Updates

October is Cyber Security Awareness Month in Canada, and this year's theme from Get Cyber Safe, the Government of Canada's awareness campaign, is "Your best defence is you."

Their point is practical. AI-generated scams and phishing emails can look more real than ever, and many incidents can be prevented with everyday habits. The three they name:

1. Check suspicious messages. Pause before you click, reply or share information. 2. Turn on multi-factor authentication. 3. Use strong passwords, and a password manager to keep them.

Pick one account that holds client or customer information and do all three on it this week.

A draft stays a draft until you say otherwise.

Alberta's law society puts it plainly: treat any Gen AI output as a first draft only.

Juris is built the same way. Export a Juris draft to PDF or Word before a lawyer has approved it and every page is stamped UNVERIFIED, with a banner saying it has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not for filing or service until it is.

The stamp comes off when you approve the draft, or when you confirm at export that you have checked it yourself.

The big legal suites are built for a hundred lawyers, three practice groups, and a procurement committee that signs off on seat licenses. Somewhere in that sales deck is a slide about "enterprise scale."

You are one lawyer. Maybe two. You do not have a procurement committee. You have a filing due Thursday and a client who wants to know where their case stands.

What you actually need is smaller than what they are selling you. You need to know a citation is real before it goes in front of a judge. You need the deadline caught before it catches you. You need a draft you can trust enough to edit, not rewrite. You need one place to talk to your client without another app open.

None of that requires the suite. It requires the parts of the suite that matter, built for someone working alone or with one or two others, without the seat count and the onboarding calls built for a firm ten times your size.

Your evenings go to drafting. That is exactly where growing firms are putting AI.

In Clio's 2025 Legal Trends Report, U.S. firms with wide AI adoption were nearly three times more likely to report revenue growth than firms that had not adopted AI. Most firms that grew revenue with AI credited the same work: document generation, workflow and client communication.

That is where Juris starts. It drafts motions, facta, appeals and letters from your case file, and every authority in the draft is marked Verified, Verify or Unverified, so you know what to check before you file.

Try it free for 14 days: https://juris.kwatateam.com Clio figures: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-science-behind-smarter-law-clios-2025-legal-trends-report-reveals-how-technology-is-rewiring-the-way-lawyers-work-302585725.html

Before you file, know which of your citations checked out.

Juris checks each citation against the official law for your jurisdiction, links you to the original when it finds it, and tells you plainly when it cannot confirm something. Every authority is marked Verified, Verify or Unverified, so you know exactly where to look twice.

Checking against official sources is live for Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, with more coming.

An AI you can check, rather than one you have to trust.

Snap a receipt the moment you get it, wherever you are.

Kwata Books keeps a safe copy of every receipt, sorts it into CRA categories for you, and your books are ready when tax time comes.

Free to start: https://books.kwatateam.com

The Law Society of Alberta has already drafted your firm's AI rules. You just have to adapt them.

It is a free, four-page guide for your lawyers and staff, with the firm's AI use rules already written. Download it, fill in your firm's details, and adjust the rules to fit your practice.

If you have not got to this yet, you are in good company. In Clio's 2025 Legal Trends Report, 53% of U.S. legal professionals said their firm has no AI policy, or that they do not know of one.

While you adapt it, add two questions for every AI tool your people use: 1. Is our client information used to train it? 2. Can privileged documents stay out of it?

Use AI on the whole case file, without putting privilege at risk.

Most lawyers think it's one or the other. Sort out the privileged documents by hand before any tool sees the file, or don't use the tool.

In Juris you mark a document privileged once. From then on, Sage leaves it out of every answer, every summary and every draft it builds for that case, and works through everything else.

The speed on what you can share. The documents you can't stay yours. And every privilege mark is logged with who made it, so you can show it was handled.

You know your file too well. That is the problem.

By the fourth read you are not reading any more, you are recognising. The date you glanced past on the second read is the one you will glance past on the tenth. The other side finds it on their first.

A twenty-lawyer firm hands the file to someone who has never seen it. Solo practice has nobody to hand it to.

Juris is that person. Point it at the documents and it comes back with strengths, red flags, the contradictions across your own record, what is missing and who to get it from, and the opportunities you have not taken.

AI is right there and free until you hit a limit, so of course people are using it to pull a case or check a cite. Nobody is being reckless. That is just a Tuesday afternoon with a filing due.

The trouble is these tools will hand you a case that does not exist, and they will also hand you a real case that says something it never said, and both of those look exactly like good research right up until someone checks.

Lawyers have been sanctioned for it. Costs out of pocket, referrals to the law society, and a name sitting in a published judgment that does not go anywhere.

Nobody sets out to file a case that is not real. It just needs one busy week.

A lawyer filed two cases that ChatGPT invented. The court accepted she had not meant to mislead anyone. She still paid the other side's costs out of her own pocket, and the judgment carries her name.

The part worth reading twice: in the New York matter, counsel did check. He went back to the model and asked whether the cases were real, and it told him they were.

A model asked to confirm its own output will usually confirm it. Agreeing is the most plausible continuation of that conversation. It has no separate memory of what it made up.

The check takes about ninety seconds, and it is written up here.