NeLI Pod

The official podcast of the National eDiscovery Leadership Institute. Here, we bridge the gap between technology and the law, bringing you the forefront of electronic discovery.

NeLI Pod is a education podcast hosted by Unknown Host, with 28 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80.

Unknown Host hosts NeLI Pod, a education show with 28 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  NeLI Pod

  NeLI POD Season 2: Ep. 14 with Ruth Hauswirth

  Sep 17, 202652 min

  Quick recap This was an episode of the NELI Pod podcast featuring Ruth Hausworth, Special Counsel and Head of Cooley's Litigation eDiscovery Services. Daniel Gold and Brandon Tannenbaum interviewed Ruth about her 30-year career in e-discovery, starting at Cooley in 1995 when litigation was still paper-based. Ruth discussed how technology has transformed legal practice from paper documents to email to electronic information, drawing parallels between early e-discovery challenges and current generative AI issues. She emphasized that while AI should augment legal work rather than replace human judgment, many lawyers are either over-relying on AI or completely resisting its use. Ruth highlighted the need for better legal education around technology, including AI literacy, and suggested that rather than rewriting rules of professional responsibility, the profession needs more education and practical implementation strategies. The conversation concluded with Ruth sharing her personal journey toward becoming a certified mindfulness facilitator through UCLA, explaining how meditation helped her manage burnout and depression while practicing law. e‑Discovery and AI Adoption Daniel and Brandon interviewed Ruth Hausworth, Special Counsel at Cooley and head of their Litigation eDiscovery Services practice. She traced e‑discovery’s evolution from paper to electronic data, noting parallels between early email adoption and today’s generative AI challenges. Ruth emphasized that technology should support—not replace—legal judgment, yet many lawyers either over‑rely on AI or avoid it entirely. She stressed the need for stronger tech education in law and suggested that resistance often stems from feeling threatened, making change‑management and critical‑thinking skills essential. AI Adoption and Validation Ruth highlighted the value of leveraging varying levels of AI comfort within organizations, encouraging collaboration between early adopters and cautious users. Brandon raised concerns about validating generative AI compared to TAR, but Ruth argued that while validation debates may grow, proper processes and demonstrated outcomes should ease acceptance. Used thoughtfully, she said, generative AI can be empowering. AI in the Legal Profession Ruth and Daniel discussed AI’s role in legal work, with Ruth optimistic about its benefits while acknowledging validation needs. Daniel asked whether rules must change for AI; Ruth said no major overhaul is required, comparing the moment to past e‑discovery rule updates that refined existing concepts rather than reinventing them. She believes education—not new rules—will drive behavior change, noting rising tech‑focused CLE requirements. Generative AI Policy Challenges Ruth and Brandon explored the difficulty of implementing AI policies, emphasizing that policy alone is ineffective without education and an understanding of human behavior. Ruth stressed giving employees the right tools and explaining policy rationale, while acknowledging the inevitability of shadow AI use. They agreed that broad AI literacy is increasingly necessary across society. Meditation and Mindfulness Ruth shared her meditation journey, which began as a way to manage burnout, depression, and anxiety years before earning her UCLA certification in 2020. While not a cure‑all, meditation significantly improved her stress management, and she now leads informal sessions with colleagues. The conversation ended with Daniel asking for silent retreat recommendations, and Ruth mentioning her upcoming retreat at Big Bear Retreat Center in California.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  NeLI Pod

  NeLI POD Season 2: Ep. 13 with Martha Louks

  Jul 30, 202633 min

  Guest Details Martha Louks Managing Director, Discovery Technology ServicesMcDermott Will & Emery EPISODE OVERVIEW: A Relativity Master with five certifications, Martha has led discovery technology initiatives for 15+ years, including predictive‑coding protocols used in the DOJ’s AB InBev–Grupo Modelo merger review. Daniel Gold and Brandon Mack speak with Martha Louks about the evolution of discovery from paper to email, mobile, conversational data, TAR, and now generative AI. Martha explains why modern evidence is “data, not documents,” how platforms struggle with Slack, texts, and chatbot conversations, and why GenAI still requires TAR‑style validation. She also breaks down misconceptions about AI, where automation helps, where human judgment remains essential, and how review roles will evolve over the next five years. KEY POINTS: Discovery is now data‑centric. Slack, texts, and chatbot conversations don’t fit TIFF‑based “documents,” making timeline analysis across sources difficult. GenAI is still TAR. Validation, sampling, and defensibility remain mandatory. AI helps with high‑volume tasks, not precision work. Fact extraction and timelines benefit; briefs and legal arguments require strict verification. Human review isn’t disappearing. Privilege, QC, and substantive analysis still require lawyers. Costs shift, not vanish. AI reduces review volume but increases tech spend; rising data volumes offset savings. Future success requires flexibility. Strong fundamentals, curiosity, and skepticism matter more than ever. Reframe review around activity and timelines , not static documents. Use GenAI for fact extraction, timelines, early case assessment , and eliminating non‑responsive material. Apply TAR‑style validation to all GenAI workflows. Adopt AI internally without creating unnecessary adversarial fights over protocols. Train review teams to elevate their work —privilege, issue analysis, structured data extraction. Combine classification, TAR, and GenAI depending on task and cost model. Encourage new professionals to stay flexible, process‑minded, curious, and skeptical . TIMECODES: 00:00 – Introduction & Guest Background00:48 – Martha’s Career Across Paper, Email, Mobile, TAR, GenAI01:36 – Which Transitions Changed Lawyer Thinking01:54 – From Paper to Databases02:52 – Early ESI & Deduplication Skepticism03:31 – TAR Adoption & Validation04:14 – Faster GenAI Adoption04:50 – Rise of Legal Technologists05:43 – AI Hype vs. Reality07:22 – Data vs. Documents08:22 – Why TIFF Still Dominates09:00 – Activity Tracking Across Sources09:46 – Chatbot Conversations & Timeline Problems10:39 – AI Misconceptions11:20 – Precision vs. High‑Volume Work12:09 – Cost of Verification12:58 – Marketing Hype13:46 – Fear‑Based Sales Cycles14:34 – Margin of Error & Reviewer Expectations15:12 – Where AI Is a “No‑Brainer”15:58 – Timelines & Fact Extraction16:21 – GenAI as TAR17:18 – TAR Principles That Still Apply18:03 – Humans vs. Technology18:51 – Should AI Do First‑Pass Review?19:57 – Collaboration Barriers & Sedona Principle 620:55 – “Say Less, Do More”21:43 – Evolution of Review Roles22:31 – Privilege Review & Human Oversight23:18 – Structuring Documents with Prompts24:05 – Bibliographic‑Style Coding via AI24:58 – Costs & Token Usage25:49 – Rising Data Volumes26:37 – Combining Tools27:43 – Litigation Team of 203128:03 – Advice for New Professionals28:56 – Closing Remarks QUOTE: “Be flexible. The fundamentals remain the same, but every six months we see new data formats. You need strong core principles—and a healthy dose of skepticism.” — Martha Louks

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  NeLI Pod

  NeLI POD Season 2: Ep. 12: Mid-Year Recap

  Jul 16, 202644 min

  EPISODE OVERVIEW: In this special mid‑year recap, Daniel and Brandon revisit the ten conversations recorded so far in Season 2—judges, a dean, a chief justice, forensic experts, researchers, and in‑house strategists—and place their insights directly against the federal case law emerging in the first half of 2026. Throughout the season, five recurring questions surfaced around generative AI, prompts, privilege, validation, and the limits of the rules. Now, with courts issuing opinions on those exact issues, the hosts examine where guest predictions aligned with judicial outcomes and where new fault lines are forming. This episode is both a highlight reel and a reckoning: a synthesis of expert commentary and real‑world rulings that reveal how quickly the legal system is responding to AI‑driven change—and what practitioners should expect in the second half of 2026. KEY TAKEAWAYS: The rules still hold. Judges Kim and Rodriguez stressed that technology does not displace the Federal Rules; courts continue applying relevance, reliability, and prejudice. SDNY echoed this in U.S. v. Hepner , noting AI’s novelty “does not exempt it from longstanding principles.” Prompts are splitting courts. Practitioners argued prompts are classic opinion work product. Courts agreed when lawyers use enterprise tools ( Concord Music ), but rejected privilege when clients used public AI platforms ( Hepner ). GenAI review is TAR. Dr. Jeremy Pickens emphasized that GenAI workflows mirror TAR 1.0, meaning validation discipline—control sets, measurement, plain‑English defensibility—still applies. Data location matters. The District of Kansas barred uploading even non‑confidential discovery into open‑loop AI tools, finding deletion “impossible as a practical matter.” Human oversight remains essential. Across guests and courts, the through‑line is clear: AI is powerful, but lawyers must supervise, verify citations, and explain processes plainly. ACTION ITEMS: Treat prompts and AI workflows as discoverable artifacts requiring documentation and defensibility. Validate GenAI review using traditional TAR methods —control sets, sampling, and expert explanation. Avoid uploading discovery into public AI tools ; use enterprise platforms with contractual protections. Supervise AI outputs like junior associate work —review, correct, and verify before filing. Track emerging case law; courts are drawing bright lines around privilege, waiver, and data handling CHAPTERS AND TIMECODES: 00:00 – Cold Open: Season Themes00:32 – Introduction & Episode Setup01:56 – Methodology: Quotes + Case Law02:49 – Topic 1: “The Rules Still Hold”03:18 – Judge Kim on Rules as Anchor03:47 – Judge Rodriguez on Hallucinations05:28 – Forensics View: Reliability & Evidence06:18 – SDNY’s Hepner Decision07:47 – Why Judges Still Worry08:36 – Topic 2: Prompts, Privilege & Work Product09:03 – Keeling: Prompts = Opinion Work Product10:29 – Davis: Prompts Are Forensically Reachable11:10 – Gaudet: Duty to Supervise12:16 – Courts Split: Hepner , Warner , Morgan 14:41 – Concord Music: Attorney Prompts Protected15:35 – Adoption Risks & Waiver16:53 – Topic 3: Validation & Defensibility17:20 – Pickens: GenAI = TAR 1.018:33 – Germ Theory & Control Sets20:18 – Keeling: TAR Validation Still Applies21:33 – Amberson: Vetting & Bias Controls23:40 – Judge Kim: Plain‑English Reliability24:53 – Topic 4: Data Location & Protective Orders25:17 – Kansas: Ban on Open‑Loop AI Tools26:30 – Irretrievable Model Training Risk27:12 – Closing Reflections & Season Outlook COMPELLING QUOTE: “The anchor holds the ship. It doesn’t steer it.”

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  NeLI Pod

  NeLI POD Season 2: Ep. 11 with Bridget McCormick

  May 27, 202648 min

  Guest Details Bridget Mary McCormack: President & CEO, American Arbitration Association & ICDRFormer Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme Court Episode Overview Bridget Mary McCormack joins Daniel Gold and Brandon Mack for a candid conversation about modernizing courts, expanding access to justice, and how AI is reshaping both public and private dispute resolution. Drawing on her decade on the Michigan Supreme Court—including four years as Chief Justice—McCormack explains why state courts must operate as system designers, not just adjudicators. She describes Michigan’s rapid shift to remote proceedings during COVID‑19, the state’s proportionality‑based discovery reform, and the importance of designing processes around the people who actually use the courts—especially the 75% of civil litigants who appear without lawyers. Now leading the AAA, McCormack discusses how the organization is deploying AI to improve user experience, support self‑represented parties, and build new dispute‑resolution options. She emphasizes transparency, auditability, and fairness as essential guardrails, while also challenging long‑held assumptions about what must remain unchanged in the justice system. Key Takeaways Nothing is too sacred to re‑examine. Courts must avoid assuming any process “can never change,” or they risk failing the people they serve. Remote proceedings improved access. Michigan saw significantly lower default rates for self‑represented litigants once remote options became available. AI is expanding access, not shrinking it. Both courts and the AAA are seeing major increases in filings from self‑represented parties as AI tools help people understand and pursue valid claims. Action Items Build systems that prioritize user needs , not institutional habits. Use AI to reduce barriers for self‑represented parties while maintaining transparency and auditability. Treat modernization as continuous , not episodic—technology evolves too quickly for five‑year plans. Chapters with Timecodes 00:00 – Introduction01:16 – McCormack’s Background & Court Modernization02:47 – State Supreme Courts as System Designers04:40 – What Should Never Change? (“Nothing.”)06:29 – Michigan’s Discovery Reform07:56 – State‑Level Discovery Challenges08:15 – Designing Reform with User Input10:05 – Hearing from Pro Se Litigants12:55 – COVID‑19 & Remote Proceedings14:40 – Data on Defaults & Access16:16 – Children & Higher‑Quality Remote Testimony18:01 – Why Mandatory In‑Person Is “User‑Hostile”19:39 – AI & Increased Filings21:55 – State Courts’ Volume Challenges23:17 – Updating the Justice “Operating System”23:39 – AI as New Dispute‑Resolution Options24:53 – Human vs. AI “Hallucinations”26:19 – Why She Chose the AAA27:46 – AAA’s Scale & Innovation Capacity29:37 – Evaluating AI Workflows30:06 – AAA’s AI Strategy31:49 – Innovation Pipeline & Lessons Learned32:34 – AI‑Assisted Arbitration35:01 – Procedural Fairness & Transparency37:22 – Which Decisions Must Remain Human40:13 – When Parties Might Choose Automation43:18 – Six‑Week Innovation Cycles46:11 – Future Legal Frameworks Compelling Quote “The courts are for the people. They’re not for the judges… They want to solve their problems. They’re not really in the market for us.” — Bridget Mary McCormack

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  NeLI Pod

  NeLI POD Season 2: Ep. 10 with Dean Lumen Mulligan

  May 13, 202645 min

  Episode Overview In this wide‑ranging and energizing conversation, Dean Lou Mulligan joins hosts Daniel Gold and Brandon Mack to explore the evolving landscape of legal education, the role of technology in modern practice, and the values that must anchor the next generation of attorneys. Drawing from a career that spans clerking on the Tenth Circuit, briefing U.S. Supreme Court cases, leading major MDLs, and now steering UMKC Law, Dean Mulligan offers a candid look at how law schools are adapting to e‑discovery, AI, and shifting professional expectations. The episode examines why e‑discovery education remains uneven across the country, how AI is reshaping both pedagogy and access to justice, and why discernment, compassion, and professionalism remain irreplaceable—even in an era of rapid automation. Throughout, Dean Mulligan emphasizes the mission‑driven nature of today’s students and the profound responsibility legal educators share in preparing them for a profession undergoing historic transformation. E‑discovery is moving from niche to core : Stronger law schools increasingly treat e‑discovery as part of the essential civil‑litigation track, though national adoption remains “ uneven and evolving ” . AI is transforming legal education and access to justice : UMKC now offers 28 courses with meaningful AI components and is building tools for pro se litigants, including eviction and expungement assistance. Human judgment remains the lawyer’s irreplaceable value : Even as AI accelerates research, lawyers must still “ read the statute… read the relevant cases… [and] bring judgment, professionalism, compassion ” . Integrate AI responsibly : Use AI for efficiency, but always verify primary sources, Shepardize, and apply legal judgment before relying on outputs. Expand access to justice : Consider how AI tools can help underserved populations navigate routine legal processes. Advise students and junior attorneys intentionally : Tailor training to their intended practice areas—litigation, transactional, regulatory—rather than assuming a one‑size‑fits‑all technology curriculum. 00:00 – Welcome & Episode Introduction01:30 – UMKC Law’s Partnership with NELI02:37 – Dean Mulligan’s Personal and Professional Journey04:10 – From Clerkships to Academia to Deanship05:14 – The Purpose and Impact of Legal Education07:25 – How Law Schools Teach (or Don’t Teach) e‑Discovery08:15 – National Landscape: Uneven but Evolving09:13 – E‑Discovery as Core Litigation Curriculum10:30 – Teaching Technology Tools in Law School11:18 – Competency, Professional Identity & the ABA’s Role14:01 – Why Not All Students Need Deep E‑Discovery Training16:11 – Advising Students Toward Their Career Paths17:12 – AI’s Growing Role in Legal Education18:33 – National Trends: Courses, Credentials & Equity19:35 – UMKC’s 28 AI‑Integrated Courses20:33 – AI in Clinics & Experiential Learning21:23 – Challenges of Curriculum Agility22:16 – CLE Programming & AI Weekends23:04 – Providing Every Student a Legal AI Tool23:53 – AI Tools for Pro Se Litigants (Eviction & Expungement)24:42 – AI as an Equity Engine25:31 – Cognitive Skills, Research Habits & AI Limitations28:20 – Teaching Students to Verify AI Outputs30:03 – AI, Billing Models & the Future of Legal Work32:34 – AI as Market Expansion for Legal Services34:27 – Access to Justice & Strengthening Rule of Law35:36 – What Excites Dean Mulligan About the Next Generation38:10 – The Enduring Importance of Judgment & Compassion39:40 – AI as the Great Equalizer in Legal Access41:21 – Law as a Human Service Profession43:24 – Closing Reflections & Invitation to NELI Conference Compelling Quote “At the end of the day, law is a human profession… providing services to humans. And all those folks have ends and have value and have children and wants and dreams.” — Dean Lou Mulligan

  ListenShow Notes

Recent guests on NeLI Pod. Study who booked and why before you pitch.

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.