Missouri CLE Compliance Bundle

Artificial Intelligence has the power to transform industries and drive innovation; however it also raises ethical concerns, particularly around data protection. Data can impact an organization’s decision-making, compliance and strategy, placing data governance at the forefront of in-house legal professionals' concerns. Our esteemed panel of AI experts will discuss the importance of managing data retention appropriately in order to maintain data integrity, and will provide practical strategies for ensuring compliance with data protection regulations and mitigating the risks of bias and discrimination in AI systems. In this session, we will dive deep into the complexities of data governance, addressing the unique challenges faced by in-house legal teams and offering practical solutions to harness the power of data effectively and securely.

Implicit bias is assessed here by looking at our three major areas of IP law—copyright, patent and trademark—and discussing the required issues of implicit bias through the lens of a survey of our IP laws. In this program, intellectual property lawyer Peter Afrasiabi takes you on a fun, interesting journey asking these questions: Does copyright law and fair use as it collides with modern AI technologies require us to assess, where implicit bias in the stock of material that AI is learning on, whether fair use and copyright law need to take that into account in deciding the AI fair use questions being litigated? Do the large differentials in male to female inventor patent grant rates, and the differential in male to female patent examiners, create implicit bias in the patent system, especially where we have elastic patentability concepts on abstract ideas? Do our trademark laws’ central focus on the archetypal “consumer” create their own bias issues by not seeing the “consumer” as an actual person? These and other interesting implicit bias issues, with strategies to combat implicit bias, are addressed.

We all know that CLE programs are boring and a chore to watch. But we’re breaking the rules – a CLE program that’s intentionally funny and (gasp) entertaining, yet somehow still informative. In the latest installment of this popular series, Mark Wooster takes on more outrageous conduct by fictional lawyers in television series, in addition to sharing his sympathies for the real-life lawyer who unwittingly starred in the infamous “I am not a cat” clip that recently went viral. Rules covered include: ABA Model Rules 1.6, 3.3, 7.1 & 8.4; Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 & 7.1.

In this fun and interesting program, explore social media and how the law regulates the social media sites. This program explores the two major pillars of immunity form the 1990’s that facilitated social media growth, the immunity from state tort liability for defamation and state torts, and the copyright immunity for infringement on their sites.

Much legal talk these days is about the weaponization of the legal system to push political persecutions. This program looks at an actual case of a weaponized legal system, what the Supreme Court called a “crusade,” by exploring the Cold War trials of Harry Bridges. In part two of this program, experienced intellectual property lawyer Peter Afrasiabi, who authored the definitive book on the Harry Bridges trials from National Archive and FBI FOIA records, finishes the story by discussing the perjury trial of Bridges that stands as yet another example of how the legal system was contorted to produce what was persecution by prosecution.

This program looks at an actual case of a weaponized legal system, what the Supreme Court called a “crusade,” by exploring the Cold War trials of Harry Bridges. Experienced intellectual property lawyer Peter Afrasiabi, who authored the definitive book on the Harry Bridges trials from National Archive and FBI FOIA records, takes one of the four trials Bridges was subjected to, and looks at how the legal system was contorted to produce what was persecution by prosecution, identifying along the way some of the issues that led the Supreme Court to so conclude.