AI and legal tech vendors are selling a new world where lawyers’ work will be streamlined, more efficient, and more productive while also cutting down on legal fees. Most tools for in-house lawyers focus on improving workflows, contract review, and other transactional tasks.
In litigation, news reports highlight the latest embarrassments—or even sanctions—of lawyers who relied on AI bots to write briefs with hallucinated, made-up cases. In this episode, Alex Alben, a two-time tech GC and the former Chief Privacy Officer of the state of Washington, helps us understand how AI tools can be used responsibly in litigation. He also shares how in-house counsel can ensure law firms are using them appropriately and provides clues for identifying AI-generated content before it’s filed.
Alex also discusses how law firms can use their own data to evaluate performance in different courts, assess the effectiveness of arguments, and more. He suggests firms “mine their own data” and consider hiring a data scientist to access this untapped resource.
Tune in to hear about the potential for AI to improve litigation outcomes.
—
Listen to the podcast here
About Alex Alban
Alex Alben teaches Privacy, Data & Cybsersecurity at the UCLA School of Law. He has previously taught Internet Law and Privacy courses at both UCLA and the University of Washington law school. For most of his career, Alex served as a senior executive for pioneering Internet companies RealNetworks and Starwave Corporation, where he created new digital media products that enabled the distribution of video and music on the Internet and worked with industry groups to devise new content distribution models. From 2015-19, he served as Washington State’s first Chief Privacy Officer.
Alben is engaged in both research and policy development relating to Cybersecurity, Anti-Trust issues relating to Big Tech and the ethical conundrums created by Artificial Intelligence. He also is working on implementation of The California Consumer Privacy Act.
Alben has represented the high-tech industry in national and global policy groups and testified before the U.S. House, Senate and Copyright Office on copyright and media issues resulting from the growth of the Internet and online networks. In 2004, he ran for the U.S. Congress from Washington’s 8th district.
He has worked for an alternative energy company founded by Bill Gates, raised an early-stage venture fund for start-up companies emerging from the University of Washington and authored a study for the UW and City of Seattle on developing incubators and attracting start-up companies.
Alben received his A.B. with distinction from Stanford University, and his J.D. from Stanford Law School. His publications have appeared in the Seattle University Law Review, Stanford Law & Policy Review, University of Washington Law Policy Law Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Seattle Times, and the New York Times among others. He is the author of Analog Days: How Technology Rewrote Our Future.
Transcript
My name is Alex Alben. I am a teacher at the UCLA School of Law, where my focus is on internet law, cybersecurity, and privacy. A fun fact about me is that my very first job was being a researcher for Walter Cronkite at CBS News.
—
In our episode of the Legal Department, I’m excited to welcome Alex Alben. He teaches at UCLA Law School. He’s a former tech executive and the first privacy officer of the state of Washington. I reached out to Alex to talk about the use of artificial intelligence in litigation. I’ve done, as many of you know, several shows on AI for legal and have been looking for a guest to talk about how we can use it in litigation. Alex came up on my radar screen. He also, as I mentioned, teaches at UCLA and was generous enough to send me his course syllabus for his course, Internet Law. I am asking him, begging him, if I could audit some sessions of that class because it looks phenomenal. Alex, welcome to the legal department. Thanks for being here.
I appreciate the invitation. Thanks, Stacy.
The Role Of AI In Modern Litigation
I want to kick off and talk about AI tools for litigation purposes. I attended an American Bar Association CLE pulling apart the ethics opinion that they issued last year about the ethical use of AI. A lot of that was about litigation. What tools are available? What can we do? We hear a lot from vendors about using AI in contracting and workflow management, but how can it be helpful for us managing litigation?
It’s no secret that AI is being rapidly adopted by law firms because it’s a great way to have a more efficient legal practice. Contrary to popular beliefs, lawyers are early adopters of technology. Of course, the law profession is very diverse, with huge 2,000-person firms and also much smaller practitioners, but they all want to get their work done quickly and efficiently. What we saw, maybe starting 3 or 4 years ago, was the use of AI tools for document production. That’s natural.
The thing that large language models do well is that they understand words and the relationship between words. I remember when I was a first-year associate at a law firm in Los Angeles, I was asked to answer interrogatories. I remember they hit me with, “You have to do 100 answers overnight.” It took me hours to crawl through the files and find the responsive passages of the depositions to do these answers.
If I had an AI tool today, it could have been done in probably ten minutes because the ability to search a large corpus of information to find the relevant information, we’ve had that for a while in terms of search, but then the ability to organize it into a sequence that you asked for. Finally, to write the specific answers in a natural language that makes sense. These are all things that have been now almost perfected, if I could use that word, in the tools that are available to attorneys today. We are seeing rapid adoption in discovery.
I work with a lot of law firms and I can only think of one firm that shared with me that they were using AI for some of their work. We had a conversation about fees. If they were able to work at scale using technology, I didn’t think I should be paying high hourly rates for that. How will I know if my firms are not disclosing that to me? By the way, to that ABA ethics opinion, it certainly talked about the model rules and the duties to be communicating with clients and talk about the resources you’re using. How will I know?
That’s a good question. You might not know because the better the AI gets, the more it does simulate what an actual attorney’s output would be. I’ll give you an analogy. We deal with this in the education profession where students are giving us answers that may or may not be generated by AI. In the last few years, we’ve learned how to detect them. First, we have some programs that can detect or say that they can detect AI-generated content. You can also see certain patterns in content. Large language models tend to write in a flat tone, and they have even-numbered sentences in a paragraph. Also, the paragraphs are the same length.
Can we pause on that? That’s interesting. Even-numbered sentences, if there was to say a paragraph, it would always be 10, 8, 10.
It’s always 4 or 5 sentences. You don’t see long run-on sentences either, the way you see in some human writers. You see very good grammar. Also, you don’t see a ton of personality. Of course, you can prompt a large language model now to say, inject humor into your responses, or inject a flowery writing style. The LLM knows how to do that. I would say in the production of legal documents world, that’s not happening.
No one cares if you’re funny in your interrogatory response. It’s going to be very rote.
I think that it’s hard to detect. There is an ethical obligation to disclose it. I think the more interesting implication is the business model for law firms. How do you charge for the use of this tool? If an associate used to take an hour on a task and now takes ten minutes, that threatens a business model that’s based on aggregating billable hours. Do you raise the rates of the associates?
No, they’re already high enough.
That’s not what the general counsel wants to see. I think this is going to accelerate the trend to different ways of charging for legal services. I’ll use the word commoditize. It will start commoditizing certain functions in a legal practice. That will accelerate a trend towards fee-for-service billing. Perhaps it’s the most transparent way of charging anyway.
One charge, maybe this is going to be a corollary, but we’ve all started getting charges, or for many years gotten charges for data storage. For example, back in the day, fax charges and copier charges. Law firms know how to itemize their overhead. I could see a model where, “We could do it the old-fashioned way, Stacy, and we could charge you $500 an hour for associate Alex to do this by hand, or we can charge you our AI access fee.” To recruit some of that.
You could, but it’s going to be a disruptive event.
I don’t disagree, by the way.
All I would say is it’s not a bad thing because efficiency ultimately is good. We always resist change. When my grandfather was an attorney, people were paid in the office to make carbon copies of typing things. Those jobs went away, and those people ended up doing more efficient, high-value things. I would not necessarily feel threatened by another tool that makes people more productive.
I think that’s fair. The reason I ask about whether we could detect it, and I feel like in the litigation realm, a lot has been written. You have some judicial opinions, people getting sanctioned for using AI to generate briefs. As somebody who is, I read all of the briefs for cases that go out. For significant motions and other filings, I read those.
However, with very rare occasions do I check a citation of a case. Very rarely do I pull up cases cited. I’m digging into this because certainly for counsel to get sanctioned, that’s a major implication for that lawyer. For me, as the person managing the litigation for my company, it is terrible. It’s a huge embarrassment and reflects on my management if I have counsel that is submitting filings under my company’s name with fake cases.
I think the solution to that is partially technical, where there can be a very quick review of the citations in a brief that should be done anyway by a human.
An AI machine wants to please you. These are being trained to give you what you want. Share on XAt the law firm or at my end, the in-house department?
The law firm should be doing that. In-house counsel probably can get a tool that does ingest these every case citation. Some of them can be obvious. I was doing a search for a specific case. I wanted to find a case and the LLM could not find the case for me, which frustrated me. I kept asking it several times, which is probably not a good practice when you’re doing prompting of an LLM.
Finally, the LLM gave me a case citation. It called it XYZ Corp versus something. That was a tell because I don’t think many cases are named XYZ Corp. This is an interesting aspect of LLMs that I don’t think many attorneys appreciate. Ultimately, they want to please you, and they will give you an answer. If you are demanding enough, like a senior partner in a law firm, the associate will give you an answer, even if it’s not a correct answer sometimes. LLMs are susceptible to that type of behavior, which I find very interesting.
Can I add, thinking back on when I was in private practice, the partner or somebody would say, “I know there’s a case. I remember there was a case,” and then you would at that time, maybe you went to Westlaw, maybe you went to the library and you would maybe be able to find some parts or something you thought was the case. Many times, the holding was slightly different than what the partner was telling you. I have my human brain, and I could go in and talk to the partner and say, “This is the case I think you’re talking about. This is a little bit different than you thought.” You’re saying the machine is going to give you what you want.
The machine wants to please you. It’s very interesting how these machines are being trained. I would also say there are a lot of companies now that are offering products in e-discovery. There’s a lot to choose from. That’s, I think, healthy. This will sort itself out over the next few years, where the general counsel is going to be the consumer of a lot of different products, or could even say we like this product for using in discovery.
AI Tools Used In The Legal Scene
Let me ask you again how I will detect it. You mentioned that there might be tools. Again, you were a general counsel, so how busy we are and all the things that are on our plates that are spinning at any given time. If I don’t have a big legal department, and maybe I’m using a new firm like the firms that you have a long-term relationship with. I feel like you’re not going to have a footfall with somebody playing fast and loose with technology, but maybe you’re working with a new firm. What tools could you use to scan a brief to make sure that they’re not using some made-up case?
I don’t have a specific recommendation, but I would say if you Google detect legal citation, you’re going to find about 5 to 10 firms that offer that service. We use a service at UCLA to detect plagiarism in student papers, which is an interesting question. It’s interesting that the focus of this controversy has been on citations. The focus should be on making bad arguments that are not supported by law.
I’ve got to say, and we’ll get into this a little later, I think that AI is a disruptor for many reasons because it pulls back, it reveals how people have been doing things that you may not have been aware of. As you’re saying, again, as a consumer of legal services, you are not the expert in the area of law that you’ve hired somebody to litigate for you. You are maybe pressure-testing their arguments, but you don’t know if they’re legally sound or not.
As a general counsel, when I was a counsel for two companies, I had to trust the law firm. I did not have time to barely read the brief and certainly not to research it. The importance of choosing firms that have good reputations and attorneys who have good reputations is more important than ever. Fortunately, there are also tools that enable you to search firms and individual attorneys more efficiently now. There’s also a lawyer search service like Law Booth or Lexus. These are firms that enable you to find the right law firm for your task. It certainly, for me, was always worth reference. When I went to a firm, they usually came to me through a reference that I had trusted who had done work for another firm. There’s no substitute for that.
I agree. I always talk about my coffee clutch, my little Healthcare GC Network, and we always talk about reference checking for different counsel. Let’s turn a little bit more. Again, there’s been so much focus on hallucinations and briefs and people getting in trouble and all that. I think that’s the tip of the iceberg in what we should be looking at from our AI Litigation tools. One thing I’m interested in that I feel like it is hard to land unless you do a mock jury or focus groups or whatever is when you have a case. Are there tools, and is there AI tool technology that can help you predict the likelihood of success with your case? How can you pressure test the litigation risk in a given case?
There are some well-established companies now, like Lex Machina or Case Text, that do enable you to look at patterns of cases. They enable you to look at how a judge has ruled in specific types of cases with fact patterns, which I think is very helpful. They enable you to search by jurisdiction. Let’s say there’s a patent case.
You could look at the jurisdictions that tend to favor certain outcomes or higher awards. This is all driven by data. Law firms never thought data was valuable. They have tons of data in their storage rooms. I think this is true of some large companies as well. They don’t realize the value of the data that they’re sitting on. If they went back into their files, they could say, “We’ve done twenty slip and fall cases in the last ten years. This is how they turn out. These are the law firms that are successful.
These are the judges that rule in certain ways. It’s important for firms now to look at their case histories as data because it’s valuable to them. Now, the larger companies like Thomson Reuters are developing tools that look at a broad array of cases, thousands of cases, and you can then chart these cases according to certain search parameters. I think this is very valuable data. It’s not necessarily going to predict the outcome of a particular case. That’s very hard to do. It is going to say, “In a case of this type, this is what we tend to see in a certain context.”
I wonder. I think that’s a huge tip for folks that are reading. I have been out of a law firm for a long time. I assume some of them would take your advice and are already looking at their data. I wonder if they could input demographic information about jurors who were on particular cases or patterns in different motions.
I think jury selection is hard, especially predicting the behavior of individuals, but firms that do litigation certainly do jury trials and do a lot of research into the demographics of the jury pool. I’m talking more about a typical business litigation case, which has been litigated before. You can then see what the elements of that case are that tend to drive results. Also, you can tend to drive, you can do more research to say, “What are the awards that are typical?” That’s the thing that’s hard to find.
When even you look at a large successful database like LexisNexis, it’s going to have all the cases. As you know, the cases don’t always have the award that’s reported. Frankly, in 95% of the time, the case has been settled after a decision. How much was that case worth? That is also valuable data. The search for that is also going to be ongoing now in the next few years to get a reliable database of outcomes of cases.
I would bet you’d want to have that if you were a mediator also to be able to track your results. I’m thinking as you’re talking, “If I was running a law firm, I might want to have that data for the lawyers that worked there. How successful is Stacy in these cases? What’s her win rate? What’s her settlement rate?” That’s fascinating.
The average lawyer does not know that.
For sure not. That’s fascinating. I wonder if law firms need to get a data management person or some strategic data person.
Need to hire data science people, and they are starting to do that. I think the more advanced firms are investing in data and understanding the patterns of cases because the ultimate decision in a case comes right at the beginning. Should we take this case? It’s not necessarily the tactics, the strategy, or the writing of the brief. The ultimate decision that is going to move the meter for the firm financially is, are we going to win this case? Should we take this case? How long is this average case before it goes to trial? These are the key components. All of these elements can be measured. Historically, firms have not measured those things at all.
They’re driving forward, getting the work done, and putting the points on the board.
If I ran a firm that was profitable and had some resources, I would put some resources into understanding the data on my own history. The interesting thing there is, because of confidentiality and also competition, firms don’t share their data with other law firms. Cravath, Swaine, and Moore is not going to share its data, its history of 100 years of data with Milbank Tweet. They don’t. That silos the data by a law firm. It deprives the market as a whole of this overview of what is happening because each firm is sitting on its own pile of data, which it’s not sharing. To me, that’s a super interesting observation about the legal industry.
What General Counsels Need To Know About AI
We start off in law school being competitors. That carries through. I want to build from this and talk a little more broadly about. In California, we have a CLE requirement for competence in technology. We have to take a certain number of hours for technology competence. We’re talking about tools and data and all that, but it is overwhelming.
Again, harkening back to your experience as a GC, it’s hard to stay on top of everything that you have on your desk. I feel like, especially with AI tools, there’s more of a call to action for us to understand the technology or at least be conversant in how things are different, what a large language model, what generative AI, what predictive, etc. Can you give us some high-level information about what GCs need to know about AI, and how can we get up to speed?
Law firms do not realize the value of the data they are sitting on. If they analyze their case history, they could better predict outcomes and make smarter decisions. Share on XI would say that GCs need to understand that four tasks are influenced by AI. One is research, getting the right answers, and legal authorities. We spoke about this a little bit earlier, obviously making sure that the research is accurate. The second is reviewing, being able to pinpoint the information inside a document or a contract in a specific case, and understanding that that is the salient point. That’s a skill. We’re supposed to learn that skill in law school. I think I didn’t learn it in law school.
You learn it on the job. The other is drafting. This is where AI has some issues in terms of the origin of the draft. You can use AI right now to generate complaints. There are auto-generation tools that are off the shelf that say, draft this PI complaint. It’s pretty good. It’s good enough to be filed. The great thing about litigation is that you can always amend your complaint to make it better. That’s an interesting evolution that people do need to have at least some ethical boundaries about what you’re using to draft something as important as the original complaint or the original answer to a complaint.
You don’t want it to be auto-generated. You’re going to miss something. The LLMs are great, but they are not yet great enough. Finally, the skill that you want is to be able to summarize information that’s in a document. This is when I was referring to discovery. This can be done instantly, but you have to train people not to miss key things. I remember when I was a first-year associate, I was assigned to a case. I was asked to do a deposition. I had no idea what the case was about. I was thrown into it and asked a lot of questions.
I looked at the transcript of this deposition. I was hit and miss as to whether I was asking anything that had to do with this case. Through the other counsel, I came from a good law school. I think the other counsel was thinking, “He’s being very cagey with me.” That wasn’t the case at all. I was being stupid because I had no idea what the case was about. You have to have that. We take that for granted, I’m saying, as a skill. A large language model is not going to know what that case is about. You have to have that perspective when you’re doing your research because it guides your research.
Like I said, the worry for me is that all this stuff is, again, law firms are using it. We’ll talk a little bit more about how in-house, where you’re dealing with vendor relationships, AI is coming in your doors, you may not know about it. What are the resources we can use to stay up to speed on this technology?
I would stay in touch with the vendors that you probably already have. LexisNexis is evolving a new suite of tools. Thomson Reuters has evolved a new set of tools. Protocol co-counsel, which I think is an innovative one. Bloomberg Law has now AI tools. If you’re already subscribing to a research service, these are evolving. I would take advantage of the marketing seminars and other things that these firms are doing because that is the cutting edge of what is out there and what is vetted. I don’t think there are many good sources yet. We’re not teaching this in law schools.
What’s evolving like it’s happening.
We tend to teach the promise of it and the dangers of it. The legal research and writing over the next few years is going to have to incorporate training in AI. It’s generational. The students coming out of law firms and the younger associates, they’re all over these tools. They’re there whether the firm knows it or not. It’s the mid-level and senior partners, depending on whether they are early adopters or not.
I don’t want to classify people necessarily by age, but people who are not early adopters are going to do things the way they’ve always done them. That’s okay. That’s what works for them. I think we’re going to live in this world where some people are going to be embracing these new tools and others are not going to be familiar with them. We’ll have to sort that out.
How To Preserve IP Rights In The Age Of AI
Let’s talk a little bit. I’ve been focused, and this is maybe my personality, on risk management issues around AI. Recently, I’ve been thinking about how to use it in my litigation portfolio. As I mentioned, and I’m sure you’re aware, vendors for many different sorts of services are incorporating AI with or without the client’s knowledge. I wanted to pick your brain about what GCs should be doing and what questions we should be asking.
I feel like we have many ways we’re the protector of the crown jewels, the data, the IP of a company. What advice would you have for general counsels and legal in-house legal departments who are trying to help their company preserve their IP rights? Let me give you an example. Many of us use Zoom. We’re on a Zoom feed. This is not an IP leak question, but AI is sneaking in the doors every which way. I had a colleague share a horror story where they were on a negotiation call with another party.
One of the people on the call from their team, an AI listening device that was incorporated, which was not known or people didn’t realize it. After the opposing party got off the call, two of the people from one company stayed on the call and talked about the negotiation. That helpful AI assistant sent out a transcript to everybody on the call, including the opposing party. I mean, what a nightmare. I’m interested in it, yet it feels to me like we’re under this, you’re up against this tsunami of technology that’s coming super fast. I don’t know if there are any.
Lawyers must be aware of how technology is being used in legal cases. They must never become overly dependent on AI nor let it make decisions it should not be making. Share on XThere are many legitimate IP concerns that have become much more complicated in this environment. Also, privacy concerns in terms of data and how data is shared. When you’re on a particular platform, and even if you upload a document for analysis, how do you ensure that the document is not going to be retained or scanned? You have to understand the terms of the service that you’re using. Some firms, not law firms, but some companies will say, “We’re going to retain the document to analyze it for broader issues or trends.”
You don’t want that. You don’t want them to retain your documentation that they are providing a service for. I’m not as worried about the so-called training data issue. LLMs tend not to absorb the entire document or retain the entire document in a so-called database because that’s not how large language models end up working. It’s probably a best practice not to upload confidential documents into an LLM when you are seeking an answer from the LLM, because even if the fact that there is a lawsuit, it is confidential, or you’re thinking about bringing a lawsuit.
That is a piece of confidential information that’s very sensitive. In order to use the LLM, you have to maybe screen your own documents and filter out names, dates, and financial figures before you feed it to the large language model for analysis. In the use of these other tools, even communication platforms, as you mentioned, such as Teams or Zoom, some companies have pretty locked-down privacy policies.
Have to say that Microsoft tends to have very thoughtful privacy policies and analysis, and they are a big responsible company. They’ve been investing in this for years. There are other companies that I think are going to use your data. Even if they have good intentions and are going to honor their terms of service, we also live in a world of data breaches. Companies, vendors that are keeping data, can be breached, and they can say, “We’re so sorry, we were breached.”
When they were breached, it was your data. When I worked for the state of Washington, most of the data breaches that occurred were not leaks from our servers. They were events where we had a vendor doing certain work for us, had shared information with them that might have involved the information of state residents. When they were breached, our data was breached.
That is one of the top risks for any data breach. That’s why in those vendor negotiations, how long do they need the data? Do they need all that they have? What are their destruction policies? Like, all of that is so important. Again, with the emergence of AI and the companies, many of them need your data in order to build their mousetrap. Those conversations get a little more friction than you’d expect.
It’s also a resource question for companies. We all have data-sharing agreements. That’s great. You probably have them off the shelf, and they’re good agreements. What you need is someone to follow up at the end.
We need action.
I’ve done a thousand confidentiality agreements. I don’t know how many times I’ve ever said, “Turn over the confidential information at the end of the engagement that you’re supposed to give back to me.” Who does that? It’s important.
This is a timely conversation for me. Having an index to know ABC vendors have your data and they’re supposed to have it for this long, like to have a log or spreadsheet that tells you who has it and how long they’re supposed to have it and what they’re supposed to do with it.
We should invent a time bomb that freezes a document after a certain period of time, no matter where it sits on anybody’s server.
I know you’re a tech lawyer. You could probably bang one of those out over the weekend.
I’m going to write this down. I mean, something that automatically locks up a document after x period of time.
That would make it set it and forget it. Put on the Alben pixel.
I’ll give that idea to anyone of your readers. Give me a 5%.
Why AI Should Not Replace Human Judgment In Law
It’s available. I want to close out. You also shared with me a presentation that you gave at The Hague. In there, you talked about how lawyers, not in-house lawyers, can have an impact on the ethical use of AI. I feel like that’s very timely. I’d love to hear your perspectives on how we can fit in and what we should be doing. How can we be part of the conversation?
One of the things that attorneys need to do is first understand the technology better by listening to podcasts, going to seminars, and CLEs. Things that are available. Legal education now is more important than ever in terms of understanding a rapidly shifting landscape. To have a constructive role in making policy, we need to understand the technology. The other thing is that we need to be leaders. I think sometimes lawyers have a tendency to sit back and do their jobs. Lawyers, we are officers of the court. We have responsibility.
There are some important decisions that are being made over the next few years about these technologies to guard against bias, which can occur in many use cases, and to be aware of that and how to screen against that to not become overly dependent on the technology automatically, and also not to use the technology to make decisions that it should not be making. There are certain very important decisions, employment decisions, and promotion decisions. These are things that all can be automated, but they need to have a human component, and lawyers have a role to play.
Also, I think the administration of justice could definitely benefit from AI, but it raises some of the same ethical questions that we’ve talked about in terms of the practice of law in the private sector. We can certainly use a more efficient court system. How that comes about and how we draw those lines are something that attorneys are going to need to advocate for. We have a big role to play in the future of how AI is adopted towards legal tech. I guess my theme song is that we have to embrace that role. We have to go out and be proactive about it because we are the best qualified group of people to do that.
Alex’s Pump-Up Song
With all that free time that we’re saving not hand drafting interlocutories, get involved. Alex, you mentioned a theme song. I’m going to shift to my last question, which is that I ask all guests, what is your pump-up song?
I hate to be too abstract, but I do like the Lieutenant Kije Suite by Prokofiev. That lifts me. I’m a classical music buff, and that passage from Prokofiev always lifts me. It’s not the Rocky theme song. I’ll give you that.
That’s great. Listen, I will say that’s my first classical music reference, pump-up song. I did have another guest that liked Gregorian chants, so you’re not completely a trailblazer here. Alex Alden, thanks so much for being here. I learned a lot, and I know everybody else did too, so I appreciate you being in the legal department.
Thank you so much for inviting me on, Stacy. I appreciate the opportunity.
