[EDRM Editor’s Note: EDRM is proud to publish the advocacy and analysis of the Hon. Ralph Artigliere (Ret.). The opinions and positions expressed are his own. © Ralph Artigliere 2025. All images in the article are courtesy of Judge Artigliere.]
THE WAKE-UP CALL
Competence in technology is no longer optional—it’s the line between professionalism and malpractice
The rise of artificial intelligence has only made that line brighter. For too long, technology education has been treated as enrichment, a “nice to have” for the curious few. That era is over.
Lawyers and judges now navigate a digital landscape where every document, message, and exhibit may be machine-generated, cloud-based, or algorithmically filtered. Yet too many still rely on others, such as vendors, paralegals, or “the tech person at the firm,” to interpret what they must master themselves. Few take the time to learn the language of technology needed for meaningful communication with experts and vendors.
The result is predictable: sanctions for AI-hallucinated citations, botched discovery, overlooked evidence, and public mistrust of the system’s ability to keep pace. No combination of ethical rules, local court procedures, judicial preferences, law firm policies,1 or even sanctions2 has stemmed the tide in courtrooms or judicial chambers.3 The technology knowledge gap is now a justice gap.
Professor William F. (Bill) Hamilton, Master Legal Skills Professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, has spent two decades proving that mastery of technology and ethics can coexist and that real progress is possible when education is treated as a public service, not a product.
Hon. Ralph Artigliere (Ret.).
Fortunately, the path forward is not hypothetical. Professor William F. (Bill) Hamilton, Master Legal Skills Professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, has spent two decades proving that mastery of technology and ethics can coexist and that real progress is possible when education is treated as a public service, not a product.4
THE PROBLEM WE DON’T WANT TO NAME
The profession’s dirty secret is that many lawyers and judges are still unprepared to deal with the realities of modern evidence.
Discovery is digital. Privilege logs are data models. The “record” in a case now lives across devices, platforms, and AI systems that generate text, summaries, or even imagery. Delegation has become a reflex, confusing assistance with abdication.
But as artificial intelligence enters the evidentiary chain through deepfakes, predictive analytics, and generative drafting, the risks of ignorance multiply. What was once a technical inconvenience has become an ethical breach. Ignorance is no longer benign; it’s a barrier to justice.
As the list of cases involving hallucinated citations in court filings continues to grow,5 the stakes have risen. Decisions such as Johnson v. Dunn6 and Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security7 demonstrate that misunderstanding AI tools can now have career-altering consequences.8
WHY TRADITIONAL CLE AND CJE STILL MISS THE MARK
Education should not be a spectator sport.
Legal education has become too comfortable with passive learning—log in, listen, and log out, credit earned and comprehension optional. As a former Chair of Florida’s Continuing Legal Education Committee, I know that the best instructors are volunteers with demanding practices, but it’s essential to establish presentation standards that truly engage learners. Talking heads and dense slide decks are yesterday’s model. For technology education, dynamic, hands-on methods are not optional—they’re essential. The solution isn’t theoretical—it’s already proven.
Professor Bill Hamilton’s approach is the opposite. In his law school classes, his students work hands-on with the latest discovery tools and real data. Building on his real life experience with high level eDiscovery and technology issues as a lawyer, Hamilton secures the latest tools and information as well as guest presenters to ensure students are engaged, intrigued, and educated.
Hamilton brings his experience and educational excellence to continuing legal and judicial education programs and webinars. At the Florida Judicial College, Hamilton’s technology metaphors and demonstrations as well as his classroom skill brighten subjects that can be challenging but essential for the judges to master.
His annual University of Florida eDiscovery Conference9 reimagines legal technology education as an interactive annual experience. Participants collaborate with technologists and judges. Access is universal: online attendance is free, and in-person participation costs less than a typical dinner. A blue ribbon planning committee carefully selects session topics and speakers. Live sessions are interactive with the online and in-person audiences and are recorded and available after hours at attendee’s convenience. Handouts are rich and curated by top professionals and judges.
This model has educated thousands worldwide because it respects professionals’ time while demanding their engagement.
AI AS THE FORCING FUNCTION—AND THE OPPORTUNITY
Fear is not a strategy. Mastery is.
Artificial intelligence is the mirror reflecting our profession’s strengths and blind spots. When used wisely, AI can accelerate legal work and expand access to justice. Used poorly, it can generate persuasive falsehoods at scale.
Hamilton has already made AI education real. Teaching with me in Florida’s Judicial College, he uses demonstrations to show judges how to verify AI-enhanced videos, assess the reliability of automated searches, and manage cost disputes involving AI-driven review. For example, in explaining precision and recall, Hamilton produces a wall of large colored boxes and takes step-by-step moves to demonstrate how iterative rounds of refinement during search “looks” as the improving ratio of relevant documents emerges. It is an analog equivalent that captures the essence of complex machine-assisted refinement and demonstrates when an acceptable level of precision and recall is met. Standing beside him and assisting with moving the boxes, I watch in amazement as Hamilton interactively queries the judges and brings sudden clarity with skill and humor. Mastering complex and fast-changing technology can be daunting for professionals of any generation, but Hamilton makes the journey both easier and more rewarding.
THE HAMILTON MODEL: FROM LITIGATION TO LEARNING ECOSYSTEM
Every generation of professionals has one educator who changes the trajectory of learning. In legal technology, that person is Bill Hamilton.
From Courtroom to Classroom: Before academia, Hamilton spent four decades as a board-certified trial lawyer. He designed an internal “Technology Survival Course” for litigators in 2005, long before eDiscovery became mainstream.
Building Infrastructure: Founding Chair of ACEDS (2010). Creator of the UF E-Discovery Conference (2012).10 Partnered with the UF Journal of Technology Law & Policy to convert dialogue into scholarship.
Developing Knowledge While Advancing the Law: Author of a book on Florida eDiscovery11 and chapters of published books, articles, and materials on technology and law. Member of Bar Committees on AI and technology. Contributor and commenter to Florida Supreme Court on development of eDiscovery and case management rules.12
Teaching with Empathy: He uses pop-culture metaphors and humor to demystify data-driven concepts, transforming apprehension into engagement.
His approach embodies the principle that technology education should not just transfer knowledge but also inspire confidence and cooperation.
A BLUEPRINT FOR A COMPETENT PROFESSION
The Hamilton model demonstrates that excellence and access are not opposing values. With intentional design, they reinforce each other.
| Sector | Core Strategy | Key Outcome |
| Law Schools | Integrate AI and eDiscovery modules; combine doctrine with hands on demos | Graduates fluent in digital evidence and verification |
| CLE & Judicial Education | Replace lectures with scenario-based workshops and active demos | Lawyers and judges trained for real-world application |
| Bar Associations & Courts | Tie ethics and competence rules directly to tech literacy | Accountability and uniform standards |
| Law Firms | Build “tech mastery” tracks; encourage internal knowledge sharing | Cultural shift from delegation to collaboration |
| Individuals | Dedicate one hour per week to structured self-study; take leadership in knowledge sharing with others | Lifelong learning becomes habit |
THE COMMON EXCUSES—AND THE REALITY
“We don’t have time.”
You don’t have time for sanctions or client mistrust either. Free, modular programs like Hamilton’s show that education can be efficient and scalable. In a law firm, seeking and sharing knowledge can be infectious. Hold “lunch and learn” sessions. Share responsibility for leading classes because it distributes the workload and teaching is the best path to mastery of a topic. Write brief punchy updates and articles for lawyers and paralegals in the firm on emerging topics. Technology touches every practice area and mastery is a team sport.
“Our vendors handle that.”
Responsibility is non-delegable. Lawyers must drive the train, managing vendors through understanding, not avoidance.
“AI is too new and keeps changing.”
Ethical duties haven’t changed—only the tools have. Waiting for perfect rules or the perfect tool is procrastination by another name.
FROM COMPLIANCE TO CRAFT
Technology mastery is not about staying current—it’s about staying credible.
The legal system’s integrity depends on whether we can understand, explain, and regulate the digital systems shaping evidence and advocacy.
For decades, the profession has treated technology education as peripheral. In the AI era, it is central. Bill Hamilton’s career proves that technological literacy and ethical excellence are not competing goals; they are the same mission.
If we don’t master the tools of our time, they will master us.
Author’s Note
Judge Ralph Artigliere (Ret.) is a former Florida Circuit Court judge and board-certified civil trial lawyer who has taught judges and lawyers nationally about technology, eDiscovery, AI, and evidence for more than two decades. This article honors Professor William F. Hamilton for his transformative contributions to legal technology education and the profession’s pursuit of ethical competence.
Endnotes (References and Author Disclosures)
- R. Artigliere, When AI Policies Fail: The AI Sanctions in Johnson v. Dunn and What They Mean for the Profession, EDRM (JD Supra, Aug. 2025), found at When AI Policies Fail: The AI Sanctions in Johnson v. Dunn and What They Mean for the Profession | EDRM – Electronic Discovery Reference Model – JDSupra. ↩︎
- See n. 5-7, infra. ↩︎
- Schlegel, S., Judges Using AI Wrongly Is Not Just a Problem. It’s a Crisis Waiting to Happen, Jul. 24, 2025, found at Judges Using AI Wrongly Is Not Just a Problem. It’s a Crisis Waiting to Happen. ↩︎
- Professor Hamilton was a 2025 Honorable Mention Awardee in the Education Category at the American Legal Technology Awards for his many contributions to legal technology and eDiscovery education. ↩︎
- An AI Hallucination Cases Database compiled by Damien Charlotin tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content, including fake citations and hallucinated content of cases and attribution to judges. As of October 19, 2025, the website contained 301 cases in the United States and 455 worldwide. See https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/. ↩︎
- In Johnson v. Dunn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141805* (N.D. Ala. July 23, 2025), three attorneys from a prominent firm were sanctioned to extremely severe career-impacting sanctions for submitting hallucinated legal citations, despite firmwide AI policies and warnings. See R. Artigliere and W.F. Hamilton, Reasonable or Overreach? Rethinking Sanctions for AI Hallucinations in Legal Filings (JD Supra Aug. 2025) found at https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/reasonable-or-overreach-rethinking-7396905/. ↩︎
- 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157358 at *28-32 (D. Az. Aug. 14, 2025)(in a case following and citing Johnson v. Dunn, a federal Magistrate Judge in Arizona issued severe sanctions against an attorney from Washington state). ↩︎
- The resulting sanctions in Johnson v. Dunn included public reprimands, disqualification from the case, referrals to the Alabama State Bar, and an unusual order requiring each sanctioned attorney to provide the sanctions order to every client, colleague, opposing counsel, and presiding judge in active matters. The sanctions in Mavy were similarly devastating. See Reasonable or Overreach, supra n. 5. ↩︎
- https://ufediscoveryconference.com/. The next Conference is February 25-26, 2026. The conference planning committee under Prof. Hamilton’s leadership, works all year to make sure the lineup of expert presenters and program content delivers an excellent product to the audience of thousands. ↩︎
- As a member of the Planning Committee for the University of Florida eDiscovery conference from 2012 to the present, I have observed Prof. Hamilton’s leadership and direction of the Conference, turning it into one of the most impactful and productive technology conferences anywhere. His commitment to excellence of content and effectiveness of presentation and end product are the reasons for success. ↩︎
- R. Artigliere and W. F. Hamilton, LexisNexis® Practice Guide, Florida E-Discovery and Evidence (Rel. 15, 2024). ↩︎
- The author has personal knowledge of Prof. Hamilton’s scholarly contributions to rulemaking efforts in eDiscovery. As a member of the Florida Bar rules committee drafting the 2012 amendments and a contributor to later Florida Supreme Court rule efforts, I received and incorporated timely input from Professor Hamilton in each phase. ↩︎
October 21, 2025 © Ralph Artigliere 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (Published with permission.)
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM GAI and LLM Policy.
