Olga V. Mack

I design and measure legal and decision systems that govern how people allocate power, manage risk, and resolve conflict under uncertainty.

I am a legal technologist, CEO, and former General Counsel working at the intersection of law, technology, and organizational decision-making. I have founded and scaled multiple legal technology companies, including a legal tech startup acquired by LexisNexis, and I advise enterprises on risk, governance, and legal system design.

My work focuses on translating legal complexity into measurable, operational systems. This includes developing benchmarks for contract friction and trust, designing scalable legal workflows, and building tools that support durable decision-making across enterprise contracting, product law, litigation operations, and dispute resolution. Much of this work involves modeling how decisions are made under uncertainty and aligning responsibility, incentives, and control.

I have authored and edited multiple books and publications on legal innovation, technology, and governance, and I have delivered six TEDx talks on the future of law, AI, and human-centered legal systems. My work is frequently cited in discussions of legal innovation, AI governance, and the modernization of legal systems.

Previously, I served as a General Counsel, guided companies through IPOs and acquisitions, prosecuted cases as a San Francisco Deputy District Attorney, taught at Berkeley Law, conducted research at Stanford Law, and received multiple industry and professional honors.

I was born in Ukraine and immigrated to the United States as a teenager. I believe law should function as essential infrastructure: reliable, transparent, and accessible, particularly in moments of uncertainty and conflict.


Vice President & CEO of CounselLink CLM (formerly Parley Pro)

It was truly an honor for me to rejoin the LexisNexis family when they acquired Parley Pro.

As I continue my journey, my top priority lies in seamlessly integrating Parley Pro into LexisNexis CounselLink. This endeavor ensures that our valued users can fully benefit from the combined strengths and capabilities of both platforms.

I am passionate about disruptive technologies, including AI/ML, Web3, and data-driven solutions. Through embracing these innovations, I aim to foster a culture of service and drive forward-thinking approaches that push the boundaries of the legal industry.

My true calling lies in building the future of law, where digital transformation plays a central role. By empowering lawyers to become even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive through embracing the digital realm, I believe we can create a legal landscape that truly makes a difference. It is my unwavering commitment to these passions that drives me forward each day.

Olga Mack

I operate at the intersection of law, technology, and innovation strategy. A former litigator turned legal tech and AI expert, I now serve as Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind LawPay, MyCase, CasePeer, and DocketWise. 

Inside the company, I provide insight on the legal market, law firm operations, and how AI is impacting the practice of law. I advise on AI implementation within our products, author legal industry reports, and guide teams on how to communicate with lawyers so that our technology solutions and messaging align with their needs and realities. My role bridges market knowledge, product strategy, and effective engagement with the legal profession.

Outside the company, I educate the legal community on adopting technology to improve efficiency and client service. I’ve authored (or co-authored) three books, including Cloud Computing for Lawyers and Social Media for Lawyers (ABA Publishing), and Criminal Law in New York (Thomson Reuters). I also write columns for the ABA Journal, Above the Law, The Daily Record, and the 8am Blog, and speak frequently at leading conferences such as ABA TECHSHOW and Legalweek on topics including AI ethics and legal innovation.

Specialties: AI in Law • Legal Technology • Innovation Strategy • SaaS Growth • Legal Market Analysis • Product Strategy • Messaging & Positioning • Legal Operations • Legaltech Ethics • Industry Reports • Public Speaking

Nicole Black

Exciting start to the 8am  company kick-off as our CEO Dru Armstrong and Daniel Ricciardo, Formula 1 driver, share strategies to acceler8 your law firm in 2026 🏁

AI in Law & Legaltech Expert | Legal Innovation & Strategy | Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind LawPay, MyCase, CasePeer, & DocketWise | Lawyer, Author, Journalist, Speaker | WSET 2 Wine Certified

No alternative text description for this image

Ready for Day 2 in Austin. Looking forward to lots of great discussions and learnings at 8am’s Product team offsite. Let’s go! 🙌

🙌 This week’s Legaltech Reality Check just dropped!

This edition: Zoom calls went from casual fling to lifelong commitment, police reports tried their hand at fiction, and robots trained for combat instead of mopping.

📌 Inside this week:
◾️ Ethics guidance that treats every meeting like it’s already Exhibit A
◾️ AI tools blamed for problems caused by human setup choices
◾️ Investors funding fireworks while the wiring smolders

👉 Subscribe for your weekly dose of legal tech news, mild existential dread, and robot-overlord welcomes.

🙏 Like the newsletter? Share it before Alexa decides this is discoverable.

Welcome! Welcome to the Legaltech Reality Check! Every week, you've got a front seat to the latest news in legal technology, privacy, our robot overlo

Open article: Legaltech Reality Check | January 16, 2026 by Nicole Black • 6 min read

Legaltech Reality Check | January 16, 2026

👉 AI is already part of many legal workflows, from drafting tools, email, practice management systems, and client meeting software. Most of the time, existing ethics rules and opinions already address many of the most common issues triggered by AI adoption in law firms.

Occasionally, though, a specific use case raises new questions.

In a recent ethics opinion, the NYC Bar addressed a unique issue that arises when AI tools that record, transcribe, or summarize client conversations are used: how to address privilege when clients use these tools. 

The opinion also covers familiar ground like notice and consent, confidentiality, and a lawyer’s duty to understand the technology they use or allow into the attorney-client relationship.

A few points stood out:

🔹 Clients must be informed, and consent obtained, when AI tools are used to record meetings.
🔹 Lawyers need to understand how these tools handle data, including storage, security, and reuse.
🔹 Extra care is required when clients use their own AI tools, particularly when privilege is at stake. 
🔹 Lawyers should address client-used AI tools in engagement agreements and require prompt access to any recordings, transcripts, or summaries so they can be reviewed for accuracy.
🔹 Transcripts and summaries should be reviewed promptly, since offhand comments can carry lasting weight once memorialized.

Much of this guidance isn't new and simply applies existing concepts to a new type of technology, raising the question of whether most of the opinion was necessary at all. 

That being said, the discussion around client-controlled tools was a novel issue, and the opinion offers insight into how to address the privilege issues that may arise.

For more on this opinion, check out my latest Daily Record column. More info below 👇

🙌 This week’s Legaltech Reality Check just dropped!

This edition: a legacy billing villain starts to melt, regulators set their standards to “meh,” and a robot demonstrated why trains still win.

📌 Inside this week:
◾️ AI software that needs a chaperone in the room
◾️ A tech stack intervention waiting to happen
◾️ A privacy settlement that definitely won’t stop tech giants from eavesdropping

🙏 Like the newsletter? Share it before Siri helpfully autocorrects a clause in a will you just finalized.

👉 Subscribe for your weekly dose of legal tech news, mild existential dread, and robot-overlord welcomes.

💡 AI adoption in law exceeds understanding.

That’s one of the main takeaways from the ABA’s second report on law and AI.

✅ A few key points from the report stood out to me:

1️⃣ Most legal professionals now use AI, primarily for routine work, a finding that aligns with the results of the 8am 2026 Legal Industry Report I authored, which will be released this spring.
 Examples include summaries, drafting short documents, and basic research.

2️⃣ This mirrors the pattern of AI usage in law firms:
 AI is focused on correspondence, general research, and brainstorming.

3️⃣ Cost will shape the next phase of adoption:
 Advanced tools remain out of reach for many small firms and legal aid groups.

4️⃣ Law schools are finally catching up
 55% now offer AI-focused courses
 83% provide hands-on AI experiences

5️⃣ AI use is already common.
 The bigger issue will be whether solo and small firm lawyers will be able to afford the next wave of tools.

For more data from this report, check out my latest Above the Law column below 👇

Did you know my first job out of law school was Assistant Public Defender? Some of my best memories about practicing law are from that stage of my career. I figured I'd share one of my favorites today.

++++

I was assigned to represent someone charged with petit larceny who had a long misdemeanor record. He was one of hundreds of clients (I usually had about 600 open misdemeanor files at any given time). Let's call him "Joe." 

I was in court most of the time, and did my best to make it into the jail to see my incarcerated clients once each week, at least. I hadn't met with Joe yet and quickly learned he was desperate to see me.

The only outgoing phone calls allowed from the county lock-up were collect calls. We weren't allowed to accept collect calls from the jail. But Joe still managed to get his message across.

If you haven't made a collect call recently, here's how it works. You have approximately 3 seconds to leave your name immediately following the automated announcement "You have a collect call from..."

Joe was very familiar with this system. And, he knew how to get around it. Until I was able to get to the jail to see him, he left about 10 messages in rapid succession on my voicemail each day, and they went something like this:

(Automated voice)You have a collect call from: "Ms. Black, it's Joe. You have to..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Come down to the jail." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Tonight to talk to me." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Come see Joe, Ms...." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Ms. Black, PLEASE come see..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Ms. Black, it's Joe..." Would you like to accept it?

Joe knew that he had about 3 seconds each time, and he took full advantage of each and every opening. It was quite creative, actually, but the novelty of it wore off by about the third message. After 2 days, I was thoroughly annoyed with Joe and his constant barrage of 3-second messages.

Fortunately, I was able to get down to the jail and shortly thereafter was able to dispose of his case quite favorably.

The next day, I was checking my messages, and to my chagrin, there was another set of messages from him. I sighed and thought, "What the hell does he want from me now?"

You have a collect call from: "Hey Ms. Black, it's..." Would you like to accept it

You have a collect call from: "It's Joe, Ms. Black..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "I just wanted to tell..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Thanks Ms. Black..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Thanks for your help..." Would you like to accept it?

I actually laughed out loud. That was the last thing I'd expected. I didn't get thanked all that often in that job. And I certainly hadn't expected it from Joe. It made my day.

I had the pleasure of joining Greg Lambert and Marlene Gebauer on their "Geek In Review" podcast 🎙️ focused on the legal tech landscape in 2025 and what's coming in 2026. Sarah Glassmeyer and I shared the data on generative AI and discussed how lawyers are using these tools today.

✅ Here are the main takeaways from our conversation:

• Fast Adoption: AI use is moving much faster than the earlier shift to cloud computing. About 75% of surveyed legal professionals now use general-purpose tools for daily work.

• Tool Choice: Many small and mid-sized firms are choosing business tiers of general tools like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini. These are often more affordable than legal-specific software and provide the security levels these firms need.

• Always Verify: You cannot rely on "magic boxes" without checking the work. Treat AI results like a rough draft and always read the original caselaw to confirm the output is accurate.

• Better Research: The quality of legal research tools has improved significantly over the last six months. Developers are getting better at organizing data using knowledge graphs and RAG.

• The ROI Problem: The billable hour makes it difficult to show a clear return on investment for lawyer work. Most current financial gains are found in back-office tasks.

• Handling Shadow AI: Surveillance and bans usually backfire, leading staff to use personal devices for work. It is more effective to provide safe, firm-approved spaces for employees to experiment and learn.

What trends did we miss? What do you think 2026 will bring? 

Drop your comments and listen to the full episode, "Receipts, RAG, and Reboots," below (more info in the comments)👇

💡 No single AI tool works for every firm.

In 2026, you have choices. But before exploring outside options, consider what's already in place. In many cases, the trusted legal tools relied on in your firm already handle most daily tasks and are designed with legal data and workflows in mind.

✅ To fill the gaps, consider function and configuration over category. Depending on your needs, both legal-specific and business or enterprise versions of tools like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini may do the trick.

As I explain in my latest Daily Record article, what matters most for compliance purposes is the version you choose, the contractual terms, and how the account is configured.

More info below 👇

🥳 I just submitted the final draft of the 8am 2026 Legal Industry Report to our fantastic content and brand team for review. (Much thanks to Candace Chumchal, Emily DiLaura, Emiley Parker, and Sammi Jones for all of your insights and edits! I couldn't do it without you!)

This year's report covers a lot of ground. We tackled a few really interesting topics for the first time, and also revisited generative AI, so we could track adoption trends over the last three years. 

✅ One question we asked about generative AI adoption was "What tasks do you use general-purpose AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude for?"

Can you guess what the most common use case was? 

📊 Vote in the poll below, and in a few days, I'll add a comment that lists the top 4 use cases from our survey data, in no particular order. 

But you'll have to download the report when it's released in March to find out the top use case!

What did survey respondents say was the top way they used general-purpose (as opposed to legal-specific) AI tools?

✅ The start of a new year is a good time to take a hard look at your firm's technology.

A technology audit doesn’t have to be complicated. It starts with understanding your firm's workflows. Talk to your team about their day-to-day tasks. What tools do they use? What works well? Where do things bottleneck?

Once you understand current workflows, review your tech stack. Look at areas like client intake, document management, billing and payments, communication, research, and AI tools. The goal isn’t to add more software. It’s to see what's working - and what's not.

Before researching new tools, set clear goals. Are you replacing outdated systems? Adding integrations to reduce manual work? Deciding between standalone tools and all-in-one platforms? Having answers upfront saves time and avoids expensive mistakes.

Employee input matters throughout this process. Involving key team members in demos and trials leads to better decisions and smoother rollouts. It also increases adoption once new tools are in place.

Careful research is essential. Compare features, pricing, integrations, and security practices. Ask peers what they use. Take advantage of demos and free trials. Make sure the software actually solves the problems you identified earlier.

Once you decide, invest time in training and onboarding. Clear guidance and support make a big difference in how quickly a firm sees real benefits.

For even more tips on how to run a practical technology audit, check out my latest Daily Record article. More info below 👇

📊 The draft of the 8am 2026 Legal Industry Report is officially heading to design! Excited to share the full report and data in March, including lots of great data on generative AI adoption. 

One area we looked at this year is how legal professionals are using generative AI, including what tasks they use it for and how often.

I’m curious how this compares to my LinkedIn network. Vote in the poll below to share how often you use generative AI, and let us know in the comments what you're using it for 👇

How often do you personally use GAI tools in your work?

Still drafting estate plans in Word (or even WordPerfect!) from scratch? If so, it's time for a change.

Trusts and estates work is detail-heavy, state-specific, and full of opportunities for small errors that turn into big problems later. 

The good news: there’s an entire category of drafting platforms built specifically for this practice area, and they provide far more than basic document assembly.

In my latest ABA Journal article, I explain how this software works and key features, including:

• Guided interviews that turn complex planning decisions into structured workflows
• Automated logic that adjusts provisions based on client answers
• Centralized data entry so client info flows across every related document
• Built-in updates to keep forms aligned with changing laws
• Some platforms that don’t stop at drafting — they also help with trust funding and post-signing follow-up

But software features are only half the story.

Because these are cloud platforms and often include AI features, you'll also need to think about tech competence and confidentiality. That means asking necessary questions, including where data is stored, who can access it, backup practices, security controls, and whether any client data is used to train AI systems.

Trusts and estates drafting software is not one-size-fits-all, and every firm is different. You'll need to determine your goals, research your options, and carefully vet providers. 

Not sure where to start? You're in luck! I offer a buying roadmap, including workflow benefits, evaluation factors, and top vproducts in the space in my ABA Journal piece. More info below 👇

I absolutely agree with this super smart prediction 🙃

Chief Innovation Officer, Jackson Walker — Blogger 3 Geeks and a Law Blog — Podcast Host 🎧 at The Geek In Review - he/him/his - May not respond to sales DMs.

Clio buying vLex was a headline. The bigger signal sits in the ripple effect.
In Marlene Gebauer and my year in review chat with Nicole Black and Sarah Glassmeyer, Niki framed the next phase as less “who buys whom,” and more “who connects what.” Pre-gen AI, the all-in-one dream felt bulky. With gen AI in the mix, the pressure shifts to integrations between the business side of law and the practice side of law, billing, practice management, research, drafting assistants, DMS.
Also, law firms are loyal to their stacks. Plenty of teams like Clio, or NetDocuments, or Harvey, or Thomson Reuters, or LexisNexis, and zero appetite for a forced swap. Vendors chasing adoption might win faster by shipping clean connectors than by pitching one platform to rule them all.
Where would an integration move the needle most for your team, billing, DMS, research, matter intake, knowledge management?

https://lnkd.in/gDm48-mX 

The Geek in Review #LegalTech

New York courts have issued additional guidance on AI use by judges and court staff.
 
Yes, again. That alone tells you something.

In the inaugural Annual Report to the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York, the Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts updates prior guidance on AI use in the courts. 

This report does not ban AI. But it does draw some clear lines, none of which are particularly earth-shattering:

• AI can support judicial work. It cannot exercise judgment.
• Judges remain responsible for the content of their decisions. Full stop.
• AI may not be used to investigate facts or supplement the record.
• Using AI comes with an obligation to understand it. 
• All output must be reviewed for accuracy, bias, and neutrality.

In other words, AI may assist the process, but it does not dilute accountability.

I cover what’s new, what’s changed, and why it matters in my latest Daily Record column below 👇

taplio

The Battle

Olga Mack

Nicole Black

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreNicole Black's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Olga Mack

Nicole Black

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Nicole Black's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreNicole Black's LinkedIn Performance