BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//swoogo.com//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.41.90//
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
UID:33346139-6462-4638-a434-656239303636
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:005fb03846d815087e7dee0bb5eb454aba1926d2@swoogo.com
DTSTAMP:20260420T002538Z
DESCRIPTION:The ABA's December 2025 Year 2 Report is unequivocal: the legal
  profession has moved from debating whether to adopt AI to determining how
  to deploy it responsibly. Five sitting judges published guidance explicit
 ly endorsing AI for core litigation tasks\, including summarizing depositi
 ons\, generating case timelines\, and verifying citation accuracy. These a
 ren't suggested efficiencies. They're baseline expectations.\n\nYet that s
 ame report acknowledges a fundamental problem: no known generative AI tool
  has solved hallucination. The technology mandates human verification of e
 very output. The ABA warns specifically against 'automation bias'—the tend
 ency to accept AI-generated work without critical review—and states unequi
 vocally that AI cannot replace human judgment.\n\nThis creates an unavoida
 ble paradox for practitioners: ethical competence may require using tools 
 that ethical practice prohibits you from trusting. Where does that leave t
 he profession?
DTSTART:20260312T153000Z
DTEND:20260312T163000Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260420T002538Z
LOCATION:Room 406.2
SEQUENCE:0
STATUS:CONFIRMED
SUMMARY:If You're Not Using AI\, Are You Committing Malpractice?
TRANSP:OPAQUE
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:<p>The ABA's December 2025 Year 2 Report is un
 equivocal: the legal profession has moved from debating whether to adopt A
 I to determining how to deploy it responsibly. Five sitting judges publish
 ed guidance explicitly endorsing AI for core litigation tasks\, including 
 summarizing depositions\, generating case timelines\, and verifying citati
 on accuracy. These aren't suggested efficiencies. They're baseline expecta
 tions.<br />\n<br />\nYet that same report acknowledges a fundamental prob
 lem: no known generative AI tool has solved hallucination. The technology 
 mandates human verification of every output. The ABA warns specifically ag
 ainst 'automation bias'—the tendency to accept AI-generated work without c
 ritical review—and states unequivocally that AI cannot replace human judgm
 ent.<br />\n<br />\nThis creates an unavoidable paradox for practitioners:
  ethical competence may require using tools that ethical practice prohibit
 s you from trusting. Where does that leave the profession?</p>
BEGIN:VALARM
UID:30386434-6234-4433-b932-393561313735
ACTION:DISPLAY
DESCRIPTION:The ABA's December 2025 Year 2 Report is unequivocal: the legal
  profession has moved from debating whether to adopt AI to determining how
  to deploy it responsibly. Five sitting judges published guidance explicit
 ly endorsing AI for core litigation tasks\, including summarizing depositi
 ons\, generating case timelines\, and verifying citation accuracy. These a
 ren't suggested efficiencies. They're baseline expectations.\n\nYet that s
 ame report acknowledges a fundamental problem: no known generative AI tool
  has solved hallucination. The technology mandates human verification of e
 very output. The ABA warns specifically against 'automation bias'—the tend
 ency to accept AI-generated work without critical review—and states unequi
 vocally that AI cannot replace human judgment.\n\nThis creates an unavoida
 ble paradox for practitioners: ethical competence may require using tools 
 that ethical practice prohibits you from trusting. Where does that leave t
 he profession?
TRIGGER:-PT15M
END:VALARM
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR