AI

by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm

Welcome Max Young, legal extern

Welcome Max Young to our Team

We are delighted to introduce Max Young, a third-year student at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, who joins us as a legal extern this semester. A Lexington, Kentucky native and Indiana University alum, Max was drawn to South Carolina not only for the warm weather but also for the law school’s growing emphasis on technology and innovation in the legal field, a focus that matches quite well with Kim, Lahey & Killough’s law practice.

Max brings hands-on experience from his work as a law clerk at the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, where he collaborated with the CISO and Assistant General Counsel on information security policies, and as a research assistant focusing on AI policy and its ethical implications under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Max is eager to help our team produce practical insights on leveraging AI to enhance legal efficiency while maintaining ethical obligations like client confidentiality.

When he’s not researching data privacy regulations or analyzing AI governance frameworks, you might find Max traveling, hiking, celebrating Indiana University football with friends (what a year to be an IU fan!), or returning to his unique hobby of blacksmithing. We’re excited to have Max’s enthusiasm, technical knowledge, and fresh perspective as part of our firm this semester.

by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm

Doug Kim named to South Carolina 50 Most Influential list

Kim Lahey & Killough Firm Founder Doug Kim named to South Carolina 50 Most Influential list

Kim Lahey & Killough is proud to announce that its firm founder, Doug Kim, has been named to Integrated Media Publishing’s inaugural list of the Statewide 50 Most Influential People in South Carolina. Honorees were chosen through extensive staff research by the publications group as well as community nominations for their work across the Palmetto State.

A former computer programmer and software engineer, intellectual property attorney Doug Kim has assisted in securing some of the earliest blockchain and AI patents in South Carolina. In addition to his own successful law practice, he has built a law firm that has grown to be South Carolina’s go-to boutique firm for intellectual property matters, providing legal solutions and strategies tailored to each client from start-ups to multinational corporations.

Doug is a leader in the state’s technology ecosystem, most recently serving as Chair of South Carolina’s InnoVision Awards. He is a frequent speaker and trusted authority on AI, technology and intellectual property matters throughout the state.

In addition to this recognition, Doug has previously been named to the South Carolina 500 list by SC Biz; the TALK Greenville Top Lawyers list in the area of Technology Virtual; he has been named by Best Lawyers® as Trademark Lawyer of The Year and Patent Lawyer of The Year for the Greenville metro market; Greenville Business Magazine has named him a Legal Elite of the Upstate; South Carolina Super Lawyers® lists him as a Top Rated Intellectual Property Attorney; and Managing Intellectual Property magazine has previously named him as an “IP Star.”

With offices in both Greenville and Charleston South Carolina, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm provides strategic legal solutions to businesses of all sizes in the areas of intellectual property creation and protection, brand protection, invention protection, copyright, licensing, intellectual property litigation, trade secrets, software protection, internet and e-commerce issues, corporate formation, contracts, and business disputes and mediation resolutions.

by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm

Your Client Used AI to Learn about the Law

Your client used AI to Learn about the Law – What next?

In an article for The American Bar Association, Kim, Lahey & Killough firm founder Doug Kim discusses the growing use of AI tools by clients and how it is reshaping the attorney-client relationship, bringing both challenges and opportunities.

As clients increasingly rely on AI for legal information, attorneys must understand how these tools function in order to effectively address any inaccuracies or outdated information that clients may present. At the same time, by embracing AI themselves, attorneys can not only improve their practice but also better meet evolving client expectations and strengthen their role as trusted advisors. An excerpt is below. ABA members may read the entire article here.

AI summary:

As clients increasingly use generative AI to understand litigation, attorneys face a pivotal shift in managing expectations, communication, and authority. A case study illustrates how an engaged client used AI to research legal concepts, evaluate motions, and suggest strategies—prompting both challenges and opportunities. Attorneys who understand AI’s capabilities and limitations can better guide clients, clarify misunderstandings, and leverage these tools to foster transparency and collaboration. Rather than resisting AI, lawyers should embrace informed dialogue, set boundaries early, and use client-generated content as teaching moments. Failure to engage risks loss of trust, communication breakdowns, and even malpractice exposure. With technical literacy and proactive strategy, attorneys can transform AI-informed clients into empowered partners, reaffirming the indispensable role of legal counsel while embracing the evolving landscape of client education through technology.

Excerpt:

Clients are becoming increasingly sophisticated in how they engage with attorneys. We have seen clients turning to generative AI to improve their understanding of litigation, a trend that, while assisting the client feel more confident and engaged in the process, is creating some issue for the practicing attorney.

An Example

In a complex commercial litigation matter, the client, an experienced business owner but not a legal professional, sought to gain a better understanding of the case. Rather than relying solely on attorney updates, the client began using generative AI to:

• Research laws and cases
• Understand actual and potential causes of action and defenses
• Verify that the legal strategy being executed aligned with general legal principles

Using accessible, public, conversational AI tools, the client submitting prompt to the AI agent such as:

• “What is a breach of fiduciary duty?”
• “What defenses exist to a tortious interference claim?”
• “What happens after a motion to dismiss is denied?”
• “Can you analyze this complaint and let me know if these are winning arguments?”
• “What are my chances of winning?”
• “How much should this cost?”

Typically, the AI agent provided clear, plain-English explanations with reference to legal research information, providing the client with foundation knowledge and context for the decisions their legal team was making. With this knowledge, the client felt empowered and began “helping: the lawyer with the case.” The client began suggesting legal theories and strategies and engaged in lengthy discussions with the lawyer about the mechanics of litigation using the information gained from the AI Agent. As you can imagine the attorney was not effectively able to have these discussions without a detail explanation of the legal theories, strategies, case law, and litigation process, mostly to handle the newfound education of the client.

Bridging the Information Gap

In this example, the client was unintentionally substituting AI for legal advice and sought to assist the attorney with the ”helpful” AI generated information. For example, after receiving a litigation update about a motion being filed, the client used AI to analyze the motion, explain the motion, understand the standard of review and how courts ruled in similar situations.

The client “ran” the legal documents through its AI agent and asked the AI engine to “grade” the legal work and to analyze the legal work for completeness. The client then questioned why a certain counterclaim was not being raised that were suggested by AI. As it turned out, the attorney had considered these claims but determined they were not viable based on specific jurisdictional factors, something the AI could not do.

This engagement has the potential to disrupt the attorney-client relationship, but if properly managed, it can strengthen it. The client was seeking to be more engaged and asked questions based on a general understanding of the law which, while being more time consuming, resulted in better communications and helped the client feel more in control.

While a lawyer should not provide work products just to be graded by AI, understanding the client needs, the technology used and the basis for the activity by the client can strengthen the relationship. Unfortunately, for the bar, this requires us to become knowledgeable about this newest tool. While I have a computer science background, I understand that most of the bar is English, History, Political Science majors that may not have such a background. But, it can be learned.

First, an attorney with sufficient knowledge of the tool is better equipped to understand the underlying algorithms, data structures, and computational logic that drive generative AI tools. The attorney needs to have a basic understanding of the reliability of AI-generated outputs, ensuring they align with case-specific and jurisdictional requirements. There needs to be an understanding of the limitations and inaccuracies in AI responses that a layperson or non-technical attorney may overlook. Attorney’s need to understand that clients are adopting AI must faster than the legal industry.

By understanding AI tools and how clients are using them, the attorney can effectively translate client input into actionable questions for the AI, ensuring more precise outputs. Attorneys can also become better at integrating AI into their litigation strategies to complements the legal process, not disrupt it. The attorney can explain to the client what the response form the AI may not be exactly what should be presented to a court, used in legal filings and other weaknesses of AI.

The full article is available to American Bar Association members here.