across each phase of their work By default, the Protégé custom agent grounds responses in LexisNexis sources, including case law, codes, rules and constitutions, agency decisions, Practical Guidance, and treatises. Supporting content and linked citations help legal professionals evaluate results with greater confidence. Where configured, teams can also draw on organization-specific clauses or saved document Vaults for more tailored support. Across Microsoft 365, legal professionals can use the same Protégé agent experience to ask legal questions, generate drafts, and summarize cases within the tools where work is already happening. This helps legal teams move faster while maintaining the rigor, traceability, and confidence legal work demands. (Please visit the site to view this video) How Protégé Integrates Across Microsoft 365 Workflows Write, Draft, and Refine Legal Work in Word Word is central to legal work. With the Protégé agent in Word through Microsoft 365 Copilot, legal professionals can get support where much of their drafting and revision already happens. Within Word, Protégé helps legal professionals: Get grounded answers to legal drafting questions Refine language that can be applied to their document Maintain continuity with chat history preserved across Microsoft 365 applications This helps legal professionals move from research and analysis into drafting without breaking their workflow. For more extensive drafting of full legal documents—including litigation motions, briefs, and arguments, as well as transactional agreements and contracts—legal professionals can use Lexis® Create+. 4 Ways That Lexis® Create+ Delivers Personalized Legal Drafting Within Microsoft 365 Build Clearer Legal Presentations in PowerPoint PowerPoint is often used for internal briefings, stakeholder presentations, training materials, and executive updates. Within that workflow, Protégé can help legal professionals: Access legal context as you develop your presentation Translate complex legal concepts into clearer business-facing language Build more consistent, accurate materials for internal and external audiences By extending legal AI into PowerPoint, Protégé helps teams create presentation materials more efficiently without stepping outside Microsoft 365. Analyze Legal and Business Information in Excel Excel is frequently used to manage structured information, compare terms, track issues, and support analysis across legal and business matters. Within Excel, Protégé can help users: Conduct targeted legal analyses with links to trusted LexisNexis guidance Assess regulatory exposure and contractual commitments against legal standards Verify governing authorities supporting enforcement tracking, audit responses, or budget justifications This expands the reach of legal AI into a tool many teams already use for organizing and analyzing matter-related information. Collaborate on Legal Work More Effectively in Microsoft Teams Legal work depends on fast coordination across attorneys, paralegals, and business stakeholders. Within Microsoft Teams, Protégé helps users: Get quick answers to legal questions within Teams while collaborating with colleagues Easily refer to relevant legal context on the side Reduce switching between communication tools and legal research platforms This makes Teams a stronger workspace for legal collaboration, especially when professionals need quick, trusted answers while matters are moving. Organize Legal Notes and Research in OneNote OneNote plays an important role in capturing research, organizing matter notes, and keeping track of key takeaways across active workstreams. With Protégé, legal professionals can: Organize research notes and matter-related inputs more effectively Capture legal insights in a more structured way Keep working notes connected to trusted legal content This helps legal teams turn scattered notes into more usable, actionable information. Get Grounded Legal Answers Inside Microsoft 365 Copilot Legal professionals move constantly between research, drafting, strategy, and communication. Within Microsoft 365 Copilot, the Protégé custom agent supports work such as: Answering legal questions with grounded support Helping users refine and develop language Surfacing relevant legal context during active work Preserving continuity across Microsoft 365 experiences as users move between tasks This creates a more unified AI experience for legal professionals inside Microsoft 365. Key Use Cases for Lawyers Using Microsoft 365 Copilot and Protégé Getting Fast Answers to Legal Questions Attorneys can ask substantive legal questions inside Microsoft 365 and receive responses grounded in trusted legal sources, helping them move faster without leaving their workflow. Supporting Draft Development Protégé can help legal professionals develop clauses, arguments, summaries, and related work product with legal context built into the experience. Collaborating Across Legal Teams Legal teams can use Copilot in Teams to coordinate work while consulting relevant legal insight on the side that supports faster, more informed decisions. Extending Legal AI Across Everyday Work By working with Copilot across apps such as Teams, Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and OneNote Protégé helps bring legal intelligence into more of the places where work already happens. Why Microsoft 365 Copilot and Legal AI Work Better Together Microsoft 365 Copilot improves productivity across daily tasks. In legal environments, where authority and accuracy matter, pairing it with legal AI strengthens the value of those workflows. By combining: Microsoft 365 Copilot for productivity LexisNexis Protégé for legal insight legal professionals can work more efficiently while grounding their work in trusted legal sources. This approach helps organizations get more value from Microsoft 365 while improving the depth, relevance, and reliability of AI-assisted legal work. How to Access the Protégé Agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot The Protégé custom agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot is available to LexisNexis customers based on their underlying subscription. Contact your LexisNexis representative. Explore LexisNexis Protégé Legal professionals increasingly rely on Microsoft 365 for collaboration, analysis, communication, and work product creation. LexisNexis Protégé extends those workflows with legal AI built for real-world practice. Through its custom agent experience in Microsoft 365 Copilot, Protégé helps legal teams bring trusted legal intelligence into the tools they already use across the workday. Explore LexisNexis Protégé to see how it supports legal workflows across Microsoft 365 Copilot in Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Teams, and OneNote Frequently Asked Questions Can Microsoft Copilot perform legal research? Microsoft Copilot supports general productivity tasks such as summarization, drafting assistance, and organization. For legal research and grounded legal answers, legal professionals benefit from dedicated legal AI solutions like LexisNexis Protégé. How does LexisNexis Protégé integrate with Microsoft 365? LexisNexis Protégé integrates into Microsoft 365 through a custom agent in Copilot, supporting legal workflows in applications such as Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Teams, and OneNote. Does Protégé work in Word and Outlook? Protégé is available in Word through Microsoft 365 Copilot as a custom agent, where legal professionals can ask legal questions, get grounded drafting support, and continue work within the same agent experience used across Microsoft 365 apps. In Word, that makes Protégé especially useful for legal analysis, lighter drafting, and maintaining continuity as users move across tasks. For more extensive drafting of full legal documents in Word and for Outlook-based drafting workflows, Lexis Create+ provides a more extensive drafting experience grounded in LexisNexis content and organizational documents. What is the difference between Protégé and Lexis Create+ in Microsoft 365? Protégé is the broader legal AI custom agent experience in Microsoft 365 Copilot, designed to bring legal intelligence across subscribed content, integrations, and workflows. Lexis Create+ is specifically focused on in-depth legal drafting workflows. What’s the benefit of using legal AI alongside Microsoft Copilot? Copilot improves efficiency across general tasks, while legal AI through the Protégé agent adds domain-specific intelligence. Together, they help legal professionals work faster with more relevant, reliable, and legally grounded output. Is Microsoft 365 Copilot secure for legal professionals? Microsoft 365 and LexisNexis provide enterprise-grade security, compliance, and administrative controls. For further information about Microsoft’s privacy and security policies, contact Microsoft. Information on the LexisNexis privacy and security posture can be found at trust.lexisnexis.com . Further Reading Lexis® Create+ for Microsoft® Outlook®: AI-Powered Legal Drafting That Starts in Your InboxLexis+ AIProtégéLexis+ AI Featurehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/law-books/b/law-books/posts/new-york-cracks-down-on-non-u-s-llcs-with-new-beneficial-ownership-disclosure-lawMon, 13 Apr 2026 18:59:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:86f33207-f76f-48f7-b77d-2f8562d3f2fcJoshua LloydBy Eric Geringswald | CSC Non-U.S. LLCs Must Now Disclose Beneficial Ownership in New York The New York LLC Transparency Act (NY LLCTA) requires non-U.S. limited liability companies registered to do business in New York disclose their beneficial ownership information and file annual statements or attest to exemptions. The Act took effect on January 1, 2026. This enforcement mechanism underscores the state's intent to ensure transparency and accountability in LLC operations, preventing illicit uses of shell companies such as money laundering or other hidden criminal activity. It was modeled after the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), although it’s more limited in scope, applying only to limited liability companies. LLCs that fail to comply with the new legislation could face investigations by the New York State Attorney General and fines of up to $500 per day for non-compliance. The Spring 2026 edition of CSC’s New York Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated includes a new Appendix that outlines the evolving requirement for specific limited liability companies to disclose individual owner details to the New York Department of State. The Appendix provides an overview of the requirements, a list and description of exemptions, and images of the forms used for filings related to the new legislation. A Comprehensive Resource New York Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated is the resource legal practitioners need to stay on top of legal developments and court decisions in the state. The Spring 2026 edition captures the latest legislative changes through Chapter 89 of the 2026 New York State legislative session. More than 50 sections have been added or amended since the Fall 2025 Edition. Our Legislative Analysis summarizes important changes made to the law, while Blackline Amendment Notes following each amended section indicate the exact text added or deleted by the Legislature. The Table of Sections Affected lists all statutory changes. The Spring 2026 edition includes two dozen new case notes from New York state and federal courts interpreting the law added since the Fall 2025 edition. Also included are four new full text cases covering recent legal developments concerning appraisal actions, LLC management, LLC membership, and stock. The Table of New Annotations lists new case notes, and new notes are marked in the text with gray bars. More than 100 fillable New York forms for incorporation/formation, qualification, mergers, dissolution, and name reservation for all entity types are available on the LexisNexis Store online download center. A listing of the forms can be found in the book’s forms appendix. Up-to-date Publication and Fee Tables provide a snapshot of fees and publication requirements for the different entities. The Spring 2026 Edition of New York Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated is available as a two-volume softbound book or as an eBook, compatible with dedicated eReader devices, computers, tablets, and smartphones that use eReader software or applications. This title, along with many others, is available on the LexisNexis Digital Library . To learn more about the Spring 2026 Edition of New York Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated , call 1.800.533.1637 or visit us online at www.lexisnexis.com/csc .CSCLegal TrendsNew YorkStoreLaw Bookshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/lex-machina/b/lex-machina/posts/what-is-fair-housing-actThu, 09 Apr 2026 14:54:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:4762431d-a3c8-4a23-8a75-524fb0c3a244Virginie De SmechtApril 11th marks the anniversary of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). Since its enactment and through its amendments, the FHA has expressly prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status in residential real-estate transactions, such as sales, rentals, and lending. More than fifty years after the FHA’s enactment, discrimination in both public and private residential housing continues. In their 2025 Trends Report , the National Fair Housing Alliance found that “discrimination in housing remains both pervasive and persistent, demanding continued vigilance and enforcement.” Pointing to high volumes of fair housing complaints involving disability and national origin, along with a sharp rise in claims tied to algorithmic screening and pricing tools, an attorney from Offit Kurman observed that “The NFHA’s 2025 Trends Report delivers a clear message: fair housing enforcement mechanisms remain strained.” Indeed, powerful data and exclusive insights from Lex Machina ®, the LexisNexis® Legal Analytics® platform, confirms that federal lawsuits alleging violations of fair housing laws surged last year. In 2025, plaintiffs filed more than 1,250 fair housing lawsuits in U.S. federal district courts — a year-over-year increase of about 40%. Fair Housing Act Lawsuits in U.S. Federal District Courts, 2018-2025 What does the Fair Housing Act cover? The FHA prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, the financing of housing, the provision of brokerage services, and other housing-related activities. Some examples of covered conduct include refusing to sell or rent, setting different terms or conditions, making discriminatory statements, or marketing in a way that indicates a preference or limitation. The FHA also addresses practices like steering, redlining, and harassment in housing contexts. In addition, the law requires reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities and permits reasonable modifications to housing when necessary for equal use and enjoyment. For more information, see Lexis® Practical Guidance: The Fair Housing Act – Prohibited Practices, Types of Claims, and Compliance Strategies . Why did Fair Housing Act lawsuits jump in 2025? According to data from the Lex Machina platform, unrepresented (pro se) claimants largely drove last year’s increase in FHA lawsuits, potentially encouraged by large language models and other publicly accessible AI tools. There has also been a notable prospect of significant recoveries as reflected in recent jury awards. For example, in November 2025, a jury awarded more than $12.2 million in damages, excluding costs, fees, and interest, against Florence County, South Carolina, based on claims that its conduct had a disparate impact on racial minorities ( DHD Jessamine LLC v. Florence County , D.S.C. 4:22-cv-01235). In another case, a December 2024 jury awarded $7.4 million in damages, excluding costs, fees, and interest against residential landlords for failure to provide reasonable accommodations (accessible parking spots) for persons with disabilities, in United States v. Aqua 388 et al. , C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-02498. Fair Housing Act Damages in U.S. Federal District Courts, 2019-2025  What happens after a federal fair housing complaint is filed administratively? Individuals who file fair housing complaints with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or their state and local Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), if accepted, are usually assigned a case number and the agency notifies the respondent of the allegations. The agency then begins an investigation, which typically includes requesting a written response to the complaint, collecting documents from the parties, and interviewing witnesses. In some cases, HUD may refer the complaint to the FHAP with similar enforcement authority, which will take the lead on the investigation. Upon completing its investigation, the agency issues a finding of either “cause” or “no cause.” A no-cause finding results in dismissal, while a cause finding may lead to further conciliation efforts or referral for enforcement action, including administrative proceedings or litigation. Regardless of the agency process, the complainant also has the option to file a private lawsuit in court. For more information, see Lexis Practical Guidance: The Fair Housing Act – Enforcement Actions . The Legal Analytics Platform for Civil Litigation  Lex Machina is the premier source for data and insights on civil rights litigation in federal courts, including powerful analytics on over 270,000 cases in which plaintiffs claimed violations of rights protected under the U.S. Constitution or various statutes and 12,053 federally filed FHA cases. Did you know? Law students, faculty, and professional staff in the United States have public-interest access to civil rights litigation analytics in Lex Machina , including the complete collection of case documents, analytics, and insights for Fair Housing Act litigation in federal courts. Through this public-interest program, academic scholars can quickly and easily learn what happened in each of those cases – who won, by what procedural means, under what findings, how long it took, what damages were awarded, what equitable remedies were imposed, and whether the district court outcome survived appeal, as well as key experience metrics related to the attorneys, law firms, parties, and judges involved. Ready to see how easy it is to become a data-empowered legal professional? Schedule a Lex Machina demonstration today . FAQs 1.Is the Fair Housing Act a federal law? Yes, the FHA is enacted as federal law and codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Many states and local jurisdictions also have their own fair housing laws. 2.Which protected characteristics are recognized under the Fair Housing Act? Federal law prohibits housing discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3605 . 3.What group is not protected under federal fair housing laws? Lawmakers regularly put forward bills to expand the scope of the federal Fair Housing Act, often seeking to add protections for characteristics such as marital status, source of income, and military or veteran status.Lex Machinahttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/practical-guidance/posts/legal-ai-issues-reshaped-with-practical-guidanceWed, 08 Apr 2026 17:05:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:b997e656-07dc-45c0-afda-2eeb6835fcfbVirginie De SmechtHow AI legal issues are being addressed with practical guidance The new generation of AI-related legal issues are inherently cross-disciplinary, implicating corporate law, intellectual property, data privacy, employment, corporate governance and regulatory compliance. Challenges of navigating traditional legal research structures Unfortunately, attorneys advising clients on these matters in recent years have been challenged with the need to navigate across various niche sections of legal research databases in order to assemble the full picture of what they need. The reality is that these specific areas have historically been housed within content libraries that were structured around traditional “areas of practice” categories, so locating all relevant resources for a single AI-related matter required lawyers to navigate multiple practice areas. A centralized solution: LexisNexis AI & technology practice area LexisNexis Practical Guidance has eliminated this friction by launching a dedicated AI & Technology Practice Area, a single destination consolidating and expanding all AI and technology-related practitioner resources into one location. Practitioner-focused organization The new AI & Technology Practice Area is organized around the tasks and matter types that lawyers encounter in practice, rather than around abstract doctrinal categories. This task-based architecture allows practitioners to begin with the nature of the work (e.g., drafting an agreement, assessing regulatory exposure, advising on governance, etc.) and navigate directly to relevant resources, without first determining which traditional practice area might contain them. Comprehensive coverage across the AI lifecycle Content coverage spans the full lifecycle of AI and technology development, deployment and use. For example, transactional practitioners will find guidance on SaaS agreements, cloud computing contracts, AI development and licensing arrangements, outsourcing structures and data use provisions. These agreement types, which have grown central to commercial practice, are now organized as a coherent body of transactional guidance rather than dispersed across unrelated sections. Regulatory and compliance practitioners will have access to an analysis of AI-specific legislation alongside assessment of how existing legal frameworks apply to novel technology contexts, guidance that is particularly valuable where statutory or regulatory coverage remains unsettled. AI in M&A, litigation, and legal practice management The practice area also includes dedicated coverage of M&A and investment transactions involving AI-driven businesses, AI-related litigation — encompassing claims, discovery, evidentiary issues, and emerging trends — and a section on Technology in the Practice of Law. This area specifically addresses professional responsibility obligations, court rules governing AI use in proceedings and law department policies, providing guidance relevant to attorneys managing their own practices as well as advising clients. Access tools, templates, and expert AI legal resources with LexisNexis Practical Guidance The new AI & Technology Practice Area from LexisNexis Practical Guidance provides legal professionals with timely insights in the form of task-ready, practice-specific guidance. The AI & Technology Practice Area is available within standalone Practical Guidance and Practical Guidance on Lexis+ and Lexis+ with Protégé . LexisNexis Practical Guidance provides access to a wide range of resources — from templates and checklists to practice notes and authoritative analysis — that help lawyers develop the critical knowledge needed to accomplish the most complex tasks, including those outside of their primary areas of expertise. Click here for a free trial of LexisNexis Practical Guidance.Practical Guidance