Key points:

• • • The productivity promise is largely wrong 鈥� Emerging research shows that AI doesn鈥檛 reduce work 鈥� it intensifies it. Lawyers work faster, take on broader responsibilities, and extend their hours without recognizing the expansion. Further, because prompting AI feels like chatting rather than laboring, lawyers slip work into evenings and weekends without registering it as additional effort.

    • Self-reinforcing acceleration is the real risk 鈥� AI speeds tasks, which raises expectations, which increases reliance, which expands scope, ultimately creating a cycle that drives burnout in a profession already plagued by it.

    • Purposeful integration is the antidote 鈥� Legal organizations need to promote intentional governance structures that account for how people actually behave with AI, not how leadership imagines they will or should.

Welcome back to The AI Law Professor. Last month, I examined how AI is forcing us to rethink training for junior lawyers. This month, I examine a question that affects every lawyer: What happens when the efficiency gains we’ve been promised don’t materialize the way we expected? A recent study out of UC-Berkeley suggests the answer is more troubling than most law firm leaders realize.

If you鈥檝e attended a legal technology conference anytime over the past two years, you鈥檝e heard the pitch: Automate the mundane and elevate the meaningful.

A in the Harvard Business Review by UC-Berkeley researchers Aruna Ranganathan and Xingqi Maggie Ye suggests we should be more skeptical. They tracked how generative AI (GenAI) changed work habits over eight months at a 200-person technology company. Their findings were striking 鈥� AI tools didn鈥檛 reduce work; rather, they intensified it.

According to the study, the tech employees studied were shown to work faster, take on broader responsibilities, extend their hours into evenings and weekends, and multitask more aggressively 鈥� all without being asked to do so. The promise of liberation became a reality of acceleration and overwork.

For those of us in the legal profession, this should be a wake-up call.

Three forms of intensification

The researchers identified three patterns that will sound familiar to anyone watching lawyers adopt GenAI in their work processes.

Task expansion

Because AI fills knowledge gaps, professionals stepped into responsibilities that previously belonged to others. Product managers started writing code, and researchers took on engineering tasks. In legal contexts, the parallel is obvious. Associates use AI to attempt tasks once reserved for senior lawyers. Paralegals draft documents that previously required attorney oversight. Solo practitioners take on matters outside their core expertise because their AI tools make it feel manageable. The result isn鈥檛 less work distributed more efficiently, it鈥檚 more work concentrated in fewer hands, with less institutional knowledge guiding the output.

Blurred boundaries

AI blurred the boundaries between work and non-work. Because prompting an AI feels more like chatting than labor, lawyers (like the tech workers in the study) may slip work into lunch breaks, evenings, and commutes without registering it as additional effort. The conversational interface is seductive precisely because it doesn鈥檛 feel like work. It is work, however, and much more of it.

Pervasive multitasking

Workers managed multiple AI threads simultaneously, generating a sense of momentum that masked increasing cognitive load. For lawyers, this means running parallel research queries, drafting multiple documents at once, and constantly monitoring AI outputs, all while believing they鈥檙e saving time.

The productivity trap

The most important insight from the research is that these effects are self-reinforcing. AI accelerates tasks, which raises expectations for speed. Higher speed increases reliance on AI, and greater reliance expands the scope of what people attempt. And expanded scope generates even more work. Rinse and repeat.

Parkinson鈥檚 law: 鈥淲ork expands to fill the time available for its completion.鈥�

In a profession already plagued by burnout, this cycle should alarm us. The legal industry鈥檚 adoption of AI is being driven largely by the promise of doing the same work in less time. But if the Berkeley research is any guide, what actually happens is that we do more work in the same amount of time, or more work in more time, while telling ourselves we鈥檙e being more productive.

And because the extra effort feels voluntary, firm leadership may not see the problem until it manifests as errors, attrition, or ethical lapses. In law, the cost of impaired judgment isn鈥檛 just a missed deadline 鈥� it鈥檚 a client鈥檚 liberty, livelihood, or life savings.

From productivity to purposeful practice

The Berkeley researchers propose what they call an AI practice consisting of intentional norms and routines that structure how AI is used, including determining when to stop and how work should and should not expand. I鈥檇 go further. For legal organizations, purposeful AI integration requires more than workplace wellness norms. It requires a strategic framework that aligns AI capabilities with organizational mission, ethical obligations, and sustainable human performance.

This means, first off, being honest about what AI actually does to workloads rather than what we hope it will do. If your firm adopted AI expecting to reduce associate hours, audit whether that has actually happened, or whether associates are simply filling reclaimed time with more work.

Second, it means building governance structures that account for how people actually behave with these tools, rather than how leadership imagines they will. The Berkeley study found that workers expanded their workloads voluntarily, without management direction. Top-down AI policies that focus solely on permissible use will miss the intensification that could be happening in plain sight.

The most important insight from the research is that these effects are self-reinforcing. AI accelerates tasks, which raises expectations for speed. Higher speed increases reliance on AI, and greater reliance expands the scope of what people attempt. And expanded scope generates even more work.

Third, it means preserving space for the distinctly human work that AI cannot replicate, such as judgment, empathy, ethical reasoning, and the kind of creative problem-solving that emerges from genuine human dialogue 鈥� not from a conversation with a chatbot. The researchers also found that AI-enabled work became increasingly solitary and continuous, a dangerous trajectory.

The narrative that AI will free lawyers for higher-value work isn鈥檛 just optimistic. It鈥檚 a misunderstanding of how these tools interact with human psychology. AI doesn鈥檛 create leisure. It creates capacity 鈥� and without intentional structures, that capacity gets filled, not with strategic thinking, but with more of everything.

While it鈥檚 clear that AI will change the legal profession, the real challenge is whether law firms will integrate AI with purpose, shaping it to serve their values, their clients, and their professionals鈥� well-being. Or, whether they鈥檒l be allowing the technology to quietly shape us into something we didn鈥檛 intend to become.

Tom Martin is CEO & Founder of LawDroid, Adjunct Professor at Suffolk University Law School, and author of the forthcoming听. He is 鈥淭he AI Law Professor鈥� and writes this eponymous column for the 成人VR视频 Institute.

You can find more about听the use of AI and GenAI in the legal industry听here

Key takeaways:

• • • An emerging employment tribunal crisis听鈥� The UK’s employment tribunal system is facing unprecedented backlogs, long wait times, and unaffordable legal representation, leaving many workers and small businesses unable to effectively resolve workplace disputes.

    • Process-oriented barriers to justice听鈥� Most claims are dismissed not because they lack merit, but due to claimants disengaging from a slow and complex process, with legal costs often exceeding the value of claims and legal aid unable to meet rising demand.

    • A potential role for legal technology听鈥� Mission-driven legal tech platforms are emerging to provide affordable, scalable support and help claimants stay engaged by offering a practical solution to improve access to justice.

When a worker in the United Kingdom is unfairly dismissed or denied wages, their path to resolution runs through employment tribunals, a specialized court system separate from civil courts. As in the United States, many workers and small businesses cannot afford legal representation and must navigate the process on their own.

With backlogs at all-time highs and affordable legal services at all-time lows, this system is coming under increasing pressure. Fortunately, mission-driven technology and data analysis are emerging to level the playing field and increase access to justice.

Current state by the numbers

According to an analysis of the and other data sources,*听in the second quarter of 2025, employment tribunals resolved just 45% of incoming claims, adding 18,000 cases to the backlog alone. In the past year, the open caseload has surged by 244%. This pressure is set to intensify as the inbound Employment Rights Act 2025 鈥� the UK’s most significant overhaul of workplace protections in decades 鈥� is set to extend protection to six million more workers in 2027.

As the backlog increases, so do wait times. In 2025, the average wait for resolution reached 25 weeks, more than double that of 2024, with some claim types like equal pay and discrimination claims reaching up to 37 weeks. Some more complex cases are reported to have their final hearings scheduled as far out as 2029.

With only 8% of cases reaching a final hearing and the majority resolved through settlement or withdrawal, the growing backlog raises concerns about whether lengthy wait times influence how claimants choose to resolve their cases.

In the UK, a common threshold for legal affordability is a salary of 拢55,000, meaning around 65% of workers cannot afford legal representation. Legal aid and pro-bono services exist to support those in need, but with growing funding constraints and rising demand, these services cannot reach nearly two-thirds of claimants.

You can find more insights about how courts are managing the impact of advanced technology from听our Scaling Justice series听here

Tribunal awards are largely calculated from salary. This can result in a claim’s value often being lower than the cost of legal representation to pursue it. In a typical hospitality case, for example, a worker owed 拢1,500 in unpaid wages (equivalent to 3陆 weeks of pay) has a 92% chance of representing themselves and will wait on average six months for resolution 鈥� without pay owed, legal support, or outcome certainty.

The cost, both in time and resources, also falls on employers. In lower-margin industries such as hospitality, default judgments, in which an employer does not engage with proceedings, can reach as high as 37%, compared with a national average of around 6%. For these employers and for smaller businesses more broadly, the cost of legal support may also exceed the value of defending a claim.

With rising costs and growing delays, the risk for both employers and employees is that the system becomes inaccessible, leading to outcomes shaped by who can afford to sustain the process rather than case-by-case strength.

Where justice tech fits

The conventional assumption is that self-represented claimants are at a significant disadvantage when they go to court; yet the data is more nuanced. Self-represented claimants who reach a hearing prevail 44% of the time, compared to 52% for those with legal representation 鈥� a gap of less than eight percentage points.

The greater risk is not losing at hearing but never actually reaching one. Analysis of more than 2,700 struck-out, or dismissed, cases by employment rights platform Yerty found that the majority were dismissed not for lack of merit, but because claimants stopped engaging with the process. Only 6% were struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. This suggests that the primary barrier may not be the absence of legal representation, but the ability to sustain engagement with a slow, complex, and often opaque process.

Increasing numbers of UK workers turning to AI tools like ChatGPT for legal support highlight not only the demand for affordable access but also the risks of general-purpose tools being used in legal contexts. Fabricated case law in tribunal submissions, for example, harms users and adds further pressure to an already overstretched system.

The conventional assumption is that self-represented claimants are at a significant disadvantage when they go to court; yet the data is more nuanced.

A new generation of legal technology platforms is emerging to fill this gap, with tools purpose-built for the specific circumstances of employment law. Yerty and Valla, among others, offer AI-powered guidance tailored to the UK tribunal process, providing affordable, scalable support previously out of reach for most workers. Government organizations are also moving in this direction. For example, in its recent five-year strategy outlook committed to exploring new digital services that offer faster, more accessible support.

Technology alone cannot address underfunding, judicial capacity, or fundamental power imbalances. However, if the majority of dismissed claims stem from disengagement rather than weak cases, and self-represented claimants prevail at comparable rates to those with lawyers, then the answer isn’t more lawyers 鈥� it’s better support upstream. Mission-driven legal technology can provide consistent, scalable guidance that helps both parties manage the process and avoid falling through the cracks.

The UK government’s own assessment of the Employment Rights Bill forecasts a 15% increase in claims by 2027 due to expanded eligibility. As noted above, the system is already under significant pressure before these reforms take effect, and traditional responses 鈥� more judges, more funding 鈥� too often take years to deliver.

While not a complete answer, justice tech can help address a real, measurable problem, that of keeping people engaged in a process that too often disengages them. For a hospitality worker owed back pay, a healthcare worker facing unfair dismissal, or a retail employee navigating a discrimination claim alone, that support could mean the difference between a case heard and one abandoned 鈥� and justice delayed or justice denied.

*Sources: Ministry of Justice Tribunal Statistics Quarterly (July-September 2025); Yerty analysis of 2,721 struck-out tribunal decisions and 8,761 case outcomes; ACAS Strategy 2025-2030; 2024 UK Judicial Attitude Survey, UCL Judicial Institute / UK Judiciary, February 2025.

Key takeaways:

• • • AI is blurring the lines between HR and IT 鈥� The increasing integration of AI agents into workflows is prompting organizations to merge their HR and IT functions, with a significant percentage of IT leaders saying they expect this trend to continue.

    • Strategic actions for success 鈥� To effectively integrate HR and IT and leverage AI, organizations need strong, cross-functional leadership, a clear strategic direction for AI adoption, cultivation of AI literacy and adaptability, and a data-driven approach to cultural transformation.

    • Human adaptation is key 鈥� Unlocking organizational potential can only occur with thoughtful leadership that prioritizes human adaptation and intelligently orchestrates the integration of people and AI.

As AI continues to transforms the future of work, a are breaking down traditional departmental silos by merging their HR and IT functions under unified leadership 鈥� and many expect this trend to continue in the future. Indeed, 64% of IT leaders surveyed say they believe HR and IT will . This strategic convergence is a fundamental shift that is compelling organizational leaders to reimagine how work gets done while presenting other complex challenges.

The convergence of HR and IT functions

The rapid ascent of AI agents from current tools to a future state in which they are expected to be colleagues is blurring the lines between traditional technical and non-technical roles. As Skillsoft’s Chief People Officer Ciara Harrington : “There is no role that’s not a tech role.鈥�

For many forward-thinking organizations, merging these departments offers a combination of benefits and paves the way for a more integrated, data-driven, and agile organization, that clearly offer some benefits including:

Holistic workforce architecture 鈥� Merging HR and IT enables leaders to design how work is done and better align human skills with hardware, software, and AI. For example, around workflows by segmenting what technology should do and where humans add irreplaceable value, explains Tracey Franklin, the company鈥檚 chief people and digital technology officer.

Streamlined innovation and agility 鈥� When HR and IT co-own transformation, organizations can adapt faster to new tech and processes. In another example, to sit within the same bigger team because they both are building systems that support the rest of the business.

Transformation brings about challenges

Navigating the risks of merging HR and IT is not without challenges, however, and organizations must carefully address several barriers to progress, which include:

Loss of specialist expertise 鈥� The most pressing concern involves diluting critical professional knowledge. “Merging the departments risks losing or diluting the specialist expertise organizations need to thrive,” warns David D’Souza from the Chartered Institute of Professional Development. Indeed, the skillsets of HR and IT professionals involve few areas of overlap.

Cognitive depletion 鈥� A risk that is just starting to get the attention it deserves is the danger of over-dependence on AI that can cause reduced cognitive capabilities. “If AI agents do everything with us, we lose skills,鈥� says Skillsoft鈥檚 Harrington. Indeed, this long-term capability risk is multifaceted, resulting in core human skills atrophying and bench strength, adaptability, and ethical discernment weakening.

New roles, metrics, and leadership 鈥� Perhaps the most challenging areas are those that will determine who will manage the AI agents, how human-AI team performance will be evaluated, and what professional development looks like for hybrid human and AI agent teams. Answering these key questions remains an area of ongoing deliberation.

Likewise, traditional HR metrics don鈥檛 fit human-AI teams. Organizations must redefine performance, learning paths, and career progression for both humans and AI. In addition, organizations still need leaders who can navigate the human side of transformation as AI integration accelerates.

Key actions for companies

To unlock real returns on AI investments and from HR and IT integration, organizations need visionary, cross-functional leadership that sets clear strategy, aligns operations, and equips people to work differently. Must-do actions include:

Developing strategic direction 鈥� Research in the recent 成人VR视频 Future of Professionals Report 2025听identifies four interconnected layers for AI success, which include a clear, visible plan for AI adoption (strategy), committed leaders who model the right behaviors (leadership), adjusted workflows and roles to leverage AI (operations), and ways to empower people to learn and set personal AI goals (individuals).

While organizations that align all four layers unlock the greatest value from AI, the first layer, strategy, is the single strongest predictor of AI return on investment, according to the report. And the same is true for successful HR and IT integration. It requires leaders who can bridge both worlds without necessarily being technical experts, while also setting direction and providing vision, allocating capital effectively, removing obstacles, fostering culture, and engaging employees.

Cultivating AI literacy and adaptability听鈥� Organizations also must develop comprehensive AI training with responsible AI, including clear usage policies. This includes preparing employees to incentivize experimentation around recreating their own workflows to allow AI to execute repetitive tasks while team members can then focus on more complex problem-solving.

Data-driven cultural transformation听鈥� Success requires using data strategically to transform the culture to shift to collaborative human/AI ecosystems. Some companies are using data and building accountability mechanisms to ensure leaders are culture promoters and data stewards. Without this data-centric approach to cultural change, organizations likely will fail to realize the full potential of integrated HR and IT functions.

Yet, no matter what functions are merged, organizational potential is unlocked by thoughtful leadership that centers human adaptation and intentionally orchestrates how people and AI integrate to do the work. Now is the moment for companies to define a clear roadmap, invest in capability-building, and pilot human/AI teams with measurable guardrails to help organizations learn fast, acclimate to new work realities, and scale what works.

You can find out more about how organizations are addressing issues of talent development and management here

This widespread AI adoption is reshaping business processes, enhancing decision-making capabilities, and paving the way for more efficient and innovative workflows, the survey shows, with generative AI (GenAI), in particular, holding immense potential to further revolutionize industries. All of which fuels new opportunities for organizations to pursue growth and competitive advantage.

In addition, a large proportion of global C-Suite leaders (85%) said they see the rise of AI as having a transformational (62%) or high (23%) impact on their organizations over the next five years. While AI鈥檚 impact was seen as the most transformative by a wide margin, respondents also cited the explosion in data volumes (40%) and Gen Z professionals entering the workforce (24%) as other transformational impacts.

Drilling down a little further, it is interesting that other generational talent and workforce issues emerge. In fact, C-Suite executives from the largest companies are more likely to view Millennials moving into leadership roles and a shortage of skilled labor both as having a transformational or high impact than do the C-Suite executives at smaller companies.

In addition, these specific generation-driven talent insights show up in the adoption of AI as well. Generational perspectives on AI adoption and integration reveal distinct attitudes that have been shaped by each group’s unique experiences. For example, older generations tend to be more cautious with concerns about privacy, security, and job displacement, according to from AI enterprise research firm MindBreeze.

At the same time, the hesitation in adoption does not necessarily mean these older generations won鈥檛 use it. When AI solutions demonstrate clear benefits, individuals from both the Gen X and Baby Boomer generations are shown to be receptive to adopting them. By contrast, younger generations, as digital natives, have grown up with fast-moving technological advancements and are more enthusiastic adopters of AI. They experience AI as an integral part of their digital lives and leverage it for both work and personal efficiency. Still, concerns do exist. In particular, Millennials expect companies to use AI responsibly and ensure that AI-driven decisions are transparent and fair.

Distilling skilled labor as a concern

The shortage of skilled labor is a pressing concern for C-Suite leaders, and one that carries the potential for affecting productivity and growth across industries. The 2025 C-Suite Survey notes that two-thirds of respondents (66%) said they consider the shortage of skilled labor to have a transformational or high impact on their organizations. This challenge is exacerbated by the rapid pace of technological advancement and evolving business needs.

In this situation, AI emerges as a pivotal solution to mitigate the effects of labor shortages. Survey respondents reveal that AI-powered technologies have led to improved efficiency and productivity in 78% of their organizations. C-Suite leaders also noted that successful AI implementations resulted in the automation of routine tasks and predictive analytics for decision-making.

However, balancing AI integration with human workforce needs remains crucial. Companies must ensure that AI complements the skills of their employees and fosters a collaborative environment in which technology and human expertise work hand in hand.

Making the generational divide & skilled labor shortage work

Embracing AI within an organization requires a holistic approach that includes strategic planning, workforce development, and resource allocation to fully leverage the potential of AI technologies and maintain effective oversight. Specific steps that organizations need to take include:

Creating an AI strategy 鈥� This strategy is essential as it enables organizations to effectively harness AI technologies, ensure alignment with business goals, and address robust governance around usage, including ethical considerations. While there is good news in that about three-quarters of C-Suite leaders said they have an overarching AI strategy at their organizations or separate AI strategies for different functions, findings from the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2025 Generative AI in Professional Services Report suggests such corporate AI strategies are incomplete. In fact, just 23% of respondents to that survey said their organizations had policies guiding the use of GenAI at work. This suggests that there is a lack of robust governance and oversight at many organizations.

Appointing an AI strategy lead or dedicated full-time staffer 鈥� Almost 8 of 10 C-Suite leaders (79%) indicated that there is a formal AI strategy leader in place or that their organization has full-time staff dedicated to AI strategy. Having a dedicated leader assigned to the company鈥檚 AI strategy also helps to align AI initiatives with the overall business objectives of the organization and facilitates seamless integration across various functions within the organization.

Upskilling their workforce 鈥� One of the core components of enabling enterprise adoption of GenAI is making AI tools accessible and providing training and development opportunities for learning. While offering regular AI training is table stakes, organizations are lagging in that, according to the 2025 C-Suite Survey, which shows that just 31% of C-Suite respondents said their organizations provided GenAI training. Yet, to create a tech-agile workforce, a multi-pronged approach is required, which includes targeting the skills of the future for junior specialists and developing an AI mindset for more experienced professionals.

Taking advantage of generational strengths through mentoring 鈥� Younger employees can help to become more familiar with AI tools, while experienced professionals can offer valuable perspectives on the strategic and ethical aspects of adopting AI. Cross-generational mentorship can also help drive collaboration and understanding as essential ingredients in fostering a culture of innovation and adaptability.

AI’s transformative impact on the workplace is undeniable, but developing comprehensive AI strategies, investing in workforce upskilling, and leveraging generational strengths through mentorship are required to enable organizations to navigate the evolving landscape.

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2025 C-Suite Survey here

And my own research with American Law Media focusing on the legal profession supports these findings. To more clearly understand how frequently lawyers and legal professionals were experiencing different aspects of the three burnout dimensions, I created 17 statements and asked respondents to rate how frequently the statements applied to them. In all, 887 lawyers and legal professionals responded, and a small portion of the results are summarized in the chart below. It鈥檚 not that lawyers and legal professionals are experiencing some of these factors that is concerning 鈥� it鈥檚 the frequency.

For leaders of legal organizations to match this moment and continue to build teams and cultures that are both high-performing and engaged, they need to first understand four macro factors, which help explain some of the discontent.

FACTOR 1: The pandemic altered our collective perspective about work and life 鈥� While it may seem ages ago now, the pandemic was an upheaval event that impacted literally everyone on the planet. During this time, many people were scared, chronically stressed, overwhelmed, and frustrated. Upheaval events such as this for meaning and purpose through post-traumatic growth.

FACTOR 2: Uncertainty & instability are here to stay 鈥� People analytics leader, : 鈥淐ompanies are confronted with a series of organizational shifts that have significant implications for structures, processes, and people. These include complex questions around finding an optimal balance between in-person and remote work, building new organizational capabilities in the face of challenging (and changing) workforce demographics and talent gaps, and focusing on developing a healthy, inclusive, and thriving company culture.鈥�

These types of changes 鈥� both large and small, acute and ongoing 鈥� create psychological pressure and strain in unexpected ways and continue to drive stress and exhaustion. Volatility, change, and uncertainty will continue to define work for the foreseeable future; however, change and instability often strengthen for well-being, meaning, and work-life balance.

FACTOR 3: A technology-enabled future will require a human-centric leadership approach 鈥� GenAI is in the process of transforming certain aspects of the legal profession, and this will only evolve as the technology becomes more sophisticated and legal organizations learn how best to use it. Legal leaders must now in a way that promotes community, creativity, communication, teamwork, and other human-focused qualities that GenAI tools will have a difficult time replicating.

FACTOR 4: Leaders need to incorporate practices that amplify meaningful work and promote an alignment of values 鈥� People want a sense of purpose and meaning in their work, and legal leaders need to be able to connect the dots to this higher level of aspiration. While meaning and values alignment are important generally, they are critical must-haves for younger Millennials and Gen Z workers.

Great leadership has always been needed for companies and firms to grow and thrive, but the how of going about it has changed. To be able to effectively lead as the legal landscape continues to evolve, leaders need a blueprint that will give them the tools to: i) address the root causes of both stress and high-performance; ii) build thriving teams that stay engaged, connected, and inspired; and iii) help their teams adapt to and navigate change, complexity, and uncertainty. Collectively, I call this approach Lead Well and have created five mindsets for legal leaders to practice:

• • • Mindset #1 鈥� Prioritize sticky recognition & mattering
    • Mindset #2 鈥� Amplify ABC needs (Autonomy, Belonging & Challenge)
    • Mindset #3 鈥� Create workload sustainability
    • Mindset #4 鈥� Build systemic stress resilience
    • Mindset #5 鈥� Promote Alignment of values & meaning

The TNTs (Tiny Noticeable Things) that help

What I have discovered is that the skills, tools, and frameworks underpinning the Lead Well concept typically fall into one of two buckets: good teaming practices and good human practices. And there are some tiny, noticeable things that can get help, including:

Say a thank you 鈥減lus鈥� 鈥� When you acknowledge someone, add an extra sentence to specify the strength or behavior you saw in them that led to the good outcome. This creates sticky recognition & mattering and also amplifies the B in ABC needs.

Hold a debrief 鈥� When a legal matter ends, or at key inflection points, pause to debrief by checking in with the team and asking what鈥檚 working or not working. This practice increases team resilience and can also help with workload sustainability by giving people clarity.

Conduct a meetings audit 鈥� Good meetings have an explicitly stated goal, an agenda, a default standard length of 15 to 30 minutes, and a meeting facilitator. Better meeting practices often lead to fewer or shorter meetings, which also helps workload sustainability.

Get on the same page 鈥� Effective teams are about direction, priorities, and roles. Your team should regularly discuss and have a clear understanding of what success looks like and what the project鈥檚 top priorities are, while delineating clear roles. Teams can then take control of and feel ownership over their actions, which enhances both the A and C of the ABC needs.

Talk about impact 鈥� Employees need a clear line of sight between what they do and the impact it has on other people鈥檚 lives. Lawyers wade into the toughest challenges that business and society face, yet the extraordinary impact isn鈥檛 often discussed. Talking about the being done was found to be the pathway most strongly associated with achieving meaningful work.

The traditional model of leadership development in the legal profession starts way too late in a lawyer鈥檚 career and typically does not account for teaching skills associated with building strong teams and the psychological factors associated with motivating and encouraging others. Nor does it help legal organization leaders better understand the factors that underpin a great culture, and which factors make people want to stay long-term. The good news is that all of this is teachable and science based 鈥� ultimately, the stronger your team, the more you will have time to focus on your legal practice.

You can find more about Paula Davis鈥檚 recently published second book, , here

From small municipal courts to large county court systems, leveraging AI to significantly reduce the workload associated with HR duties can achieve time savings of up to 60%, according to , Municipal Court Administrator for the City of Victoria, Texas.

Case study for small courts

For smaller courts with limited HR staff, time-consuming HR tasks can be particularly burdensome; however, publicly available GenAI tools like ChatGPT are a promising solution to streamlining these processes. For example, Totah noted that there are several immediate benefits and use cases for GenAI in the HR space, including:

Time savings in crafting job descriptions 鈥� Rapidly evolving court roles with increasing technical requirements often make traditional job descriptions obsolete. However, updating job descriptions is a time-consuming process. In fact, before using GenAI, Totah would request samples from other courts and organizations just to keep her court鈥檚 job descriptions current.

During the webinar, Totah showed how GenAI can dramatically expedite this task. By uploading existing job descriptions into an AI tool and prompting it to suggest updates based on current trends, she was able to quickly generate improved descriptions that incorporated sought-after skills like technical ability, adaptability, and innovation.

Reduced time requirements in performance-improvement plans 鈥� Similarly, GenAI can improve efficiency in performance-improvement plans, which are used to help upgrade team members who may be struggling in their work performances. In many cases, these performance-improvement plans lack objective and data-driven metrics. GenAI can be used to produce performance-improvement plan templates that can incorporate modern court responsibilities and key performance indicators.

Totah emphasized the importance of crafting detailed prompts when using AI for HR tasks, recommending that users include specific categories required by HR standards and clearly outlining the desired structure and components of the job description. The more information provided in the prompt, the more tailored and useful the AI-generated content will be.

Use case for larger court systems

In the webinar, Darren Dang, Chief Financial & Administrative Officer for the Orange County Superior Court, showed how his teams are using GenAI AI to aid employees with HR-related inquiries, including questions about vacation time. He showcased , which has access to the court鈥檚 HR policies, procedures, and employee-specific information like paid-time-off balances. By using this tool, employees can quickly get personalized answers about their vacation accruals and balances without having to contact HR directly.

Join us in the next NCSC-TR Institute webinar听

Dang explained that EMI uses retrieval augmented generation to pull relevant information from HR databases and documents and provide correct, employee-specific responses. He noted that this AI assistant helps streamline HR processes, reducing the workload on HR staff and allowing employees to get immediate answers to common questions.

In the future, EMI will be enhanced by equipping supervisors and managers with relevant information on their employees to help managers further reduce their workload of administrative duties.

Important points for implementation

When implementing GenAI for HR tasks in court systems, Dang and Totah highlighted several crucial considerations and best practices that users should keep in mind for successful adoption and integration, including:

• • • Ensure a human-in-the-loop approach 鈥� Totah stressed the critical role of human oversight. For example, when crafting job descriptions Totah recommended reviewing and refining the AI outputs and involving frontline staff to ensure accuracy and relevance. This human-in-the-loop approach combines the efficiency of AI with the nuanced understanding of human experts.
    • Start small and implement gradually 鈥� As court professionals further explore AI applications, both Dang and Totah suggested that they start with internal, lower-risk use cases, like those in HR functions. This allows for experimentation and learning internally before potentially expanding to public-facing tools. Likewise, focusing on internal-facing applications initially allows staff the time to work out issues and build confidence in the system before expanding access.
    • Automate the boring stuff 鈥� Courts should also focus on using AI for tasks that staff find tedious or time-consuming. Duties, such as searching through procedures or extracting information from invoices, are best suited for AI assistance, according to Dang. This helps with adoption by reducing friction and allowing staff to focus more on work they enjoy.

While AI tools offer exciting possibilities for improving court operations, it’s important to remember they are assistive technologies, not replacements for human judgment. The most effective implementation of AI in court settings combines the efficiency and analytical capabilities of AI with the contextual understanding, ethical insights, and decision-making skills of court professionals.

To get started, Totah and Dang both agreed that the 鈥� which offers a platform to practice and refine AI prompts without exposing sensitive data 鈥� provides a safe environment for courts to begin this journey.

You can find more about how courts are using AI-driven technology here

One of these companies is Big Four accounting and consulting giant PwC, which implemented a broad rollout of Microsoft’s Copilot from its most junior to senior levels after just 90 minutes of training. This democratization aims to empower all employees to experiment with AI and find ways to improve their daily workflows.

Training & development for a tech-agile workforce

This approach balances individual experimentation with more structured, team-level implementation for client-facing work. And while individuals are encouraged to use AI for personal productivity, teams are tasked with identifying consistent processes in which AI can be applied to capture enterprise-wide productivity gains, says , Markets Leader of Managed Accounts at PwC Canada. More specifically, she adds, enterprise-wide initiatives 鈥� including developing prescriptive prompts for high-impact, cross-functional activities, such as proposal writing 鈥� were also in the mix.

Still, decisions at the top were needed to determine what 鈥渨orkflows were no-fly zones鈥� 鈥� those areas of client services that PwC鈥檚 global network had to designate for effective risk management by ascertaining the legal risk, and 鈥渉ow the firm is protecting itself against IP infringement,” Gilberg adds.

Targeting the skills of the future for junior specialists 鈥� PwC also is taking an interesting approach to increasing AI literacy among junior staff. 鈥淲e’re trying to create change-agility and technology comfort in the juniors,鈥� Gilberg explains. 鈥淚t’s forcing us to stop making it about giving junior staff tasks.鈥� The goal is to create a workforce that is not just proficient in using AI tools, but also capable of applying judgment, understanding risk factors, and providing meaningful oversight of AI-augmented work.

Because AI tools can now handle many routine tasks, junior staff are being trained to supervise and review AI outputs to help staffers grasp the broader principles and logic behind the work. “If they are going to supervise the AI, that’s not a task, they need to understand the backdrop against which they’re doing that,鈥� Gilberg says, adding that this approach emphasizes developing critical thinking skills and the ability to spot errors or inconsistencies in AI-generated content.

“We’re trying to create change-agility and technology comfort in the juniors, and it’s forcing us to stop making it about giving junior staff tasks.鈥�

Employing multiple approaches to achieve this 鈥� PwC Canada鈥檚 Generation Wave initiative provides AI-competency education at escalating levels, from use-case demonstrations to hands-on building exercises. The firm also hosts prompt-engineering parties, which are group learning sessions at which cross-functional teams collaborate to develop effective prompts for AI tools and apply them to common workflows. These interactive, experimental approaches allow employees to gain practical experience with AI in a supportive environment.

Developing an AI mindset for experienced professionals 鈥� For employees who have advanced beyond the junior stage, PwC prioritizes learning that fosters an AI mindset and teaches professionals how to use AI to master the firm鈥檚 go-to-market strategy for more effective client results. Additionally, the firm offers voluntary training modules and has integrated AI adoption into performance evaluations as a clear indication of the importance of embracing this technology across the organization, notes Gilberg.

Navigating client concerns and regulatory compliance

Of course, there have been challenges along the way. One complexity with which the firm is dealing in real time, for example, is addressing the wide variety of client preferences around using AI. 鈥淲e’ve had clients say, 鈥榃e’re not prepared to pay for junior staff鈥� can’t you do this with GenAI?鈥�,鈥� Gilberg says, adding that while this can be done, there is still a requirement for human oversight to ensure the output is high quality. 鈥淎nd then, there have been others that are saying, 鈥楴o, there will be no use of AI.鈥欌��

One fundamental and consistent principle in addressing client concerns about AI usage is stating how the firm itself is using advanced technology, through engagement letters to ensure transparency of how GenAI is utilized in projects. In addition, PwC finds itself doing a lot of proactive education with clients about AI technologies to help them better understand the benefits and limitations, she says, noting that this education-based approach both alleviates client concerns and fosters trust by demonstrating the firm鈥檚 commitment to transparency and ethical AI use.

Yet even before going out to clients and rolling out AI technologies across the enterprise, Gilberg explains the firm gathered its global risk and compliance teams to oversee AI implementations to ensure that all these applications adhere to the necessary legal and security frameworks. This ongoing process involves selecting appropriate AI models that meet the firm’s security requirements and ensuring consistent application across different regions and services.

By embracing a two-pronged approach of empowering individual experimentation while establishing structured implementation guidelines, companies should follow the example of PwC Canada to unlock the full potential of AI while mitigating risks. Indeed, this strategy paves the way for a future in which AI is seamlessly integrated into a workforce while enhancing its productivity and innovation.

You can read more about advanced AI employee training here.

Recently, I spoke with a midsize accounting firm that had spent more than $100,000 on organizational resilience initiatives in 2024, and while firm leadership believed it was successful and wanted to keep momentum going, they were uncertain of their next steps. When I asked what metrics they used to measure success, they admitted they had only tracked attendance and word of mouth feedback.

If this sounds familiar, you鈥檙e not alone. However, this is precisely why many companies fall short in achieving their desired outcomes.

In this final installment of our three-part series on organizational resilience, we鈥檒l explore the return on investment (ROI) you can expect when you intentionally invest in transformational solutions to foster resilience within your company. We will also look at two companies that are benefiting because of their previous investment in organizational resilience.

What are the transformational solutions?

Many professionals dream of the perks offered by companies like Google and often view anything less as inadequate. However, companies can thrive without ping-pong tables in the office breakroom and free bagels in the morning. What employees truly want is balance, demonstrated in time off from work for family and a flexible work environment that genuinely supports them. 鈥淵ou have to meet people where they are,鈥� says Mariya Rosberg, Head of Americas Banking and Financial Services at management consulting firm .

What employees truly want is balance, demonstrated in time off from work for family and a flexible work environment that genuinely supports them.

Transformational solutions provide focused, consistent and ongoing support that enables employees to perform at their best. This can include group programs, coaching, training sessions, workshops, and team-building events. The key is sustained effort 鈥� one-off happy hours and 30-day walking challenges won鈥檛 cut it anymore.

Oliver Wyman launched a group program for women in their Corporate and Institutional Banking practice, designed to address the common challenges that their professionals face. The program provided practical tools to help participants manage both their careers and personal lives more effectively. “We invested in this program because we genuinely care about our people and want them to feel supported,鈥� says Rosberg. 鈥淚 also liked the idea of creating authentic environments for our team to connect and discuss issues that supersede engagement or rank.”

(LSHV), a legal non-profit that serves low-income individuals, took a different approach as its leaders launched a firm-wide program that specifically addressed attorney burnout. 鈥淏urnout is a constant concern in the legal profession, and we saw a group program as the most effective way to support our staff,鈥� says Christa Ring, Human Resources Director at LSHV.

While both organizations implemented group programs, their goals, budgets, and cohort sizes varied. However, that鈥檚 a good thing 鈥� each devised a customized strategy that led to targeted execution and meaningful outcomes.

What to consider as a success

In the previous article, I shared a simple math scenario in which ROI could be measured through retention. However, many other metrics also indicate success, such as reduced sick days, increased revenue or margins, lower attrition costs, higher job satisfaction, and improved ability to handle competing demands. Subtle improvements, such as better presenteeism, communication, stress management, and confidence, are also valuable indicators of success.

Take sick days, for example. Imagine a managing director nearing burnout who takes two days off due to illness. They likely return feeling behind and disconnected. In contrast, with proper coping strategies implemented through organizational resilience programs, that same director may still take time off but would likely recover faster. More importantly, they would return feeling refreshed, better able to prioritize, and more capable of asking for help when needed.

LSHV鈥檚 Ring shared an example of an attorney struggling with severe burnout who was on the verge of quitting. Just weeks into the program, this attorney experienced significant improvement in mood and morale, benefiting from the tools provided in the program. While not every investment yields immediate results, this case highlights the direct impact a thoughtfully designed program can have on employee well-being and retention. “After surveying our people, the majority felt their coping skills improved and that they were equipped with better tools to handle challenges,” Ring explains.

Transformational solutions provide focused, consistent and ongoing support that enables employees to perform at their best.

This outcome is common in programs that are focused on building organizational resilience. Rosberg, of Oliver Wyman, witnessed a similar experience. “One of the most notable observations was participants recognizing they had more control, even when faced with challenges and hardships,鈥� she says.

At Oliver Wyman, post-program surveys showed that participants felt they gained clear tools to reframe stressful situations and improve their boundary-setting skills. Rosberg also mentioned how participants found relief in their newly founded ability to openly discuss sensitive topics with colleagues, which fostered a supportive working environment. 鈥淚n the long run, I see this as a way to build diversity in our pipeline.”

Success in these programs occurs when both the employer and employee benefit. It doesn’t have to look a certain way externally; it simply requires meeting the needs of both parties. One additional success both Rosberg and Ring noted is the longevity of the investment, as employees continue to reference and benefit from the original program months and years after its initial launch.

When measuring the success of an organizational resilience program, two key points are important. First, not all employees will engage fully. “Keep in mind that not everyone will practice or internalize the strategies,鈥� Ring cautions. 鈥淏ut even if a few employees achieve better balance in their lives, we’ve succeeded.” Second, success is an ongoing process that requires continuous effort; however, once the initial momentum is built, it鈥檚 easier to maintain the benefits achieved.

Making organizational resilience your company鈥檚 reality

Organizational resilience goes beyond quick fixes 鈥� gone are the days when a $150 massage gift card or a team bowling event could save your workforce. It鈥檚 about genuinely supporting your people through challenges and not ignoring them. In order for your organization to thrive in the next five to 10 years of uncertainty, now is the time to act. Here are few key steps you can take now:

1. 1. 1. Finalize your budget and intentional goals.
      2. Develop a strategic plan that addresses your top priorities and incorporates the key decisions from earlier in this series.
      3. Get the support needed to achieve a positive ROI.

While this may feel like an additional burden given all your company鈥檚 existing challenges, it鈥檚 essential. You can鈥檛 wait for talent to leave or for bad press to surface 鈥� you need organizational resilience now. If you’re still unsure how to proceed, reach out to a well-being consultant who can guide you through the process and ensure your company achieves the ROI you鈥檝e been striving for.

Cultivating a culture of organizational resilience doesn鈥檛 have to be a daunting undertaking 鈥� it can be an easy win-win.

You can read the complete 3-part听Organizational Resilience series, here.

This has contributed to a in the legal sector: As knowledgeable legacy employees retire, those employees remaining experience an increased workload, steep learning curves, and increasingly complex legal matters and technology to manage.

For many courts, bringing in new team members may require additional on-boarding resources. Indeed, only 12% of employees in the United States rate their workplace as . This can have a devastating impact, as effective on-boarding procedures dramatically increase employee engagement, productivity, and retention, research has shown.

As knowledgeable legacy employees retire, those employees remaining experience an increased workload, steep learning curves, and increasingly complex legal matters and technology to manage.

While employee orientation includes such routine tasks as completing new employee paperwork, on-boarding is a longer, immersive process that integrates new hires into workplace culture 鈥� exposing new employees to shared habits and beliefs within an organization and helping employees to .

By connecting new hires to organizational beliefs and the why behind work processes, organizations can achieve greater retention, higher employee engagement, and increased productivity. In fact, is one which addresses beliefs and employee strengths and introduces new hires to their strategic partners while outlining their future within the organization.

Best made plans, pre-pandemic

In 2018, King County Superior Court (Seattle, WA) partnered with to develop a comprehensive, year-long employee on-boarding program with funding from a State Justice Institute Technical Assistance grant. Geared around reduction in turnover, boosting employee confidence, and shortening the time from hire to full productivity, the was scheduled to launch in 2020, but the court would instead spend the next three years adapting and pivoting through the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Dr. Brenda Wagenknecht-Ivey, CEO of Praxis Consulting, and Linda Ridge, Chief Administrative Officer for King County Superior Court, the pandemic pivot was necessary to keep their ambitious on-boarding program on track. All-Aboard, in its original format, consisted of four phases over the first year of an individual鈥檚 employment. The program focused on:

• • • welcoming and socializing new employees to their team, department, and the court;
    • connecting new employees to their co-workers;
    • communicating expectations and teaching new employees their day-to-day responsibilities; and
    • integrating them into the court by engaging them in fulfilling the court鈥檚 purpose, demonstrating its core values, and achieving its goals.

Post-pandemic, King County Superior Court now operates in a dramatically different workplace landscape. Today, the court consists of 54 judges, 10 commissioners, and more than 300 staff members. Weathering the pandemic involved a significant number of temporary hires to integrate new court technology and support .

More than 60% of the court鈥檚 judicial bench has turned over in the last five years, and while judicial officers and bailiffs are 100% on-site, two-thirds of Superior Court staff now have some form of remote capacity for their role. Further, 25% of employees in 2023 had been with the court less than five years and the organization has new leaders in the Court Chief Administrative Officer role, the Deputy Chief Administrative Role, and numerous other managerial and director level roles since 2019.

The churn of organizational turnover has brought some managerial-level concern that there simply isn鈥檛 enough time to engage in a comprehensive on-boarding process at this scale. Leadership disagrees, stressing that cultural and connection, centered on-boarding, are more important than ever before in today鈥檚 hybrid work environment.

More than 60% of the court鈥檚 judicial bench has turned over in the last five years, and while judicial officers and bailiffs are 100% on-site, two-thirds of Superior Court staff now have some form of remote capacity for their role.

The original All-Aboard program was designed to reduce the chances of employees feeling siloed by giving them the opportunity to understand the larger organization through observing court proceedings, touring the county鈥檚 three court facilities, and meeting with various organizational leaders beyond their supervisor. These elements will remain a part of the reimagined All-Aboard program, anticipated to be formally re-launched later this year.

Technology solutions to reduce training time

The time burden of on-boarding often falls heavily on those responsible for training new employees. Best practices suggest that training materials are documented to ensure that training is executed consistently, and resources are made available on-demand in the future. The suggests that organizations dedicate time to documenting processes and workflows internally to guarantee consistent procedures across the organization and create a shareable resource for both new hires and current employees to access step-by-step instructions as a refresher.

Reducing time spent on compliance and clarification training allows more focus on meaningful connection and culture exposure for new employees. For example, incorporating mentor programs into on-boarding processes can better foster new employee connections. To this end, King County Superior Court is incorporating a New Employee Buddy program as a part of the relaunch of All-Aboard, in which high-performing colleagues (not supervisors) will be paired with new hires to serve as resource for the first three months of a new hire鈥檚 tenure. While check-ins can occur online with the new technology in place in King County, leadership still stresses that in-person connection is an important part of employee on-boarding.

As courts across the country continue to weather retirements and higher employee turnover, developing highly effective on-boarding processes is a critical investment. By prioritizing consistency in processes and documentation of how things are done, institutional knowledge can more effectively be retained, and training burdens can be reduced.

In remote, onsite, and hybrid workplaces, on-boarding processes which promote connection to the organization鈥檚 mission and culture can help new hires see how their role connects to the larger organization, which in turn can lead to more satisfied and productive employees.

You can download a full copy of 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2^nd annual 2024 State of the Courts report here.

Biometric technology has evolved significantly in recent years, and some of the most common uses include identification, health & fitness tracking, authentication, corporate security, and timekeeping.

Currently, no federal law directly addresses the collection, use, storage, and disclosure of biometric data; however,听听of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act gives the FTC broad authority to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices in or affecting commerce. Under that authority, the FTC may take enforcement action against commercial organizations that engage in unfair and deceptive practices involving biometric data. If an organization that collects and uses biometric data fails to keep its promises to consumers regarding its handling of that data, it risks an FTC enforcement action.

Biometric data collection, use, disclosure, and storage present challenging privacy and security concerns because individuals cannot change their biometric data. In response to the risks presented by this data, Illinois, Texas, and Washington have adopted the following laws focused specifically on biometric data handling:

• (BIPA)
• (CUBI)
• (Washington Biometric Law).

Although only three states thus far have enacted comprehensive statutes addressing biometric data handling, many other states regulate some aspect of biometric data in other ways. Several states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Texas, Oregon, and Virginia have enacted general privacy laws that include biometric information in the definition of personal information. In addition, several US cities have adopted ordinances governing biometric data, including New York City and Portland, Oregon. Many other cities have enacted laws that regulate law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology.

In addition, BIPA, CUBI, and the Washington Biometric Law all impose distinct obligations on persons or entities that collect biometric data compared to those that simply possess biometric data.

The laws鈥� scope of coverage

The scope of coverage under BIPA, CUBI, and the Washington Biometric Law are similar, but the laws differ in the following respects:

BIPA scope of coverage

BIPA applies to private entities that include individuals, partnerships, corporations, or听limited liability companies, and associations or other groups, however organized. Specifically, BIPA broadly applies to those entities collecting or possessing biometric identifiers or biometric information, while CUBI and the Washington Biometric Law only apply to biometric identifiers collected or possessed for commercial purposes.

CUBI scope of coverage

CUBI applies to the collection and possession of biometric identifiers for a commercial purpose. However, CUBI does not define commercial purpose or specify the persons and entities the law covers. CUBI excludes from its scope voiceprint data retained by financial institutions or their affiliates, as defined under the 听(GLBA).

Unlike BIPA and the Washington Biometric Law, CUBI does not specify the persons and entities subject to the law. CUBI also provides fewer exceptions from the law than BIPA and the Washington Biometric Law.

Washington Biometric Law scope of coverage

The Washington Biometric Law covers all individuals and听听except government agencies, activities subject to HIPAA, law enforcement activity, and financial institutions and affiliates subject to the GLBA.

The Washington Biometric Law specifically applies to biometric identifiers collected, maintained, and used for a commercial purpose.

Notice and consent

BIPA, CUBI, and the Washington Biometric Law all include notice and consent requirements before an organization may collect or obtain biometric identifiers or biometric information. Organizations should ensure they implement a system for providing and tracking notice and obtaining consent. This can be done electronically, for example, before collecting a fingerprint scan by providing an electronic notice and consent in which the individual clicks a box to consent. Organizations also should implement a system for storing notices and consents obtained under any applicable statute of limitations.

Sale, use, and disclosure restrictions

BIPA, CUBI, and the Washington Biometric Law all restrict the sale, use, and disclosure of biometric data, yet there are key differences among the laws.

For example, unlike CUBI and the Washington Biometric Law, BIPA prohibits the sale, lease, trade, or profiting from biometric identifiers or biometric information under any circumstance, including with the individual’s consent. Organizations may disclose, redisclose, or disseminate biometric identifiers or biometric information under BIPA for other purposes if they meet an exception.

Also, CUBI and the Washington Biometric Law allow organizations to sell, lease, or disclose biometric data if they meet an exception such as consent. The Washington Biometric Law allows for these disclosures with an individual’s general consent; however, CUBI only allows individuals to consent for certain defined purposes, including where disclosure is required by state or federal law.

Organizations subject to BIPA, CUBI, and the Washington Biometric Law must implement a system to ensure they do not disclose biometric data unless a statutory exception applies, and sell or otherwise profit from biometric data in the organization’s possession unless a statutory exception applies. The exceptions under each law differ so organizations must understand in which cases the laws permit or restrict disclosures.

Security & storage requirements

BIPA, CUBI, and the Washington Biometric Law all require persons and entities to protect biometric data using a reasonable standard of care. However, the laws do not define or provide guidance on what constitutes reasonable data security. Therefore, organizations should conduct due diligence to ensure that they comply with any data security standards applicable to their industry and other generally recognized data security standards to protect biometric data.

BIPA, CUBI, and the Washington Biometric Law all require the destruction of biometric data after a certain time, but no later than when the initial collection purpose ends. To that end, organizations should decide on a retention schedule and implement a system to ensure it destroys biometric data in the required timeframe. For example, if an organization requires customers to scan fingerprints for entry to an amusement park, it can arguably retain that data for the duration of the amusement park season. Or an employer that captures an employee’s biometric data for security purposes, should understand that the purpose typically expires on termination of employment.

To ensure they comply with retention obligations, organizations should retain an outside vendor or work closely with their information technology department.

Determining whether collector or possessor obligations apply

BIPA, CUBI, and the Washington Biometric Law also impose specific obligations on persons or entities in possession of biometric data compared to those that simply collect biometric data. Private entities may have both collector and possessor obligations; however, it should be understood that collector obligations exceed possessor obligations.

Organizations must analyze whether they collect or possess biometric data or both. In Illinois, case law can help organizations assess what constitutes possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information. However, there are no reported cases or guidance on the meaning of possession under CUBI or the Washington Biometric Law. Organizations may therefore decide that compliance with both collector and possessor obligations under these laws is the best way to protect against regulatory action.

If a third-party vendor offers biometric technology or services to customers that collect biometric data in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, it may be a possessor under the laws. These third parties and their customers should address any potential obligations through contractual clauses by examining several factors, including: i) whether the customer collects biometric data in Illinois, Texas, or Washington; ii) which party must comply with all obligations under applicable laws; iii) whether the contract should include indemnification clauses, such as requiring reimbursement for lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and any other costs associated with biometric data law violations; and iv) whether the clients or third-party vendors have adequate insurance to cover biometric data claims and violations.

As the use of biometrics technology becomes increasingly commonplace among organizations, any companies involved will need to become acquainted with applicable state laws and take special care to preserve individuals鈥� privacy.

This article was written by 成人VR视频