by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmDoug Kim named to SC Biz South Carolina 500 list
Founding attorney Doug Kim named to SC Biz South Carolina 500 list
Kim Lahey & Killough is pleased to announce that our firm founder Doug Kim has been named to the South Carolina 500 list by SC Biz. The South Carolina 500 is SCBIZ’ first-ever list of The Palmetto State’s most influential and impactful leaders in business, nonprofits, government and higher education. Featured in the December 2025 issue of the publication, South Carolina honorees in law are listed here.
Doug Kim started his career as a computer engineer after earning his Physics degree at Davidson College. After earning his law degree and working close to two decades as an intellectual property attorney, he founded Kim and Lahey with Seann Lahey in Greenville. The firm, now Kim, Lahey & Killough, has offices in both Greenville and Charleston and was recently honored as South Carolina’s Best Intellectual Property Law Firm by statewide business publications.
In addition to his work as an intellectual property attorney, Doug serves as a South Carolina certified mediator, is a regular speaker and author on topics including intellectual property, artificial intelligence, innovation and their intersection with law. Doug serves as Chair of South Carolina’s InnoVision Awards and previously chaired the South Carolina Bar Technology, Innovation and IP Committee.
With offices in both Greenville and Charleston, SC, Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate to the Lowcountry to across the globe. The firm serves the manufacturing, software, energy, finance, hospitality, tourism, defense, agriculture and technology industries as well as universities. Key practice areas include intellectual property, business and commercial litigation, mediation, employment, corporate and business matters including formation and structure, mergers and acquisitions, contracts, and cybersecurity.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmKim Lahey Killough named Best Intellectual Property Law Firm in South Carolina
Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is proud to announce that we have been named the Best Intellectual Property Law Firm in South Carolina by Greenville Business Magazine, Columbia Business Monthly, Charleston Business Magazine, B2B: The Grand Strand and B2B: Pee Dee Business as part of their Best in Business 2025 initiative. This peer and public voting award was announced in the December 2025 issues of the publications.
The firm adds this award to many bestowed in 2025, including:
Kim Lahey Killough named to Best Law Firms
Kim Lahey Killough intellectual property and business attorneys named in Best Lawyers
Kim Lahey Killough attorneys named in South Carolina Super Lawyers
Kim Lahey Killough attorneys named Legal Elite by Charleston Business Magazine and Greenville Business Magazine
Firm Attorneys named in Greenville Top Lawyers by TALK Greenville
We are thankful for the trust and endorsements of our clients, peers, and associates.
With offices in both Greenville and Charleston South Carolina, Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate to the Lowcountry to across the globe. The firm serves the manufacturing, software, energy, finance, hospitality, tourism, defense, agriculture and technology industries as well as universities. Key practice areas include intellectual property, corporate and business matters including formation and structure, mergers and acquisitions, contracts, cybersecurity, franchising, business, commercial and intellectual property litigation, and mediation.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmKim, Lahey Killough attorneys listed 2026 Best Lawyers
Kim, Lahey & Killough attorneys listed in 2026 Best Lawyers
Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is honored to announce that five of the firm attorneys are listed in The Best Lawyers in America® 2026 edition:
In the firm’s Greenville home office, firm founder Douglas W. Kim is recognized for his work in
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
- Litigation – Patent
- Patent Law (Lawyer of the Year, 2019)
- Trade Secrets Law
- Trademark Law (Lawyer of the Year, 2022)
Firm co-founder, Seann Lahey is listed for his work in:
- Patent Law
- Trademark Law
And Greenville patent attorney Hunter S. Freeman is commended for his work in:
- Commercial Litigation
- Copyright Law
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
- Litigation – Patent
- Trademark Law
In the firm’s Charleston office, Charleston patent attorney B. C. Killough celebrates his 15th year on the Best Lawyers list for his work in:
- Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
- Corporate Law (Lawyer of the Year, 2015)
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
- Patent Law
- Trademark Law
Licensed in South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia, Casey Martens heads up the firm’s Brevard, NC office. She is recognized by Best Lawyers in the Greenville, SC metro as a 2026 Best Lawyers One to Watch in America in the areas of:
- Employee Benefits Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Labor and Employment Law – Employee
- Labor and Employment Law – Management
- Litigation – Labor and Employment
Since 1981, The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America has compiled and reviewed peer evaluations from across the United States to identify an annual list of honorees. This year, over 31 million evaluations were analyzed, including a record-breaking 4.8 million new responses.
About Kim, Lahey & Killough
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmSeann Lahey named to GSSM Board
Kim, Lahey & Killough congratulates Greenville registered patent attorney and firm founder Seann Lahey, who has been elected to the South Carolina Governor’s School for Science & Mathematics (GSSM) Foundation board of directors for 2025-2026.
Seann Lahey is known for his work in STEM fields as an intellectual property attorney. He has extensive experience dealing with international and U.S. patent prosecution, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, licensing of intellectual property rights, and rendering legal opinions on validity, infringement and enforceability of intellectual property rights, as well as IP litigation.
What’s more, Seann is a parent of a recent alum of the GSSM, affording him the ability to advocate for the school from multiple perspectives. “I’m deeply honored to join the Foundation Board of Directors for GSSM,” he commented. “As a parent of a GSSM alum, I can attest to the incredible work and dedication of everyone involved with the school. I look forward to contributing to our shared mission of fostering academic excellence and supporting the brilliant minds of tomorrow.”
Beth Dinndorf, executive director of the GSSM Foundation, added, “We are grateful to the new directors, the new board officers, and all members of the GSSM Foundation Board of Directors for their leadership and commitment to the mission of GSSM and the students it serves. Their collective talents and contributions help GSSM remain the top-ranked public high school in South Carolina, providing an exceptional STEM education to more than 10,000 students in grades 3 through 12 each year.”
About Kim, Lahey & Killough
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe. For more information, visit the firm website at kimandlahey.com .
About the South Carolina Governor’s School for Science & Mathematics
The South Carolina Governor’s School for Science & Mathematics (GSSM) is a nationally ranked top 10 public high school that exists to bring world-class STEM education to students across the state. Founded in 1988 by Gov. Carroll Campbell, GSSM is a state resource that offers a variety of programs including an intensive two-year residential high school, a challenging virtual engineering program, summer camps, and in-school experiences for students in 3rd through 12th grades. The GSSM Foundation advocates for GSSM and provides funds and support to enhance its programs and students’ educational endeavors. Learn more at www.scgssm.org. Read GSSM’s press release announcing the 2025-2026 Board here.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmYour 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.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmFour attorneys named to Greenville 2025 Top Lawyers list
Four Kim, Lahey & Killough attorneys were named to TALK Greenville Magazine’s 2025 Top Lawyers list. Researchers identified attorneys held in the highest esteem by their peers and then vetted them to produce the list. This peer-nominated list recognizes the “top lawyers” in the Upstate in a variety of practice areas.
Kim, Lahey & Killough attorneys selected to the 2025 Top Lawyers list and their respective practice areas include:
Doug Kim – Technology Virtual
Seann Lahey – Intellectual Property Rights
Hunter Freeman – Intellectual Property Rights
Emily Bohan – Business Law
A profile of the firm featured on page 99 of the 2025 Top Lawyers August issue of TALK Greenville magazine.
About Kim, Lahey & Killough
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmAdopting AI – South Carolina Lawyer
ADOPTING AI: IT’S NOT IF – IT’S HOW
In an article for South Carolina Lawyer, Kim, Lahey & Killough firm founder Doug Kim discusses the risks and rewards of the responsible use of AI for attorneys and law firms. While most in the legal profession bring a cautious approach to the use of AI, this article expounds on the positive benefits of the use of the transformative technology for both attorneys and their clients.
Will AI replace lawyers? No. AI will not replace lawyers but instead will serve as a powerful tool to enhance their capabilities, much like how a high-quality instrument amplifies a professional musician’s training and expertise. AI cannot replace the essential human elements of legal practice. Complex legal matters require nuanced judgment, ethical reasoning, and the personal connection that only human lawyers can provide. AI lacks the ability to make decisions based on empathy, interpret circumstances subjectively, or understand the professional responsibilities that guide legal practice. These human elements remain irreplaceable and essential to effective legal representation.
What AI can do is make lawyers more effective and efficient.
When properly implemented by skilled professionals, AI can automate routine tasks such as legal research, document review, and initial drafting, allowing attorneys to focus on complex strategic work that requires human judgment, ethical reasoning, and personal client relationships.
However, skilled implementation is key as recent court cases involving fabricated AI-generated citations underscore the critical importance of proper training, verification and human oversight.
For clients, responsible AI adoption translates to more efficient service delivery, reduced costs, and higher quality representation, as smaller firms can compete more effectively with larger ones by leveraging technology.
The legal profession is moving toward a future where firms that embrace AI responsibly will provide superior service at competitive rates, while those that resist this evolution risk falling behind.
Ultimately, AI represents not a threat to the legal profession but an opportunity to deliver better outcomes more efficiently, provided it’s implemented with the skill, oversight, and ethical standards that effective legal practice demands.
Read the entire article below, or online here on pages 32-35 and 45 of South Carolina Lawyer.
And Part Two of this article may be read in the July 2025 issue of SC Lawyer here.
ADOPTING AI: IT’S NOT IF – IT’S HOW
by Doug Kim for South Carolina Lawyer Magazine, a publication of the South Carolina Bar.
Last year, Thomson Reuters released a report[1] stating that 82% of lawyers surveyed said AI can be applied to legal work, but only 51% said that it should. That leads to two questions. What can technically do and what are its risks and rewards? Second, how should lawyers use AI? Part 1 of this article addresses the first question. Part 2, which will appear in an upcoming issue of South Carolina Lawyer, provides my views on the latter question.
Circulating among the profession is the fear that AI will just replace lawyers entirely. This is simply not true. Medium and high complex legal tasks require nuanced understanding, interpretation, and application of the law to specific facts, which are skills that AI lacks. AI cannot make judgment calls based on ethical considerations, empathy, and subjective interpretations of circumstances; these human aspects of legal practice cannot be replicated. Further, AI cannot replace the personal connection that lawyers establish with their clients. Importantly, lawyers are bound by rules of professional responsibility, including confidentiality, competent representation, and client advocacy. AI lacks the ability to honor – or indeed even comprehend – these obligations.
If AI will not replace lawyers, then what good is it? AI is a technology that underlies the next generation of tools to be used in the legal profession. Like all tools, the education, experience, and skill of the user makes a dramatic impact on the effectiveness and quality of the work product created with the tool. For example, a professional musician would benefit greatly from the dramatically improved performance of a Jackson Soloist guitar as the Jackson provides better tone, performance, speed and overall playability. A novice would unlikely know the difference and the performance of the novice would not be materially improved.
According to one McKinsey report, skilled users can leverage AI to replace up to 30% of their work, leading to increased efficiency and productivity – the operative work being “skilled.” AI is not a substitute for education, experience or skill. While AI can accelerate education and skill development in the legal process by automating routine tasks and allowing legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic aspects of their work, it is not a substitute. Without this requisite skill, the AI tool results in little benefit and can even provide a determent.
The real world provides examples of this risk. Just ask the lawyers that, despite clear judicial warnings and sanctions, continue to submit AI-generated court documents with fabricated (also called “hallucinatory”) content. For example, in Kohls v. Ellison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4928 * (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2025), the expert witness admitted that his declaration inadvertently included citations to two non-existent academic articles, and incorrectly cited the authors of a third article. These errors apparently originated from use of GPT in drafting his declaration and the expert failed to verify these fake citations to academic articles before including them in his declaration.
Indeed, the problem has affected how judges take testimony. In In re Matter of Weber, 2024 NY Slip Op 24258 (N.Y. Surrogates Ct. Oct. 10, 2024), the trial court refused to accept as accurate without more back-up calculations performed by artificial intelligence. The court stated that due to the nature of the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and its inherent reliability issues, before evidence which has been generated by an artificial intelligence product or system is introduced, counsel has an affirmative duty to disclose the use of artificial intelligence, and the evidence sought to be admitted should properly be subject to an admissibility hearing prior to its admission.
Properly used, AI tools can help lawyers automate manual processes and work more efficiently. For example, when using the AI tool for patent application drafting, more time should be spent at the beginning on the drawings of a patent application and generating a bullet point documents of key features of the invention’s structure and function that are novel and non-obvious (patentability requirements). This shift changes how patent lawyers invest their time, but they do it to more effectively use the AI tool.
Similarly, AI-powered case law research tools can help lawyers more easily find leading case law and guiding legal principles than old-fashioned Boolean searches, but only if lawyers can move away from that conceptual framework. Otherwise, a search term mentality fails to take best advantage of the tool.
Just as important – and unlike traditional computer-aided research – AI can suggest the best language to support arguments. Indeed, AI can also help lawyers quickly produce initial drafts of motions, legal briefs, contracts, and settlement agreements, which in the past have been time intensive. Improper use of AI, however, will cause the output to be either less useful or even counterproductive.
More generally, AI will change how legal services are provided. Routine tasks, such as legal research, document review, and billing can become automated, allowing lawyers to focus on more complex and strategic aspects of their work, especially those that require critical thinking based upon the facts and circumstances of the parties’ case and desired outcome. AI can assist in predicting case outcomes, advising clients, and developing informed strategies. All that requires, however, that lawyers re-order what they do and how they do it. If a lawyer traditionally spends 30% of her time in complex cases reviewing documents, it will require substantial willpower to pivot to a profoundly different allocation of time.
This will also impact the profession as a whole. While not replacing lawyers, AI will create a demand for lawyers with specialized skills in areas that require complex problem-solving, critical thinking, negotiation, and dispute resolution. Substantively, with AI fulfilling some of the more mundane tasks and day-to-day needs, the need for “specialized” areas (e.g., tax, securities, environmental, employment, intellectual property, complex litigation, and the like) will increase. But that also means that lawyers who have made a good living out of routine tasks will face an increasing challenge.
I experienced a movement years ago when I was a computer programmer prior to becoming a lawyer. The same positions were being put forward that AI was going to replace computer engineers. This did not happen. In computer science, AI, especially large language models like Chat-GPT, proved to be just another tool in the toolbox and made experienced programmers more efficient and accurate, enhanced code quality, reduced development costs, reduced time to market, improved quality control and generally made for a better work-product; especially experienced programmers. Properly implemented, AI will do the same for the legal profession. AI will not replace the lawyer.[2] However, attorneys that adopt AI will replace those that do not.
Further, the smaller law firm will become more competitive through leveraging technology just as we saw with online research, communications tools, timekeeping and billing, and practice and case management software. By automating certain tasks, smaller firms can take on more clients without needing additional resources and can maximize profitability while delivering improved legal services to clients. This levels the playing field and allows smaller firms to compete with the larger ones so that the dreaded overhead of the larger firm will become even more of a burden that results in higher fees and less value to the client.
This is not to say that the transition will not be bumpy. While adopting technology eventually reduces overhead and provides more value to clients, the legal profession has always faced challenges when it comes to innovation and technology. Further, most of the bar was licensed prior to the release of the iPhone.[3] This “slow to adopt” challenge stems from the reality of technical competence, or lack thereof, and the resistance to change which stems from being severely risk averse.
In 2017, the Association of Corporate Counsel published A Seat at the Head of the Table: From Lawyer To CEO? and stated, “Risk aversion. Most law firm cultures are built around a strong bias to risk aversion. However, … lawyers must expand their perception from ‘no’ to ‘yes,’ even if the next question is “how?”[4] While this publication was discussing lawyers transitioning to CEOs, it is applicable to the current discussion of whether to “use” AI. It is not a matter of yes or no, but rather when and how. While lawyers didn’t go to law school to be computer programmers, the technical requirements of modern legal practice cannot be ignored.[5] By analogy, the craftsman who used hand tools for many decades may be slow to adopt power tools for the same reasons that lawyers will be slow to adopt AI: habit, inertia, fear of change, inflexibility, etc. Yet history shows that those who adopted power tools surpassed those who did not in short order.
Disruptive technologies are just that – disruptive – and seeing the coming changes and being open to this disruption in the legal industry is critical. Disruption often comes without warning and is not anticipated by the masses. A quote often attributed to Henry Ford is, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Adapting to disruptive technologies is important to success and potentially the survival of the modern law firm.
AI is growing faster in its development than prior disruptive technologies. This creates both risks which are manageable and opportunities which will further the profession. These risks can be effectively managed with a few simple guiding principles:
- Understand how the AI works, including its training model and limitations.
- Implement AI to a specific application and avoid general, open AI tools.
- Make sure you are always in control of the technology and be accountable for its use (avoid the chatbot).
- Try to only use specific AI that has private, dedicated connections to large language models (as opposed to public data lakes like used by ChatGPT).
- Use AI tools that do not use your input to train with the AI engine and keep input confidential.
- Always have a live person review the content and work product.
The power of AI and the benefits that it can bring will create a separation in the legal profession, split into those that properly adopt AI and those that do not. The split will manifest in lawyers’ ability to deliver higher quality legal services and work product, the faster delivery of work product, and less costs; each of which impact referrals, reputation, and client satisfaction. Reuters reports that clients expect their lawyer to lead the charge in leveraging AI for the client’s benefit.[6] Clients will expect law firms to use AI due to the potential reduction in cost and time savings. The law firm that responds to these demands will have a significant advantage over those that do not. Adopting AI will also lead to changes in billing practices, and we will see more firms move to alternative fee arrangements such as a flat fee billing arrangement.[7]
Read the entire article online here on pages 32-35 and 45 of South Carolina Lawyer.
And Part Two of this article may be read in the July 2025 issue of SC Lawyer here.
Doug Kim
, a Physics major from Davidson College, began his professional career as a computer programmer and software engineer. His intellectual property career began in 1998 when he combined his business experience with his legal education and was involved with enforcing a client’s patent against multiple infringers. Since then, Doug has created a well-rounded IP practice that provides legal solutions and strategies tailored to each client from multinational corporations to start-ups.
[1] New report on ChatGPT & generative AI in law firms shows opportunities abound even as concerns persist, Thomson Reuters, April 17, 2023.
[2] In all fairness, we should see a reduction in the needs for support staff and junior associates. These roles typically involve administrative, repetitive tasks that AI can now perform with greater efficiency and cost effectiveness.
[3] The iPhone was first released June 29, 2007.
[4] A Seat at the Head of the Table: From Lawyer To CEO, by David Felicissimo, Association of Corporate Counsel, 2017.
[5] See CLE requirements in North Carolina for Lawyers, NC Continuing Legal Education (showing that lawyers in North Carolina must complete one hour of CLE in Technology every two years.) https://www.nccle.org/for-lawyers/requirements/renewing-lawyers/
[6] AI: the new legal powerhouse — why lawyers should befriend the machine to stay ahead by Jeremy Glaser and Sharzaad Borna, Thomson Reuters
[7] I appreciate the natural financial friction where the lawyer will pay for AI just to be able to charge less. However, while beyond the scope of this article, AI will have an impact on the adoption of alternative fee arrangements. I have been providing flat fee arrangements for decades and trust me, there is nothing to fear.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm2025 Paralegal scholarship awarded
Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm congratulates Madison Gilstrap, the winner of our annual Paralegal Scholarship with Tri-County Technical College Foundation. This merit scholarship is awarded to a student who demonstrates academic excellence, dedication and passion for the legal profession. Ms. Gilstrap has shared that this scholarship will allow her to take her remaining classes in order to graduate this Spring semester.
Tri-County Technical College is a public, two-year community and technical college serving Anderson, Oconee and Pickens counties in South Carolina and is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). The Criminal Justice, Paralegal Emphasis program at TCTC is an associate degree program offered both at the Pendleton Campus and online. The College advances economic development in the tri-county region by preparing a highly skilled workforce.
Kim, Lahey & Killough is committed to supporting education in our community and are proud to invest in the next generation of legal professionals. With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe. For more information, visit the firm website at kimandlahey.com.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmBOIR CTA new reporting deadline
February 28, 2025
If you have been tracking the movement of the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting and Corporate Transparency Act as it makes its way through our Federal Court system you will not be surprised to learn that yet another ruling has been released on this matter today.
How does today’s ruling affect you?
The short answer is that your company(ies) DO need to file a BOIR to be compliant with the CTA unless they qualify under one of the exceptions under the law. Currently, the injunction against the CTA is not in effect until the Court of Appeals issues an opinion.
In the meantime, FinCEN extended the BOIR filing deadline to March 21st. This update indicates that while a new deadline has been issued, fines or penalties will not be imposed nor will enforcement actions be taken against any companies based on a failure to file a BOIR until they publish an interim rule. That new rule is expected to be issued on or before March 21st.
While there’s still some uncertainty surrounding this Act, failure to comply could create significant risk to your business (penalties for non-compliance are steep at $500 per day per beneficial owner and possible jail time.)
Even though you may have heard that you did not need to file a BOIR during one of the “off again” moments, we are advising our clients to comply with the Act. If you would like assistance with filing your BOIR or other business and corporate related matters, please contact your attorney or Kim, Lahey & Killough attorney Emily Bohan or Tony Nolte.
Please note that Kim, Lahey & Killough will not file a BOI report for you, nor arrange to have a BOI report filed for you unless you reach out to us directly to request assistance.
For more information, please visit https://kimandlahey.com/practice-areas/corporate-transparency-act/
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmKey Business and Legal Trends in 2025
Navigating the Legal Landscape: Key Trends for Businesses in 2025
Kim, Lahey & Killough founding attorney Doug Kim joined Mike Switzer on South Carolina Public Radio’s South Carolina Business Review to discuss the new legal landscape for businesses in 2025. Key points include:
Disruptive Technology’s Impact
AI is rapidly reshaping business and the legal profession, presenting both opportunities and challenges. Unlike previous technological shifts, AI is accelerating change at an exponential rate, forcing businesses and law firms to adapt faster than before.
Key Implications for Businesses
-
Technology Adoption: Companies must be prepared to leverage new technologies quickly and strategically.
-
Increased M&A Activity: With substantial cash reserves and a pro-business climate, mergers and acquisitions are expected to increase.
-
Due Diligence Preparedness: Doug strongly advises businesses to begin due diligence preparations in anticipation of potential acquisitions.
In addition, the legal profession itself is experiencing significant disruption. AI tools are enhancing efficiency in research, particularly with regard to patent and trademark searches. Kim emphasizes that AI won’t replace lawyers, but lawyers and law firms that adopt AI technologies will likely outperform those that resist change.
In 2025, businesses must stay agile, embrace technology, and quickly manage the risks associated with new technologies and business models.
Listen to the full interview here or read the full transcript, below.
Full Transcript of The new legal landscape for businesses, an interview with Doug Kim on Mike Switzer’s South Carolina Business Review.
Broadcast on South Carolina Public Radio on January 23, 2025
[00:09.710] – Mike Switzer
Hello and welcome to the South Carolina Business Review. This is Mike Switzer.
As this New Year with a new administration in Washington just getting started, many businesses may be looking at the legal landscape and what they can expect to see in 2025. Doug Kim is an attorney in Greenville, South Carolina, where he joins us from now by phone to help us with this topic.
Doug, welcome to the program.
[00:39.990] – Doug Kim
How are you doing? Thanks for having me.
[00:41.620] – Mike Switzer
Great. Let’s just go ahead and kick off the discussion with an overview of what you see happening in the legal world this year.
[00:49.970] – Doug Kim
Well, it’s going to be quite a few fast changes, and I’ll give you my opinion of the analogies of why I think this is going to happen. And that is, Windows came out many years ago, and it made software accessible to the public in general, which was disruptive for society and business. 2007, the iPhone comes out and it creates software in your hand, again, disruptive for the benefit of increased technology – massive changes in business and society. What’s happening now is we have AI, which is even faster, that’s doing a couple of things. This is what’s driving changes in the legal side, I think. Ai has made everybody feel like, Oh, there’s this new technology. Gosh, we’re behind. We need to be stepping up. That’s one piece. Another piece is you’ve got a new administration who, by all accounts, seems to be reducing regulations and is going to be pro-business. Not that other administrations haven’t been, but this particular one seems to be more pro-business. Add on top of that, you’ve got a bunch of pent-up demand: during election years, businesses tend to, I don’t want to say stall, but they tend to not make much major decisions until they see what’s going on.
There’s a lot of money sitting on the guidelines to move projects forward. So, with all that said, you add the technology changes, the environmental changes, the geopolitical changes, and the fact there’s a lot of cash sitting out there, you’re going to watch the legal profession really have a lot of, quote, “pressures on it.” Our clients are going to be pressing us to be able to adopt technology and candidly, probably move faster than the legal profession is used to.
[02:22.290] – Mike Switzer
Okay. It sounds to me like a massive headache year for you.
[02:25.480] – Doug Kim
It could be based on the law firm’s attitude. It’s not uncommon for technology to change the law. For example, in one area of the law, the right to privacy. Well, everybody’s got a phone in their pocket now, and that phone has a camera. What is your expectation of privacy if everybody can video and photograph you now? So the way the law changed was because the technology changes. The law firms are just going to have to say, “All right, I need to understand this.” I need to step up and say, Here the deal is, as well as how these businesses are adopting it and say, “Okay, how do I manage the risk?”, which is a lot of what lawyers do with these new technologies and these new ways of doing business. And how do I keep myself up to speed so I can respond properly and competently to my client’s demands? I think when you say it could be a lot of headaches, it’s going to require lawyers to educate themselves in areas faster than maybe they’re accustomed.
[03:18.490] – Mike Switzer
Maybe giving up some of the bread and butter business that’s been the thing. In any way, you see a lot of consumers and businesses turning to alternative legal service providers like Legal Zoom.
[03:32.980] – Doug Kim
That’s exactly right. There is definitely a place for that. The legal services traditionally required a lawyer and a lawyer thinking to do some of this stuff. With the advent of some of these other businesses being in those areas, particularly with the leveraging of technology, it may not be a lawyer’s job, either 100% or maybe not even at all. I’ll give you a good example. The type of work that I principally do is intellectual property. We used to have to go hire people to do patent searches and trademark searches for us. Over the years, these patent and trademark databases have been developed by government agencies, Google patents, things like that. You can take the current technology with AI and do a patent or trademark search much more efficiently and faster than a human being could have done it years ago. Some of those tools that are out there are going to reduce, I don’t think eliminate…but reduce the need for some of the legal services that typically an attorney would do. Ai is not going to replace lawyers. It’s not going to do that. However, the law firms that adopt AI will probably replace the ones that don’t.
[04:35.080] – Mike Switzer
What is your recommendation for businesses that are listening right now then on what they should be doing to take advantage of these trends?
[04:41.730] – Doug Kim
If I had to say it in one sentence: Start thinking about getting ready for due diligence. You can Google due diligence and see what that takes. I mean, anybody can do that. If I’m right and there’s going to be an increased M&A activity and companies are going to be acquiring technology, not developing it, a company that wants to be a target for an acquisition would serve themselves well getting ready for this process.
[05:05.080] – Mike Switzer
All right, Doug. Great information. Thank you so much for spending time with us today.
[05:09.120] – Doug Kim
Happy to do it. Enjoyed it.
[05:10.870] – Mike Switzer
Doug Kim is an attorney. He joined us by phone from his office in Greenville, South Carolina. Remember, you can hear this show again at our web page, southcarolinapublicradio dot org. You can hear us again wherever you find podcasts with the South Carolina Business Review. This is Mike Switzer.
[05:33.700] – Announcer
The views expressed on the South Carolina Business Review do not necessarily reflect those of South Carolina Public Radio.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmCTA requirements on hold once again
CTA requirements on again off again this week – Currently still on hold
In one week over the holidays, the courts have reversed decisions twice on the subject of the Corporate Transparency Act and corporate Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting (BOIR) filing requirements.
On December 23rd, the requirements were put back in place by the Federal Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit with a new filing deadline of January 13th.
On December 26th, the Court changed its mind and vacated its stay pending oral arguments, pressing the pause button once again.
However, the Court might switch again after hearing oral arguments. Due to the uncertainty surrounding this filing requirement, we recommend that you gather your Beneficial Ownership information and be prepared in the event you are required to file quickly to meet a deadline.
Should you wish to file your BOIR now and would like our assistance with that filing or other business and corporate related matters, please contact your attorney or Kim, Lahey & Killough attorney Emily Bohan or Tony Nolte.
Please note that Kim, Lahey & Killough will not file a BOI report for you or arrange to have a BOI report filed for you unless you reach out to us directly to request assistance.
For more information, please visit https://kimandlahey.com/practice-areas/corporate-transparency-act/
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmCTA and Beneficial Ownership Reporting While Under Preliminary Injunction
Earlier this month we reported on the recent nationwide preliminary injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act and enforcement of the Beneficial Ownership Interest Report (BOIR) requirement. Below we provide you with additional guidance.
While the Texas District Court’s nationwide preliminary injunction provides a reprieve from the January 1, 2025 filing deadline, it may not mean you are off the hook entirely. In reality, this development in the law creates more questions than answers.
What is a business owner to do? Consider these three options:
- Do nothing. Ignore the whole thing. WE DO NOT RECOMMEND!
- File your BOIR now and move on to focus on operating your business.
- Wait and see what happens next to find out for sure what, and by when, you could be required to file your BOIR. Keep in mind that there could be a very short time period in which to come into compliance with this federal law.
We anticipate there will be additional court proceedings. Most likely, the government will appeal this injunction and move for a stay of it. Here is what could happen next:
- The stay is granted, the preliminary injunction is lifted and reporting requirements immediately return. There may or may not be a grace period.
- The stay is denied and the preliminary injunction continues, again though, temporarily until the issue can be fully and finally resolved in the courts.
- The scope of the preliminary injunction is narrowed, perhaps making it apply to a smaller group of people, such as only the named plaintiffs.
In short, while you do have a reprieve from the January 1, 2025 filing deadline, you also have uncertainty about what may or may not be required next. Taking the above into consideration may help you determine the best path forward for you and your business.
Should you wish to file your BOIR now and would like our assistance with that filing or other business and corporate related matters, please contact your attorney or Kim, Lahey & Killough attorney Emily Bohan or Tony Nolte.
Please note that Kim, Lahey & Killough will not file a BOI report for you or arrange to have a BOI report filed for you unless you reach out to us directly to request assistance.
For more information, please visit https://kimandlahey.com/practice-areas/corporate-transparency-act/
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmFranchisees as Third-Party Beneficiaries
Franchise attorney Emily Bohan chosen for publication in the prestigious ABA Forum on Franchise Law Journal—explores Third-Party Beneficiary Rights in Franchise Law
Kim, Lahey & Killough attorney Emily Bohan and Hannah M. Leiendecker of the Faegre Drinker firm in Minneapolis, MN published an article in the latest edition of Franchise Law Journal with the American Bar Association. The article, “Franchisees as Third-Party Beneficiaries to Franchisor’s Agreements with Other Franchisees or Vendors” sheds light on the complex world of third-party beneficiary rights in franchising and examines how individuals or entities not directly party to a contract may still enforce its terms under certain circumstances. This article was published immediately prior to the annual meeting of the ABA Forum on Franchising, at which Emily was in attendance last week.
Executive summary:
A significant impact on Dispute Resolution: Third-party beneficiary rights can play a crucial role in franchise disputes, often determining whether a case has any remedy at all. This underscores the importance of understanding these rights for all parties involved in franchise relationships.
Clear Intent: Courts typically require clear evidence that the contracting parties intended to benefit the third party. This high standard emphasizes the need for precise language in franchise-related contracts.
Franchisee Enforcement of Vendor Agreements: In some cases, franchisees have successfully enforced agreements between their franchisor and vendors as third-party beneficiaries. This highlights a potential avenue for franchisees to protect their interests.
Employee “Poaching” Restrictions: Some franchisors have utilized third-party beneficiary rights to limit employee recruitment between franchisees. However, Bohan and Leiendecker note that this practice faces increasing legal scrutiny and potential antitrust challenges.
Rare Vendor Claims: While uncommon, there are instances where third-party vendors have successfully claimed benefits under franchise agreements. These cases often hinge on exceptionally close relationships between the vendor and franchisor.
Highly Fact-Specific Nature: Bohan and Leiendecker emphasize that third-party beneficiary cases in franchise law are typically unpredictable and heavily dependent on specific circumstances. This unpredictability underscores the need for careful contract drafting and legal guidance.
The full article provides a thorough examination of relevant case law and offers practical insights for franchise industry professionals. It serves as a valuable resource for franchisors, franchisees, and their legal counsel in navigating the complex web of contractual relationships inherent in franchise operations.
Bohan and Leiendecker emphasize that these cases are highly fact-specific and often unpredictable. Both recommend that franchisors and franchisees carefully consider potential third-party beneficiaries when drafting contracts. They suggest a proactive approach and recommend that parties mitigate uncertainty and reduce ambiguity by explicitly stating their intentions regarding third-party benefits within their contracts.
The full article, “Franchisees as Third-Party Beneficiaries to Franchisor’s Agreements with Other Franchisees or Vendors,” is available in the current issue of the Franchise Law Journal.
Copyright 2024. Published in The Franchise Law Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, Fall 2024, by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association or the copyright holder.
Emily Bohan is an attorney in the Greenville, S.C. office of Kim Lahey & Killough. Hannah M. Leiendecker is an attorney at Faegre Drinker, practicing in the Minneapolis office.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmFive Kim Lahey Killough attorneys named 2025 Best Lawyers
Five Kim Lahey Killough attorneys named in Best Lawyers for work in intellectual property, corporate and employment law
Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is honored to announce that five of the firm attorneys are named in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025 edition:
Charleston patent attorney B. C. Killough is recognized for his work in:
- Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
- Corporate Law
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
- Patent Law
- Trademark Law
Previously, Killough was honored as the Corporate Law Lawyer of the Year for the Charleston metro in 2015.
In the Greenville, SC metro market, four Kim, Lahey & Killough attorneys are recognized, including firm founder Douglas W. Kim, who is honored for his work in the areas of:
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
- Litigation – Patent
- Patent Law
- Trade Secrets Law
- Trademark Law
Kim has previously been recognized as a Lawyer of the Year in Greenville, SC, in two of these areas: as Trademark Lawyer of the Year in 2022 and the Patent Lawyer of the Year in 2019.
Greenville intellectual property attorney Seann Lahey
is recognized for his work in:
- Trademark Law
Additionally, Seann has extensive experience dealing with international and U.S. patent prosecution. His practice also regularly includes matters on trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, licensing of intellectual property rights, and rendering legal opinions on validity, infringement and enforceability of intellectual property rights, as well as litigation involving intellectual property rights.
IP attorney Hunter S. Freeman
is commended for his work in:
- Commercial Litigation
- Copyright Law
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
- Trademark Law
As an Intellectual Property attorney, experienced litigator and certified mediator, Hunter Freeman’s 20+ years of experience and insight provide novel ways for clients to create value through the protection, prosecution and enforcement of their IP.
Attorney Casey Martens practices employment and business law in both the Greenville SC and Brevard NC offices of Kim, Lahey & Killough. Licensed in South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia, her law practice focuses in the areas of business disputes and litigation, state and federal employment law, drafting and enforcement of restrictive covenants, and business disputes involving tortious interference with contract. Casey is recognized as a 2025 Best Lawyers One to Watch in America in the areas of:
- Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
- Labor and Employment Law – Employee
- Labor and Employment Law – Management
- Litigation – Labor and Employment
Since 1983, The Best Lawyers in America has compiled and reviewed peer evaluations from across the United States to identify an annual list of honorees. The Best Lawyers in America recognizes only the top 5.3% of lawyers in the nation across 150 practice areas.
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmSeven attorneys named 2024 Legal Elite
Seven Kim, Lahey & Killough attorneys listed as 2024 Legal Elite by Charleston Business and Greenville Business Magazines
Kim, Lahey & Killough is pleased to announce that seven attorneys have been named in the 2024 Legal Elite lists. Notably, all five of the firm’s registered patent attorneys were recognized for their work in the areas of intellectual property and innovation, a core focus of the law firm.
Greenville Business Magazine and Charleston Business Magazine recognized Doug Kim, Seann Lahey, Hunter Freeman, Robert Merting and B.C. Killough for their contributions to Intellectual Property and Innovation. “This recognition from our peers is a testament to the depth and breadth of our IP practice, as well as our firm’s commitment to excellence. We are honored to have our entire patent team acknowledged, alongside our talented colleagues in employment and corporate law,” commented firm founder, Doug Kim. Additionally, Casey Martens and Emily Bohan were honored for their work in Employment Law and Corporate Law – Business Organization matters.
Doug Kim is no stranger to legal awards and accolades. In addition to his Legal Elite IP and Innovation recognition, Kim has been listed in South Carolina Super Lawyers annually since 2017, and he has been recognized in the Greenville, SC Best Lawyers® list, named the Best Lawyers® Trademark Lawyer of The Year, the Best Lawyers® Patent Lawyer of The Year, and an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property magazine.
Firm co-founder Seann Lahey is noted for his IP and Innovation work not only by Legal Elite of the Upstate but is also listed in South Carolina Super Lawyers as well as Best Lawyers in America for his work in intellectual property law. Seann has extensive experience dealing with international and U.S. patent prosecution, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, licensing of intellectual property rights, and rendering legal opinions on validity, infringement and enforceability of intellectual property rights, as well as IP litigation.
Hunter Freeman has over 20 years of experience as a litigator and certified mediator and works to provide novel ways for clients to create value through the protection, prosecution and enforcement of their IP including trademarks, service marks and copyrights. As the 2024 Chairman of the InnoVision Awards, Hunter works hard to provide opportunities for start ups and businesses in the state to advance technological innovations. In addition to Legal Elite, Hunter has been recognized for his legal efforts by both Super Lawyers and The Best Lawyers in America ® for his work in intellectual property and business litigation.
Greenville patent attorney Robert Merting joins his colleagues as a named Legal Elite for IP and Innovation this year. Robert’s general business practice serves a variety of clients and industries, including builders, manufacturers, inventors, professionals and governmental organizations. He counsels businesses and individuals on IP contracts, corporate IP agreements, trademarks, non-disclosure agreements, and patents.
Charleston patent attorney B.C. Killough has counseled businesses and professionals for over 30 years. Regularly recognized for his legal efforts on behalf of his clients, Killough’s Legal Elite for IP and Innovation award is joined by recognition as a Senior Fellow by the Litigation Counsel of America, as an AV preeminent rated attorney with Martindale-Hubbell, as a Best Lawyers Corporate Lawyer of the Year for the Charleston market, and Thomson Reuters has recognized Killough as a Stand-Out Lawyer – a recognition bestowed by in-house counsel peers.
Casey Martens is recognized as a Legal Elite for her work in employment law for both plaintiffs and defendants. Casey’s legal practice includes business litigation, intellectual property and employment counsel to small and medium-sized businesses, as well as to employees in employment disputes. Licensed to practice in South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia, Casey heads up the firm’s Brevard, NC office.
Business attorney Emily Bohan is commended as a Legal Elite for her efforts with Corporate Law – Business Organization matters. Emily focuses her legal practice on franchise law, business formation and organizations (Including LLC’s and Partnerships), and labor and employment matters. And when businesses are in a dispute, Emily serves as a certified mediator, to assist parties to come to a resolution outside of the courtroom. Greenville Business Magazine recognized Emily as a 2024 SC Women in Business.
The Legal Elite are selected annually through peer nominations from attorneys throughout the state of South Carolina in 50 legal practice areas.
About Kim, Lahey & Killough
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm2024 South Carolina Super Lawyers
Five Kim, Lahey & Killough attorneys named in 2024 South Carolina Super Lawyers
Four patent attorneys with Kim, Lahey & Killough – Doug Kim, Seann Lahey, B.C. Killough and Hunter Freeman – have been named in the 2024 South Carolina Super Lawyers list as top-rated intellectual property attorneys and attorney Casey Martens has been named in the 2024 South Carolina Rising Stars list as a top-rated employment and labor attorney in the Greenville and Charleston markets. 2024 marks the tenth year that B.C. Killough has been honored with inclusion on the list. “I am honored to work with such a dedicated, innovative team that puts our clients first and this recognition showcases our unwavering commitment to excellence in providing legal services,” commented firm founder Doug Kim.
Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive the honor of inclusion on the Super Lawyers list and no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected to be listed as Rising Stars. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
Doug Kim has been listed in South Carolina Super Lawyer annually since 2017. With experience with matters in brand and invention protection, licensing, patents, trademarks, and business disputes, he has also been recognized in the Greenville, SC Best Lawyers® list, named the Trademark Lawyer of The Year, the Best Lawyers® Patent Lawyer of The Year, an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property magazine and a Legal Elite of the Upstate by Greenville Business Magazine.
Firm co-founder Seann Lahey’s practice seeks to provide comprehensive and integrated legal services for companies whose products or services are technical in nature. Seann has extensive experience dealing with international and U.S. patent prosecution, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, licensing of intellectual property rights, and rendering legal opinions on validity, infringement and enforceability of intellectual property rights, as well as ip litigation. He advises startups, middle market companies, multinational corporations, universities, and individuals alike on various intellectual property protection and enforcement strategies. Seann has worked across a range of technologies and industries including automotive, agriculture, biotech, composite technology, construction, education, manufacturing, medical, and others. In addition to Super Lawyers, he has also been recognized by Greenville Business Magazine as a Legal Elite of the Upstate for his work in intellectual property law.
B.C. Killough celebrates his tenth year listed in South Carolina Super Lawyers for his intellectual property work in the Charleston metro area. His practice areas include brand and invention protection, technology licensing, contracts, company formation, patents, trademarks, copyright, technology transfer, IP litigation, trade secrets, business disputes, commercial transactions, and mediations of intellectual property and commercial disputes. Bill Killough has also been recognized as a Senior Fellow by the Litigation Counsel of America, an AV preeminent rated attorney with Martindale-Hubbell, a Charleston Best Lawyers Corporate Lawyer of the Year, a Legal Elite by Charleston Business Magazine for Intellectual Property and Innovation and in 2024, Thomson Reuters named him a Stand-Out Lawyer.
Previously recognized as a Super Lawyers South Carolina Rising Star, Hunter Freeman joins his colleagues and is listed in South Carolina Super Lawyers for his work in intellectual property litigation in the Greenville market. His 20+ years of experience and insight as a patent attorney, litigator and mediator provide novel ways for clients to create value through the protection, utilization and enforcement of their IP both in and out of the courtroom. In addition to Super Lawyers, Hunter has been recognized for his work in intellectual property litigation by The Best Lawyers in America ® and as a Legal Elite of the Upstate by Greenville Business Magazine for Intellectual Property and Innovation as well as Business Litigation.
2024 Super Lawyers South Carolina Rising Star Casey Martens practices employment and business law in both the Greenville SC and Brevard NC offices of Kim, Lahey & Killough. Licensed in South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia, her law practice focuses in the areas of business disputes and litigation, state and federal employment law, drafting and enforcement of restrictive covenants, business disputes involving tortious interference with contract, and the like. She has also been previously recognized by Greenville Business Magazine as a Legal Elite of the Upstate.
About Kim, Lahey & Killough
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmParalegal Scholarship at Tri-County Technical College awarded
Kim, Lahey & Killough awards Paralegal Scholarship at Tri-County Technical College
Pictured, left to right: Kim Lahey & Killough attorneys Tony Nolte, Casey Martens, Seann Lahey, Doug Kim, Tri-County Technical College Paralegal Scholarship recipient Jennifer Dill, Heidi Reeves, Manager of Donor Relations, Tri-County Technical College, Jonathan Cauthen, Director of Development, Tri-County Technical College, attorneys Emily Bohan and Hunter Freeman.
Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm announced the winner of a $1,500 Paralegal Scholarship with Tri-County Technical College Foundation at a luncheon April 11th at the Thornblade Club in Greer. The Firm congratulates Paralegal Emphasis sophomore Jennifer Dill as this year’s scholarship recipient. This merit scholarship is awarded to a student who demonstrates academic excellence, dedication and passion for the legal profession.
Kim, Lahey & Killough is committed to supporting education in our community and are proud to invest in the next generation of legal professionals. “We recognize the invaluable role of paralegals and this scholarship is one way we show our appreciation and encouragement. As we honor the recipient, we celebrate her dedication to the legal profession, her pursuit of knowledge, and her commitment to making a difference. We hope that this scholarship be a stepping stone for her to provide even greater contributions to the field of law,” commented firm founder Doug Kim.
Tri-County Technical College is a public, two-year community and technical college serving Anderson, Oconee and Pickens counties in South Carolina and is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). The Criminal Justice, Paralegal Emphasis program at TCTC is an associate degree program offered both at the Pendleton Campus and online. The College advances economic development in the tri-county region by preparing a highly skilled workforce.
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe. For more information, visit the firm website at kimandlahey.com.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmB C Killough named Thomson Reuters Stand-Out Lawyer
CHARLESTON, SC – Kim Lahey & Killough law firm is pleased to announce that B.C. Killough has been named to the list of “Stand-out Lawyers” by Thomson Reuters. Each year, thousands of senior in-house legal counsels from around the world nominate the top three attorneys they have worked with during the past year.
Bill Killough has been recognized for decades by his peers in publications such as The Best Lawyers in America, South Carolina Super Lawyers and Charleston Business Magazine’s Legal Elite. Best Lawyers named him the “Corporate Lawyer of the Year” for the Charleston area in 2015. These client-nominated attorneys are “real stand-out lawyers [and] are distinctive because, in combination with their technical competence, they offer business savvy advice, deliver exceptional service, or integrate well with the client team,” according to Thomson Reuters.
Bill Killough practices law in the areas of intellectual property and business law, including commercial transactions. He is a registered patent attorney and has obtained more than 350 patents for clients and filed more than 1500 trademark applications on behalf of clients. He has experience as an intellectual property litigator, with at least one of his cases setting precedent. As a certified mediator, Killough assists parties in intellectual property and corporate disputes in coming to a resolution outside of a courtroom.
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients achieve their business goals and establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmEmily Bohan joins Kim, Lahey & Killough
GREENVILLE, SC – Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is pleased to announce the addition of attorney Emily Bohan to the firm’s Greenville, SC, office. Bohan’s law practice focuses in the areas of franchise law, business formation and organizations (including LLC’s and Partnerships), business disputes, alternative resolutions, and labor and employment matters.
Bohan’s firsthand experience in navigating the complexities of running a franchise operation equips her with insights into the myriad of challenges faced by businesses; her own franchise business, PuroClean, will celebrate its 15th year in 2024. As an attorney, Bohan counsels businesses and individuals in all aspects of business law including business formation, contracts, franchise, employment, compliance, licensing, and trademark matters.
In addition, Emily Bohan is a South Carolina certified mediator and is able to assist parties in business disputes to come to a resolution outside of a courtroom.
Bohan earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Legal Studies from the University of California, Santa Cruz and her Juris Doctor from the George Mason University School of Law. She is admitted to practice before federal and state courts within both South Carolina and Virginia.
With offices in Greenville and Charleston, SC and Brevard, NC, the Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm is devoted to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights from the Upstate, to the Lowcountry to across the globe.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmAlternative Legal Service Providers
Should They Be “Alternative?”
This article appeared the January 2024 issue of SC Lawyer magazine. Reprinted with permission of the South Carolina Bar.
For the past several years, the legal profession has been searching for ways to respond to staffing shortages, increased complexity in legal matters, and clients’ demand for cost control and faster response times. The use of Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs) has been one way to meet these challenges. Failing to understand, explore and, when applicable, properly incorporate ALSPs into your legal practice will unnecessarily diminish the value you can provide to clients and companies. This is especially true when the ALSP leverages modern technology for document review and signature, e-discovery and analysis, litigation support, and regulatory and compliance projects. The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) makes the decision to adopt or ignore ALSP even more timely and relevant to the modern law practice.
ALSPs can be very beneficial when properly implemented, as they provide non-traditional ways, even revolutionary ways, to provide legal services. There is also no question that the industry is growing. An online article by Thomson Reuters in January of 2023 stated that the ALSPs comprise a $20.6 billion portion of the legal market. The article noted that the rapidly increased use of ALSPs is causing a blurring between law firms, legal departments, and technology companies. The offerings for alternative legal services come in many forms: online legal platforms, virtual law firms, and artificial intelligence technologies that can be used for document review and even document drafting. As client demands increase, ALSPs can help firms and companies meet this demand by providing non-traditional and even disruptive solutions. We have all seen the change in the legal industry, especially post COVID, where digital transformation was increased, remote working became the norm, physical documents were the exception, and access to information dramatically increased. Proper use of alternative legal services can assist the law firm or company transition into the digital era.
One simple example is the shift to e-signature. While the algorithm that was generally used to create the first e-signatures was created in 1977, it was not until the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce (ESIGN) Act of 2000 that these signatures were allowed to be legally binding and therefore an option for law firms. E-signatures are also consistent with the move to the paperless office. E-signatures offer fewer signing errors, improved security, increased response time, client convenience, and lower costs. However, adopting e-signatures comes with requirements such as having the client accept doing business electronically, allowing a wet signature option, showing a clear intent to sign, and receiving a copy of the completed, signed document. The point is that even with something as simple as e-signatures, there are practical, operational, and regulatory requirements that must be met to implement this alternative to the traditional signature. ALSPs cannot just be adopted blindly.
ALSPs can also be thought of as “legal outsourcing”, which is the practice of law firms or corporations engaging with third parties that provide legal support. Domestically, this is outsourcing and internationally it is offshoring. In the early 2000s, tasks that were assigned to these third parties included document review, legal research and writing, drafting of pleadings and briefs, and patent services. For example, companies offered to draft patent applications for substantially less than the domestic attorney fees by using offshored authors. These third parties offered substantially reduced costs, improved turnaround and increased resources to those law firms and companies that sought their services. However, this practice was not without risk.
In 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recognized that this offshoring was occurring and issued a notice which stated, “The USPTO has become aware that a number of law firms or service provider companies located in foreign countries are sending solicitations to U.S. registered patent practitioners offering their services in connection with the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States.” The USPTO “reminded” inventors and patent attorneys that “the export of subject matter abroad pursuant to a license from the USPTO, such as a foreign filing license, is limited to purposes related to the filing of foreign patent applications. Applicants who are considering exporting subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States should contact the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) at the Department of Commerce for the appropriate clearances.” The risk was that using these ALSPs may cause a violation of the Export Administration Regulations governing exports of dual-use commodities, software, and technology, including technical data.
The lesson here is that while there can be substantial cost savings with an ALSP, a strategy should be put in place to properly manage the ALSP, project, information, data, and regulations.
One lesson can be learned from a now infamous proceeding before the USPTO involving ALSPs Abtach Ltd., 360 Digital Marketing LLC, and RetroCube LLC. These ALSPs purported to assist trademark filers with the federal trademark application process. On November 3, 2021, the USPTO issued a show cause order stating that it had reason to believe that these and related companies were violating the USPTO’s rules of practice, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and providing false, fictitious, or fraudulent information in thousands of trademark submissions to the USPTO. Among the violations, the USPTO alleged that the companies failed to follow the rule that all documents submitted to the USPTO in a trademark matter must be personally signed by the named signatory. When the companies did not adequately respond to the USPTO’s show cause order, the USPTO imposed sanctions on the companies, including a bar on further communication with the USPTO, permanent deactivation of their USPTO accounts, and disallowance of any future accounts. However, this was not the worst of it. The order terminated “all trademark application proceedings involving submissions by Respondents or filed through a USPTO.gov account registered to, associated with, or controlled by Respondents,” leaving thousands of applicants with paid for, but cancelled trademark applications. Several South Carolina applicants were caught in this proceeding. Since federal trademark rights can begin from the filing date, this caused substantial legal damages to thousands of entities. In this case, the use of these ALSPs resulted in substantially more harm than any saving could overcome. The use of an ALSP without the guidance of a practicing trademark attorney was very damaging indeed.
When considering an ALSP, there is always the issue of unauthorized practice of law, as shown in the USPTO proceeding. South Carolina has addressed one business model of an ALSP (Legal Zoom) in a 2012 proceeding and found that “Legal Zoom’s business practices, as reflected in the Settlement Agreement and the Affidavit of Edward Hartman, do not constitute the practice of law.” Nevertheless, each use and implementation is different, and this is an area where the specific ALSP in use will determine the outcome.
Practical and ethical considerations require lawyers and firms to properly investigate and implement ALSPs consistent with the profession’s ethical obligations. Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer, to comply with the requirement of competency, should “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including a reasonable understanding of the benefits and risks associated with technology the lawyer uses to provide services to clients or to store or transmit information related to the representation of a client.” Rule 1.4 requires transparent communication so clients can make informed decisions regarding representation. Rule 1.6(a) states, “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation….” Rule 1.6(c) states, “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” When using an ALSP, even for normal tasks such as document review, e-discovery and data rooms, the law firm has several obligations under the application of Rules 1.1, 1.4 and 1.6. Consider an ALSP that provides e-discovery and document review. First, the lawyer has an obligation to understand the services and operations of the ALSP in sufficient detail to ensure that any information shared remains confidential (Rules 1.1 and 1.6). Second, the lawyer has an obligation to communicate and inform the client that the ALSP is being used and what information is being shared (Rule 1.4). Third, the lawyer has an obligation to stay abreast of the changes in services and operations of the ALSP in the event circumstance’s change. For example, SLPA that are technology-based companies can be subject to mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations that can impact the ALSP operations. On August 29, 2023, the “legal technology” company Reveal published a press release stating that it acquired two other e-discovery companies, Logikcull and IPRO. Reveal provides the legal industry with tools for document review and other services. The acquisition resulted in over 4,000 customers and employees in more than two dozen countries. Logikcull, initially a United States company, now has its span globally. In the event that a law firm or client used Logikcull for a legal hold, extra steps now have to be taken to be compliant with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), because ITAR covered technical information cannot be transmitted without certain permissions and only to certain counties. Failing to understand the services and operations of the ALSPs of this transaction can result in not only ethical violations, but regulatory ones as well. The example of violating ITAR is the risk that the Rules of Professional Conduct are designed to prevent.
The use of technology, and investigating ALSPs, is not complete without a discussion of artificial intelligence. The risks associated with use of AI can create significant negative impacts on the client so that its use falls under this rule.
First, when we discuss AI, we should classify the type of AI that is being used. Generally, there are three types: analytical, predictive, and generative.
Analytical AI is generally directed to analyzing and interpreting data to provide insights, patterns, and meaningful information. An ALSP using analytical AI may be the easiest to implement since it can streamline document review, reduce errors, and improve efficiency. This is especially true when using AI to scan documents for key terms and flag issues for an attorney to review. Understanding the ALSP using analytical AI (and informing the client) can quickly lead to savings and improved accuracy.
Predictive AI seeks to forecast or predict future events or outcomes based on historical data and patterns. This use may be the riskiest for some firms because of the presence of bias in the very AI model itself, the large quantity of data required, the uncertainty of specific outcomes and assumptions made in the learning model about the subject matter. For example, one AI application, when presented with a potential juror name, searches public data related to the prospective juror, correlates the data with known patterns of human behavior, and provides a detailed profile of the person’s personality type and a summary of their views and biases. This application seeks to provide insight into the juror according to its AI model so that attorneys can use this information to predict biases in a potential juror. However, since AI has to be “taught” how to think, the AI may only be providing an appearance of usefulness, include bias and discrimination concerns, and even may violate the constitutional mandate not to use gender or race when selecting juries. Since the actual operation of the AI model is constantly changing and unknown, there is substantial risk with AI for this predictive application.
Nevertheless, using an ALSP with predictive AI that analyzes data to predict case outcomes and legal trends, combined with a lawyer’s oversight, can be a powerful tool. Using such an ALSP with predictive AI can allow a lawyer to make informed predictions about case success, analyze settlement offers, and develop mediation, settlement, and litigation strategies. Predictive AI can be used to review case facts, prior rulings, and judge behavior, potentially allowing the lawyer to better prepare strategic decisions concerning trial tactics, negotiations, or settlements. Predictive AI has the potential to enhance or even replace the mock jury process. It is important to be aware and understand that every model, technique, and process has its limitations when implementing it.
Generative AI is used to create new content, documents or other material and typically provides newly created content according to patterns and knowledge learned from existing data. Its use can include anything from litigation documents to emails. Again, understanding the process and communicating that it is being used to the client when deploying generative AI is critical to its proper implementation. For example, in patent law, a public disclosure can start a clock running in which the inventor has to file a patent application within twelve months or risk losing the ability to seek patent protection. ChatGPT is a public forum, so using this ALSP to draft a patent application would result in a public disclosure.
Even AI models that claim to keep confidential the information that is provided (e.g., seeking to avoid public disclosure) have issues with their operations. For example, patent drafting AI software states on its website that data is sent to Amazon Web Services (AWS), is encrypted, and the patent documents are not stored except as necessary to provide the services. While this is a good first step, the privacy policy states that the company may share the information collected from you with third-party companies, such as Amazon Web Services, Google, and LinkedIn. One has to wonder how the data remains confidential with these contradictory representations. Understanding these processes and policies is important to being able to communicate to a client when such a service is used.
We also know that there have been missteps with the use of generative AI, including the now well-known fine of $5,000.00 assessed against a lawyer who used ChatGPT to write an affidavit and brief, including six case cites that proved to be nonexistent cases. While it may appear that this is a gross dereliction of duty, the attorney explained that he was unaware that ChatGPT could provide false information (e.g., hallucinations). It is difficult to reconcile this explanation with the requirements of Rule 1.1, comment [8].
When using generative AI for a client, a detailed understanding of the ALSP policies and process is critical to ensure that confidentiality is maintained.
When selecting an ALSP and implementing it in your practice, there are several key points that are needed:
- Understanding how the ALSP receives, stores, and otherwise manages the data it receives. For example, is the data stored in one location, multiple locations domestically, and/or internationally? Further, the vendors of your vendor can play a role. In one example, a vender was used for data storage and analysis for material that was ITAR controlled. However, a vendor of a vendor was not ITAR compliant creating ethical and regulatory issues.
- Understanding the ALSP’s policies such as its security policies, disclosure policies, and ability to return or destroy data is important both in operation (and what) as they provide informed consent to the client.
- Obtaining informed consent from the client can be a requirement in some, if not most, cases. As we see ALSPs continue to invest in technology, the lawyer can capitalize on these new technologies and tools, but not necessarily without the client’s permission.
- Ensuring confidentiality.
- Providing oversight so that the lawyer does not blindly rely upon the ALSP since the duty of communications, competence, and confidentiality cannot be delegated. We learned this from the case J-M Mfg. Co. v. McDermott Will & Emery where the client instigated a legal malpractice claim alleging the negligent handling of e-discovery. The client pled that its counsel’s professional duty of care was breached when its counsel failed to supervise its e-discovery vendors and contract lawyers which resulted in the inadvertent production of thousands of non-responsive, privileged documents.
Properly implemented, ALSPs can be used effectively for the benefit of the lawyer and the client, but not without investigations, precautions, and oversight. Unfortunately, there is not a single checklist for this as each ALSP has unique and ever-changing procedures, policies, and processes, especially with the introduction of AI. Nevertheless, cost savings, efficiency, speed, large data access and analysis, and future predictive services can provide the law firm with a competitive advantage without requiring the traditional “team of lawyers.” Planned, controlled and thoughtful implementation of ALSPs is the way of the future. As discovered in the Alternative Legal Services Providers 2023 Report, ALSP use is growing in large part to the ability of the ALSP to provide specialized expertise (e.g., intellectual property portfolio management) and access to technology that is not available within the firm (e.g., artificial intelligence).
Also, AI is not without its entertainment…
Doug: Please write a closing paragraph for an article discussing alternative legal service providers
ChatGPT: In an era marked by rapidly evolving legal demands and the imperative to optimize resources, alternative legal service providers have unquestionably earned their place in the legal landscape. Their innovative approaches, cost-effectiveness, and commitment to efficiency are reshaping the way legal services are delivered and consumed. As clients and law firms alike continue to seek innovative solutions, the rise of ALSPs stands as a testament to the legal industry’s adaptability and responsiveness to change. While traditional law firms remain a cornerstone of the profession, the symbiotic relationship between traditional and alternative legal service providers is fostering a legal ecosystem that not only meets but anticipates the diverse needs of clients in our increasingly complex and dynamic world. The future of the legal industry appears to be one where the combined strengths of both models will continue to drive progress, making legal services more accessible, efficient, and effective for all.
Doug: Now, write it in the voice of a pirate.
ChatGPT: Arrr, me hearties, in this ever-changin’ legal seascape, these here alternative legal service providers be a treasure worth discoverin’! Their swashbucklin’ methods, savvy for savin’ doubloons, and their knack for speedin’ through legal waters be transformin’ the way we handle our legal affairs. As clients and law firms seek new horizons, these ALSPs be showin’ their mettle, provin’ they be a vital part o’ the legal crew. While traditional law firms be anchorin’ the profession, the partnership ‘twixt old salts and these newfangled ALSPs be creatin’ a legal realm that not only meets but anticipates the diverse needs o’ clients in this ever-twistin’ and turnin’ world. The future of the legal sea be one where both models be workin’ in tandem to chart a course towards makin’ legal services more accessible, efficient, and effective for all ye landlubbers!
Doug Kim, a Physics major from Davidson College, began his professional career as a computer programmer and software engineer. His intellectual property career began in 1998 when he combined his business experience with his legal education and was involved with enforcing a client’s patent against multiple infringers. Since then, Doug has created a well-rounded IP practice that provides legal solutions and strategies tailored to each client from multinational corporations to start-ups.
Endnotes
- https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/legal/alsp-report-2023/ (according to the Alternative Legal Services Providers 2023 Report, published in 2023 and conducted June 1 to July
18, 2022 by the Thomson Reuters Institute, the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law, and the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. - 73 CFR 42781
- Id.
- Id (See MPEP § 140 (8th ed., Rev. 5, Aug. 2006).
- 15 CFR Parts 730–774.
- https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/protect/applications-terminated-abtach-360-digital-marketing-retrocube
- 37 C.F.R. § 2.193(a); TMEP § 611.01(b).
- https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/protect/applications-terminated-abtach-360-digital-marketing-retrocube
- Case No. 2012-208067.
- Id.
- Rule 1.1 Comment [8].
- Rule 1.4 Comment[5].