{"id":165177,"date":"2026-10-16T12:58:02","date_gmt":"2026-10-16T20:58:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/10\/16\/tech-company-launches-program-to-pay-law-firms-for-their-emails-privilege-be-damned\/"},"modified":"2026-10-16T12:58:02","modified_gmt":"2026-10-16T20:58:02","slug":"tech-company-launches-program-to-pay-law-firms-for-their-emails-privilege-be-damned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/10\/16\/tech-company-launches-program-to-pay-law-firms-for-their-emails-privilege-be-damned\/","title":{"rendered":"Tech Company Launches Program To Pay Law Firms For Their Emails, Privilege Be Damned"},"content":{"rendered":"

Earlier this week, Mode.Inc<\/a>, a Chicago-based consumer tech company that buys up mobile apps and pays users for their data, launched BizBuyData.com<\/a>, a program pitched as a new revenue stream for law firms. The idea is that \u201c[f]irms can license historical operational records to AI labs training workplace agents, earning from work their teams have already done without taking on debt or giving up equity.\u201d<\/p>\n

What counts as \u201coperational records\u201d? According to Mode, the good stuff is the \u201c[i]nternal messages, emails and project histories\u201d that show AI labs \u201chow people work through problems and make decisions over time.\u201d<\/p>\n

So\u2026 the client file? Cool.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s ask the obvious question: is this tech company asking firms to sell attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product? Because the emails where a litigation team hashes out strategy, the Teams threads workshopping a client\u2019s walk-away number, the project histories tracking how a matter got from intake to settlement\u2026 that is the work. The process Mode is so eager to capture is, in a law office, exactly the thing privilege exists to protect.<\/p>\n

Mode\u2019s answer is scrubbing. The company says it built tools that \u201cremove sensitive information and replace names and other identifying details,\u201d and that firms get to approve which systems and date ranges are included before anything is exported. Which, I mean\u2026 sure. But privilege doesn\u2019t belong to the firm, it belongs to the client. Swapping a client\u2019s name for a placeholder doesn\u2019t make a strategy memo any less a confidential communication, and Model Rule 1.6 reaches all information relating to the representation, not just the parts with a name attached. The ABA\u2019s Formal Opinion 512<\/a> already says lawyers generally need a client\u2019s informed consent before feeding their information into self-learning AI tools, and that was about using<\/em> AI, not selling the raw materials to train someone else\u2019s.<\/p>\n

And there is no expiration date on privilege! The Supreme Court made that clear in Swidler & Berlin v. United States <\/em>\u2014 the Vince Foster notes case \u2014 holding that the privilege survives even the client\u2019s death. A matter that closed in 2014 is every bit as privileged today and \u201chistorical\u201d is not a loophole. Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ruled earlier this year that a defendant who fed his lawyers\u2019 advice into a consumer AI chatbot<\/a> waived privilege over it, because sharing it with a third party is sharing it with a third party. Doing it for cash is not going to play better.<\/p>\n

Mode co-founder and CEO Dan Novaes seems to see the lawyers coming:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cAI labs can\u2019t scrape this kind of data. They have to license it from the firms that created it. But any company with a good legal team would walk away from a deal it can\u2019t audit, and law firms should too. We put our own data through this process first, and we built it so firms can check the results before anything is shared.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I\u2019m not sure a firm can \u201caudit\u201d away its clients\u2019 confidences. <\/p>\n

Which brings us to the other question: what law firm is actually doing this? The eligibility bar is low, any firm with at least six employees using digital workplace tools, so the pitch reaches well past Biglaw, down to the small shops without a general counsel\u2019s office or a risk committee to say no. And in case anyone needs a nudge, Mode is also paying referrers \u201cthe greater of $50,000 or 6% of a participating firm\u2019s payment.\u201d A $50,000 floor for making an introduction tells you how much Mode thinks this data is worth. It also means someone, somewhere, is going to be very motivated to pitch their managing partner.<\/p>\n

But say a firm does take the time to filter all of it out \u2014 every privileged email, every piece of work product, every client confidence. What\u2019s left? Calendar invites, conflict-check requests, and reminders that there\u2019s leftover birthday cake in the 14th-floor kitchen. That isn\u2019t particularly useful training data for an AI model that\u2019s supposed to learn how professionals make decisions. The legal AI world has known for years that the bottleneck isn\u2019t the tools, it\u2019s the data<\/a>, and there\u2019s a reason it hasn\u2019t been solved with a referral bonus.<\/p>\n

Novaes is right about one thing: AI labs can\u2019t scrape this data but that\u2019s just because that\u2019s how privilege works.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Tech Company Launches Program To Pay Law Firms For Their Emails, Privilege Be Damned<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Earlier this week, Mode.Inc<\/a>, a Chicago-based consumer tech company that buys up mobile apps and pays users for their data, launched BizBuyData.com<\/a>, a program pitched as a new revenue stream for law firms. The idea is that \u201c[f]irms can license historical operational records to AI labs training workplace agents, earning from work their teams have already done without taking on debt or giving up equity.\u201d<\/p>\n

What counts as \u201coperational records\u201d? According to Mode, the good stuff is the \u201c[i]nternal messages, emails and project histories\u201d that show AI labs \u201chow people work through problems and make decisions over time.\u201d<\/p>\n

So\u2026 the client file? Cool.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s ask the obvious question: is this tech company asking firms to sell attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product? Because the emails where a litigation team hashes out strategy, the Teams threads workshopping a client\u2019s walk-away number, the project histories tracking how a matter got from intake to settlement\u2026 that is the work. The process Mode is so eager to capture is, in a law office, exactly the thing privilege exists to protect.<\/p>\n

Mode\u2019s answer is scrubbing. The company says it built tools that \u201cremove sensitive information and replace names and other identifying details,\u201d and that firms get to approve which systems and date ranges are included before anything is exported. Which, I mean\u2026 sure. But privilege doesn\u2019t belong to the firm, it belongs to the client. Swapping a client\u2019s name for a placeholder doesn\u2019t make a strategy memo any less a confidential communication, and Model Rule 1.6 reaches all information relating to the representation, not just the parts with a name attached. The ABA\u2019s Formal Opinion 512<\/a> already says lawyers generally need a client\u2019s informed consent before feeding their information into self-learning AI tools, and that was about using<\/em> AI, not selling the raw materials to train someone else\u2019s.<\/p>\n

And there is no expiration date on privilege! The Supreme Court made that clear in Swidler & Berlin v. United States <\/em>\u2014 the Vince Foster notes case \u2014 holding that the privilege survives even the client\u2019s death. A matter that closed in 2014 is every bit as privileged today and \u201chistorical\u201d is not a loophole. Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ruled earlier this year that a defendant who fed his lawyers\u2019 advice into a consumer AI chatbot<\/a> waived privilege over it, because sharing it with a third party is sharing it with a third party. Doing it for cash is not going to play better.<\/p>\n

Mode co-founder and CEO Dan Novaes seems to see the lawyers coming:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cAI labs can\u2019t scrape this kind of data. They have to license it from the firms that created it. But any company with a good legal team would walk away from a deal it can\u2019t audit, and law firms should too. We put our own data through this process first, and we built it so firms can check the results before anything is shared.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I\u2019m not sure a firm can \u201caudit\u201d away its clients\u2019 confidences. <\/p>\n

Which brings us to the other question: what law firm is actually doing this? The eligibility bar is low, any firm with at least six employees using digital workplace tools, so the pitch reaches well past Biglaw, down to the small shops without a general counsel\u2019s office or a risk committee to say no. And in case anyone needs a nudge, Mode is also paying referrers \u201cthe greater of $50,000 or 6% of a participating firm\u2019s payment.\u201d A $50,000 floor for making an introduction tells you how much Mode thinks this data is worth. It also means someone, somewhere, is going to be very motivated to pitch their managing partner.<\/p>\n

But say a firm does take the time to filter all of it out \u2014 every privileged email, every piece of work product, every client confidence. What\u2019s left? Calendar invites, conflict-check requests, and reminders that there\u2019s leftover birthday cake in the 14th-floor kitchen. That isn\u2019t particularly useful training data for an AI model that\u2019s supposed to learn how professionals make decisions. The legal AI world has known for years that the bottleneck isn\u2019t the tools, it\u2019s the data<\/a>, and there\u2019s a reason it hasn\u2019t been solved with a referral bonus.<\/p>\n

Novaes is right about one thing: AI labs can\u2019t scrape this data but that\u2019s just because that\u2019s how privilege works.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Tech Company Launches Program To Pay Law Firms For Their Emails, Privilege Be Damned<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Earlier this week, Mode.Inc, a Chicago-based consumer tech company that buys up mobile apps and pays users for their data, launched BizBuyData.com, a program pitched as a new revenue stream for law firms. The idea is that \u201c[f]irms can license historical operational records to AI labs training workplace agents, earning from work their teams have […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":165168,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165177","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165177","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=165177"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165177\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/165168"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165177"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165177"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165177"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}