Prepaid legal fees and refundability of those fees was the subject of American Bar Association Formal Opinion 505. Yesterday I did a blog post about that and noted it tracked the opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court released in Oklahoma Bar Association v Weigel, 2014 OK 4 (2014).

This is probably a good time to note that this post contains only my personal opinions and represents no policy or view of my employer.

I note the writers of Opinion 505 had to struggle with acknowledging the tension between a somewhat archaic advance form of attorney fee payment known as the general retainer or availability retainer and the thrust of the opinion that unearned fees must be held in the trust account.

This is because there is precedent noting that availability retainers, a fee where the trust account deposit requirement is waved because the fee is earned in its entirety just based on the lawyer’s promise to be available to the client for the stated time, usually a month. The opinion notes that these types of fee arrangements have largely disappeared and are quite rare. This is largely because, as the opinion notes, “the fact that very few clients would actually need or benefit from one…” (page 3)

So why are they even discussed when they are rarely used and are objectively a bad arrangement for most clients? As a review of the case law demonstrates, lawyers charged with a legal ethics violation based on not placing client advances in their trust account will, with some quick research, determine these general or availability retainers are an exception to the general rule. So, it is easy for them to argue the retainer fee in their case must be one of the type that is allowed. It is generally not a winning argument. As noted in the opinion, these rare arrangements are often a poor arrangement for individual consumers and significant disclosure would be required to effectuate one. Sliding the word “nonrefundable” before retainer in the attorney-client agreement, as the opinion (and the Oklahoma Supreme Court) states, would not serve to create an availability retainer.

While I hesitate to quibble with legal scholars and some case law, let me also suggest that perhaps the historical use of availability retainers wasn’t really about availability as much as they were about conflicts of interest. Availability was the reasoning that could be used to approve a practice that at the time was much more common. The practice pre-dated many of the modern ethics rules and some aspects of lawyer regulation.

Suppose Big Bank has one law firm in their region that they used, and the bankers were very pleased with the firm’s competency and service level. They would not want this law firm either advising their competition or being on the opposite side of litigation from them. So, the simple solution was to keep the law firm on retainer. Availability was included, but it was perhaps not the primary motivation. No one at the time would have immediately noted any ethics issue because it was a sophisticated banking client making an arrangement with a sophisticated law firm and it was easy to see how the client benefitted, even in the months where they had little or no contact with “their” law firm. To me that seems more logical than paying the client a large retainer monthly just so someone will answer the client’s phone call at 3:00 a.m.

Now let’s move on to another area where arguably the logic of the availability retainer should apply – subscription legal services. Opinion 505 didn’t mention subscription legal services, likely because they are a relatively new innovation that is not in wide usage. But I am aware of law firms with a subscription offering, where clients can log in for resources to download, get answers to basic questions, how to’s and other resources.

So, assuming the subscription is monthly, can the law firm put all their subscription legal services revenue in their operating account on the first of the month or must it be held in the trust account until the end of the month? Assuming the law firm has made the arrangement very clear to the client and the method of unsubscribing is clear and easy, I predict it would be deemed earned on the first. First, unlike the term retainer, which was criticized in Opinion 505 and not all lawyers agree on its meaning, the term subscription is well understood by the general public. If you don’t want to pay for your subscription next month, simply cancel it this month. There is also the aspect that these services are usually targeted to assist people of modest means and have modest subscription fees. I looked at one such service based in Colorado that charged $24.95 per month and had a 30-day money back guarantee (presumably for the first month). That looks much different than the non-refundable retainer scenario where a lawyer who received a retainer that was prepayment for ten or more billable hours could retain the entire retainer even if the lawyer’s services were terminated after only working two hours on a matter.

It is hard to say when or if there will be a formal ethics opinion by any bar association or judicial body relating to subscription services. But these services may be one aspect of improving access to justice for many citizens, so I wanted to discuss them.

See ABA press release on Formal Opinion 505

Prepaid legal fees and refundability of those fees was the subject of American Bar Association Formal Opinion 505. The recently released opinion states that under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a fee paid to a lawyer in advance for services to be rendered in the future must be placed in a client trust account and may be withdrawn only as earned by the performance of the contemplated services. This includes flat and fixed fees.

This opinion should not surprise Oklahoma lawyers as it tracks the opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court released in Oklahoma Bar Association v Weigel, 2014 OK 4 (2014) which provided clear guidance to Oklahoma lawyers. While sometimes bar ethics advisory opinions use conditional or cautious language, the tone of this opinion was quite blunt.

“The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not allow a lawyer to sidestep the ethical obligation to safeguard client funds with an act of legerdemain: characterizing an advance as ‘nonrefundable’ and/or ‘earned upon receipt.’ This approach does not withstand even superficial scrutiny. A lawyer may not charge an unreasonable fee. (Citations omitted.) Therefore, under the Model Rules, an advance fee paid by a client to a lawyer for legal services to be provided in the future cannot be nonrefundable. Any unearned portion must be returned to the client. Labeling a fee paid in advance for work to be done in the future as ‘earned upon receipt’ or ‘nonrefundable’ does not make it so.”

The opinion indicated that even the term “retainer” might be confusing to consumers and advance or deposit might be preferable.

ABA press release on Formal Opinion 505

This month”s LTRC Roundtable focuses on Tech for the Ideal Home Office. I joined five others to discuss what are the best and sometimes the worst about our home office tools. There are several great home office topics covered in this brief piece. It is striking how Work From Home has so well established itself. Heard a NYC office worker on the radio saying if you wanted to see someone in the office, you’d best check on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday because the offices were mostly abandoned on Monday and Friday..


Suppose next week begins with one of your top paralegals or legal secretaries giving you two weeks’ notice. Maybe they are moving to another location or another local law firm. But now you have an opening to fill.

The first response is not about filling the position. First, you must determine if there are any matters the employee is working on that they no longer should. You must also determine whether some network access rights should be changed.


If you have been informed the employee is going to work for another law firm, then it is prudent to check and see what matters you have in which that firm is opposing counsel. Hopefully there are not any – or there are only a few old, closed cases. If a departing employee is going to a firm with which you have several contested matters currently underway, it is prudent to have your IT professional restrict that employee’s access to those files and to reassign someone else to do that work, even if it is the lawyer. Some firms take two weeks’ notice as an event which it is simpler to let the employee go immediately and just pay the two weeks’ severance. I am not suggesting that approach; I just know it happens. If you want to retain the employee and your staff rotates who performs receptionist duties, it may make sense to have the employee do more receptionist tasks, which typically involve less sensitive information.

To avoid adding to or causing any negativity, share with the departing staff person that this is the process the firm has adopted, and it is not intended to reflect poorly on them. Rather, it is intended to protect both law firms.


You have, no doubt, heard the business maxim, “Fire fast. Hire slow.” No one likes losing a good and trusted employee, but shortcutting the replacement process may ultimately result in having to do it far too often.

That means you must do your homework. Even if you may find it more challenging to hire a replacement in these times, you still must invest the time to hopefully find a great fit for the firm who will stay there for a long time.

So I still support the traditional practice of requiring a cover letter and resume. If they do not have a resume, you may allow them to submit an employment history. Then look for any mistakes.

It might seem harsh to disqualify a recent law school graduate applicant for a typo on their resume or cover letter, but we are discussing staff hiring. Typos, poorly written sentences and other mistakes are significant for those whose job duties would include proofreading and preparing documents and correspondence.


It is easy to be cynical about references, assuming someone will only provide the names of people who view them positively. But they must list their employment history. If none of their references are from their most recent employment, you will want to make a note to ask about that omission if you schedule an in-person interview. Asking which lawyers they primarily worked with at that firm and what they did for them is a good start.

It is very important to check references, even in this tighter job market. Imagine the worst possible disaster scenario someone new could create. Maybe it is a social media mess, stolen client information, stolen money or maybe an event that makes the local or national news.

Document the date and time you checked their references or previous employer, even if the specifics should not be shared (except perhaps with law enforcement when criminal activity is suspected).

One challenge in checking references or prior employment is that many employers, including law firms, no longer provide much information because of liability concerns. Sometimes all you will receive is employment verification with the start date and end date. Others have suggested you might obtain more information by asking if that former employee would be eligible to be rehired at the firm. A simple “No” response gives you valuable information.


Today it is prudent to run a criminal background check for every new hire. There will be some exceptions, but the background check is relatively inexpensive and can be done online.

You can also exercise your own judgement with the results and explain to the potential employee that not every mistake is disqualifying. For example, a DUI arrest reduced to reckless driving 10 years ago may not be a problem. But if the person is still on probation for their third DUI and the job involves driving to courthouses to file documents, the past at least merits further discussion, if not moving on to another candidate. Prior theft or embezzlement charges are most likely disqualifying.

Historically, some law firms do not contact law enforcement when they discover embezzlement, whether it is from embarrassment at being a victim, the time involved in dealing with law enforcement or preconceptions about whether charges would be filed. This is another reason why it is important to check references and pay attention to significant employment gaps in their resume.

State background checks can be done at CHIRP, the Criminal History Information Request Portal.

The website states:

In addition to a subject’s first and last name, requests for criminal history record information must include a date of birth. CHIRP will search three (3) years before and after the date of birth for possible matches. Additional identifiers such as aliases (maiden names, previous married names, nicknames) and social security numbers, if known, can be provided for a more thorough search of the OSBI Computerized Criminal History (CCH) Database.

It might be advisable to create a form for potential employees to sign providing all that information, including prior names. I would also encourage you to observe the candidate when you tell them a criminal background check will be required. One grimace may be worth a thousand words. If they say, “I know what you will find. Let me explain,” then let them do so, and give them some credit for their candor. They might confess something in another state that might not be picked up by the Oklahoma background check. But it is also likely they have a reasonable, non-disqualifying explanation.


Depending on the type of law practice, temptations can be presented to employees. Suppose an employee who normally doesn’t handle money is the only staffer remaining at the end of a long day. A client shows up just before closing with a $300 cash payment. The staffer takes the payment and, because it is the end of the day, does not write the client a cash receipt. The bank deposit has gone for the day, so the employee puts the cash in an envelope and puts it in their desk drawer to be turned over the next day. But they do not know how to enter the payment into the client’s ledger. Then maybe absences or the weekend remove it from the top of the employee’s mind. Three weeks later the employee notices a crumpled envelope in the back of the desk drawer. Even the honest employee will recognize that if someone was going to say something they would have done so by now. They may also note that when they turn the cash in, they may be criticized for not writing a receipt or hanging onto the money too long. Add in other complicating factors like the utility cutoff notice they just received.

This is how many of the six-figure law firm embezzlement by employee cases begin. Once it is seen how an embezzlement could work, they could begin looking for other avenues that are open. An Oklahoma lawyer/CPA told me a story where five employees of a firm had American Express business accounts. The bookkeeper soon figured out that she could pay her personal American Express bill with a firm check and no one would be the wiser. Soon her AmEx account had a large positive balance, and the bookkeeper began traveling for pleasure more.

Good processes can limit the opportunities for financial mischief. Someone other than the bookkeeper doing the books should review the bank statement or online bank records monthly. All cash payments received must result in a receipt given to the client with carbonless copies made.

For an example of a worst-case scenario, we have the case of Blanca P. Greenstein. The West Palm Beach lawyer did not bother with a background check because her then-husband, who was also the law firm’s CFO, recommended the employee, having worked with her at another firm. Had a background check been run, the firm would have discovered this person was a felon, having been previously convicted of theft. As the headlines later noted, “A Swindle Cost a South Florida Attorney Her Law License, Marriage and $155,000.”

Even though the lawyer borrowed money to replenish all missing funds within 48 hours and no one accused her of a wrong, intentional act, she ended up with an agreed three-year suspension from the practice of law, along with paying $8,261 in costs.

That she was an innocent victim was likely a mitigating factor. But the fact that the bookkeeper wrote personal checks to herself totaling $155,000 over an 18-month period was likely an aggravating factor, as even a cursory examination of trust accounting records would have revealed the scheme.

The law practice management advice is the trust account contains funds from clients and others. The lawyer with the trust account has complete responsibility. A lawyer can delegate certain duties, but you cannot abandon oversight of your trust accounting responsibilities. Many large law firms have their employees who handle money bonded, a process that would also catch felony convictions.


One of Greenstein’s friends and lawyer advisors said Greenstein’s story should serve as a lesson to all attorneys that the bar has an “acute sensitivity” when it comes to trust accounting.[i] Given that the lawyer receives the money in trust to keep it safe, that “sensitivity” is understandable.

But this is far from the only lawyer discipline story that started with an inadequate hiring process, which is why I now believe that these processes are essential for law firm staff hiring.

I’m certain the majority of lawyers would say they don’t print anything on the back of their business cards. That is fine.

A lawyer from southeastern Oklahoma showed me what she prints on the back of her business cards. This is another instance of where people law practice has different approaches than corporate law. People law involves court hearings where the primary tangible result is another court date being scheduled. I often found myself writing the new date on the back of a business card so the client would have written confirmation of the new date (in addition to a notice we’d mail).

But there is something nice about having this “form” to complete. It also greatly increases the chance the client will save the card in purse or wallet, which, as we all appreciate, is good for both lawyer and client. Giving your client several of your business card during the representation isn’t marketing–exactly. But it does make it more likely they will have your business card in the future if legal services are needed again.

Approximately one year ago, it became more challenging to record phone calls on Android phones. In April 2022, Google announced Android apps in the Play Store could no longer use Android’s accessibility APIs for non-accessibility purposes. Since that was how most third-party call recording apps operated, they were effectively killed when the policy went into effect in May 2022.

How to Record a Phone Call on Android by How-To Geek is a comprehensive article on every available way to record a conversation now on your Android phone. Of particular interest is a Google Voice setup where you can push the 4 button to record a call, Google Voice notifies the parties that a recording is underway. But that only works on incoming calls, not ones the caller has placed. Items like that are why this post is so useful. Android users should review this post and set up their preferred method to record calls now, so it will be available if needed. For example, recording a client authorizing you to settle a case might not be the preferred method of documentation, but it works if you preserve the audio file.

I would imagine most lawyers by now have a Gmail account, although many do not use it for their professional email account. Catherine Reach, Director, North Carolina Bar Association Center for Practice Management recently published Gmail Tricks You Can Use. There are some handy tips included in this post.

My Gmail tip is one you may have heard from me before. If you are using standard free Gmail for client business (or if your personal Gmail account has a lot of financial or other important information,) you should probably consider upgrading to a paid Google Workspace account. You can review the pricing on the workspace site. Even at the least expensive level ($6.00 per month), you receive greater email security with security controls you are provided. Another major feature is with these paid accounts, even the inexpensive basic version, you can send and receive mail using your professional address, e.g. your law firm domain name. So every email you send provides the address of your website.

For much of my time in legal tech, I’ve had one primary recommendation on desktop scanners: “Buy whatever the latest Fujitsu ScanSnap scanner model is.” There are simply great scanners. They are great for small firm lawyers because they are simple to use, durable and come with great software. At ABA TECHSHOW it was always surprising what a high percentage of legal tech speakers and influencers in different practice settings, all used the SnanSnap scanners.

On a personal note, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to spell Fujitsu during a telephone call with an Oklahoma lawyer.

To those who are concerned, the announcement is a rebrand, not a cancellation of the line. See PFU Rebrands Industry-Leading Document Scanners from Fujitsu to Ricoh. The company was not going to sunset such a popular line of scanners. Meanwhile, I will have to retrain myself to spell Ricoh to those I am consulting with by telephone.

ScanSnap scanners were first launched in 2001. Here is a great 20th anniversary feature showing the release date of each ScanSnap scanner. For some of us, that was a fun walk down memory lane. In any event, since they are keeping the ScanSnap brand, it won’t be hard to find the scanners online when you need a replacement. I know lots of lawyers who have been using the same ScanSnap 500 series for over 10 years.

As I have noted before, in a world of digital client files, the scanner is the new hole punch, which is why you need a scanner you can operate from your workstation, not one you need to get up and go down the hall to use.


Every year we attend ABA TECHSHOW and share our thoughts about the conference. But since we wait for the Oklahoma Bar Journal print deadline, our review is published later than all the other bloggers. So while there have now been many reviews of ABA TECHSHOW 2003 written by now, including by well-known attendees like Bob Ambrogi and Stephen Embry, here is our contribution:

Takeaways from ABA TECHSHOW 2023

By Jim Calloway and Julie Bays

ABA TECHSHOW was held March 1 in Chicago. After 2021 resulted in a virtual TECHSHOW and 2022 was a hybrid show, the consensus among attendees was that it was great to be 100% in person again.

For us, the ABA TECHSHOW began on Wednesday. We attended a day-long retreat with practice management advisors from across the U.S. and Canada. This year, there were at least 22 PMAs attending our retreat. We spent the day learning about new technologies available on the market. Julie demonstrated Descript, an all-in-one video editor. If you haven’t heard of this product, she wrote about it in the January/February issue of the ABA’s Law Practice magazine. Videos are a great way to connect with people, and this text-based editor for videos is a good way to create them.

There seemed to be more Oklahomans than usual attending this year. Although, that could be because Kenton Brice of the University of Oklahoma College of Law and the ABA TECHSHOW Planning Board had red Oklahoma ribbons printed so that he could add them to our badges. Surprisingly, they turned out to be quite the conversation starters.

All three of Oklahoma’s law schools had faculty attending the ABA TECHSHOW, with two of them represented on the organization’s planning board: Kenton Brice and Darla Jackson from the TU College of Law. Ms. Jackson will reprise her TECHSHOW program “I Didn’t Know PDFs Could do That” for our OBA Solo & Small Firm Conference this summer. Mr. Brice will speak on several programs at the conference, including one Jim will co-present with him about lawyers’ use of ChatGPT.

Julie’s focus at ABA TECHSHOW was on the marketing track. As we frequently point out, people law requires a constant flow of new business, and active marketing is required to accomplish this. She will teach “Legal Marketing Design: Crafting a Standout Strategy” at the OBA Solo & Small Firm Conference and wanted to hear what experts in the field are saying today.

Tulsa attorney Trevor Riddle was a co-presenter on two TECHSHOW sessions on optimizing your law firm efficiency through automation, discussing the tools he uses in his estate planning practice. Texas attorney and veteran legal technologist Mark Unger said of one of his sessions:

In what I previously termed a “mind-bending creation” of spreadsheet backups while pulling via keywords from Gmail using Chat GPT, Alex and Trevor walked the entire audience through a how-to workshop; they combined the use of Zapier with Gmail and Chat GPT to create a Zap in this fashion. While much was above some of our heads, the concept was analogous to all kinds of use-case workflows and its practicality after the front-end work was illuminating. While Alex focused on the Google steps, Trevor complemented [sic] the same workflow on the Microsoft side.
Mr. Riddle will also be speaking at the OBA Solo & Small Firm Conference. His presentation is titled “Law Firm Efficiency Overhaul: Optimize Your Technology for Maximum Performance.”

Artificial intelligence and ChatGPT were on the mind of many speakers and attendees, given the explosion of ChatGPT in recent months. Many vendors’ displays had a ChatGPT reference on their booth background. We were impressed with how they got those items printed so quickly.

Chatbot Chat with AI, Artificial Intelligence. man using technology smart robot AI, artificial intelligence by enter command prompt for generates something, Futuristic technology transformation. Our thought is that they should have named ChatGPT “First Drafts.” If you know how to do something, ChatGPT lets you do it faster and sometimes better. But if you don’t understand something well, you need to carefully proof the ChatGPT output since it has been known to “hallucinate” nonexistent legal citations.

We agree with the prevailing TECHSHOW wisdom that these large language model AI tools, like ChatGPT, will be a significant disruptor for many soon. One thought repeated so many times at TECHSHOW it seemed like a cliché was, “AI won’t replace lawyers, but lawyers using AI may replace lawyers who don’t.”

In fact, there was an interesting preconference event: Casetext announced what it describes as “the first AI legal assistant,” CoCounsel, on a national network morning show. The company representatives noted it differed from the commercially available version of ChatGPT because it was trained on Casetext’s legal information database. The service was discussed in a TECHSHOW session the ABA Journal covered in “How Can Lawyers Use AI to Improve Their Practice?”

Premier legal technology journalist Bob Ambrogi has posted his review of ABA TECHSHOW. Mr. Ambrogi was surprised with an unexpected lifetime achievement award that made him speechless. His blog, Law Sites at, is an important source of legal technology news. As the acquisitions and mergers of legal technology companies heated up greatly, it was one place we could go to remember which company now owned what tool.

Some presenters talked about how they were running their operations in a way most would believe to be impossible – a family law or consumer bankruptcy practice where they do not answer the phone. Regina Edwards and Jen Lee gave a compelling presentation titled “Early and Often: Better Client Communication through Automation.” Ms. Edwards has been practicing family law in Georgia since 2001 and just added an estate planning division to her practice. Ms. Lee is a bankruptcy attorney (or, as she likes to call it, a debt and credit strategy attorney) and is licensed in California and North Dakota.

But do not think that you can stop answering your phone and have good results. Both of these lawyers have sophisticated automation systems and virtual receptionists in place who have been well-trained to triage incoming calls, e.g., “Your honor, when is a good time for her to call you back today?” Existing clients may be asked if they have posted their questions to the client portal. Potential new client inquiries are prioritized appropriately. Onboarding new clients involves detailed explanations of the process and obtaining the new client’s agreement with this communication system. But clients generally seem accepting. Isn’t a scheduled call better than waiting for a phone call to be returned whenever?

The lawyers then have their days arranged with blocks of time for uninterrupted work and scheduled blocks of time to handle the phone appointments. Ms. Edwards quipped, “I’m divorced. If you have spent 20 years building up the anger, you can wait 20 minutes to talk to me.” The speakers acknowledged that some practice areas, like criminal defense and personal injury plaintiffs work, may require traditional immediate office phone availability.

One excellent presentation was “Creating Content That Earns Clients” by Annette Choti, the founder of Law Quill, a digital marketing agency for law firms. Her presentation focused on (e)xpertise, (a)uthority and (t)rustworthiness, or EAT for the acronym. It’s a good way to remember what your focus should be when trying to engage with new clients. She explained that websites shouldn’t showcase lawyers’ academic experience or awards, but the focus should be on what you can do for them as a lawyer. Videos are a good way to convey your EAT. Stanley Tate will teach about video marketing at our Solo & Small Firm Conference.

Another interesting discussion took place in a workshop titled “Designing an A+ Client Experience” and presented by Jessica Bednarz, director of legal services and the profession at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, and Catherine Sanders Reach, director of the Center for Practice Management at the North Carolina Bar Association. They used examples from a new ABA book, Design Your Law Practice, Creating Exceptional Customer Service, to reimagine new and improved ways of interacting with clients.

Legal Talk Network was at TECHSHOW, and they interviewed many of the presenters right after their presentations. Their posted collection of audio interviews provides highlights of several presentations.

Next year, ABA TECHSHOW will be held Feb. 14-17. Doesn’t attending ABA TECHSHOW sound like the perfect Valentine’s Day date? In the past, we’ve had OBA discount codes available and hope to have them again.

Mr. Calloway is the OBA Management Assistance Program director.

Ms. Bays is the OBA Rractice Management Advisor, aiding attorneys in using technology and other tools to efficiently manage their offices.

Originally published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal — April, 2023 — Vol. 94, No. 4

As we have seen the explosion of ChatGPT and other LLM AI tools, I’m sure I am not the only one who has wondered if designing all of these new tools with scant regulation and maximizing profit as a primary goal is perhaps a bit short-sighted.

So I decided to ask ChatGPT4 what it thought about applying Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, a fiction set of rules for governing inappropriate robotic behavior and programming, to tools like itself. It responded:

“Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, first introduced in his 1942 short story “Runaround,” are a set of fictional ethical guidelines for robots. Although they were not initially intended for real-world applications, these laws have inspired discussions about the ethics and safety of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, including AI services. Here’s a brief overview of the Three Laws and their possible application to AI services:

“A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
For AI services, this could be interpreted as designing AI systems to prioritize human safety and well-being. AI developers should consider potential risks and harms associated with AI applications and implement safeguards to prevent or mitigate those risks.

“A robot must obey orders given by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
In the context of AI services, this could mean that AI systems should be designed to be user-centric and follow human instructions as long as they don’t result in harm to humans. However, it’s essential to consider the challenges that arise from ambiguous or harmful instructions and the need for AI systems to have some level of autonomy to avoid blindly following harmful orders.

“A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
This law suggests that AI systems should be robust and secure, but not at the expense of human safety or well-being. In practical terms, this could mean implementing measures to ensure AI system resilience while prioritizing the safety and interests of human users.

“It’s important to note that Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics are a fictional framework and not a comprehensive set of rules for AI systems. Nevertheless, they provide a starting point for considering the ethical implications of AI development and use. AI researchers, developers, and policymakers should work together to establish comprehensive guidelines and regulations that address the complexities of real-world AI applications and prioritize the safety, well-being, and autonomy of human users.”

So that’s one nonhuman’s opinion.