APU Business Careers Careers & Learning Diseases Health & Fitness Infectious Diseases Innovations in the Workplace Podcast

Podcast: Artificial Intelligence and the Law

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr

Podcast with Dr. Linda C. Ashar, J.D.
Faculty Member, School of Business

and Dr. Wanda Curlee
Program Director, Business

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a regular part of our daily lives. In our homes, we consult artificial intelligence digital assistants such as Siri or Alexa. AI is also used in multiple fields such as business, agriculture and healthcare.

How has artificial intelligence affected the legal system? In this podcast, APU business professor Dr. Wanda Curlee talks to fellow professor and lawyer Dr. Linda Ashar about how AI has streamlined the practice of law in ways that could not be anticipated even just a few years ago.

Start a legal studies degree at American Public University.

Learn how AI has helped with case research, document creation, jury selection, case projections, and much more. Also, learn how business law is likely to change as more public and private organizations rely more heavily on AI to support business functions.

Listen to the Episode:

Subscribe to Innovations in the Workplace
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts

Read the Transcript

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Welcome to the podcast, Innovations in the Workplace. I’m your host, Wanda Curlee. Today, we are going to be chatting about artificial intelligence and the law. The legal system is known for not keeping up with technology for various reasons.

Today, my guest is Dr. Linda Ashar. Dr. Ashar is a full-time professor at American Public University, and she has a law degree. Linda, welcome to Innovations in the Workplace and thank you for joining me.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Oh, my pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Great. Today, many individuals are up to date on what technology can do. However, we read about judgments made about technology cases and we scratch our heads as to why such a judgment was arrived at. Can you provide some background as to why the judicial system may be behind when it comes to technology and the law?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, I’d be happy to address that. As we sit here today, the judicial system is much more up to date, actually, in technology than perhaps it was even 10 years ago. The court systems, and attorneys too for the most part, have really galloped forward quite a bit in technology. Twenty years ago, that was far less the case.

The legal system is a very traditional environment. It’s rooted in the common law that goes back to early, early days in Great Britain, England in those days. And so it has moved forward with a very slow and careful pace, rooted in culture and tradition.

We all see this in England where the barrister is in a courtroom and the judge still wears the wigs even today. And that’s because there is a nod to that continuity of tradition and having a respect for the dignity and the long-term solemnity of judicial proceedings.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Hmm. Interesting.

Dr. Linda Ashar: I guess so that we recognize how important they are. But with the advent of technology, people practicing in law and the courts had to, in some cases reluctantly, recognize that science first and then technology, developing out of scientific enterprise, has its place in the courtroom, had to be used and recognized in evidence, and as time passed forward, became to be used.

Now, one of the reasons that there was a reluctance is because of the jury system. People’s fates are very much in the hands of this solemn process. What is the jury going to decide? Whether it’s a civil case where people are going to be held liable for something to the tune of maybe a lot of money or having their property given over, or even more importantly, their liberty at stake in the criminal justice system.

So it’s of constitutional importance that evidence that’s given in court be reliable, and any evidence that comes in, in terms of relevance. Well, what is relevance? It must be pertinent to what the case is about and it must be helpful to the jury in the jury’s deliberations.

Will the evidence assist the jury? If it will confuse the jury, if it will not be helpful, the rules of evidence, and I’m being very general here, the rules of evidence say, that evidence doesn’t need to come in because it’s only going to confuse and prejudice the case rather than be helpful.

Dr. Linda Ashar: So with those very important concepts at stake, the courts and the attorneys working in the courts have a reluctance to quickly make changes. Does that make sense?

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yeah, absolutely, it does. To take a step back, let’s look at something that’s accepted today, DNA. It’s accepted in the court system, but I can remember many years back, we won’t say how many years back, DNA wasn’t even known. So what does it take? It takes one judge to offer it to the jury? How does that happen? How did DNA finally get as an accepted mode?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, ultimately, it is going to be that first judge that allows the evidence in, and sometimes that will end up going to an Appeals Court to decide if the judge was correct in that evidence. But that evidence was accepted on the basis of scientific testimony through expert witnesses, explaining how the DNA evidence works. First, there has to be the scientific basis that shows that the evidence is believable as a scientific basis. It even goes back further than that. Think of fingerprints.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yes, fingerprints as well. I agree.

Dr. Linda Ashar: All of these things had to be established through to a reasonable degree of certainty that the science had a good basis, reliable basis, that it was true, that it could be believed. And initially, that’s proven by the science, and then the science becomes accepted and it becomes accepted in the courtroom when experts come in and testify to the satisfaction of the court that it is admissible.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Interesting. So that’s how maybe AI might be, certain types of AI, might be accepted as reliable in the courts. It’s got to be introduced through science and shown that it’s feasible. Is that sort of what you’re saying?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Yes. I think that’s a good way to put it. Right.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Okay. So I’m sure you’ve heard about these deep fake photos, that it’s almost, if not impossible to tell that they’re a deep fake. I think there was one on Obama and there were some others on other individuals. How could this affect evidence in a trial, or could it?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, there’s always a concern about that. And that didn’t start with digital technology. Photos have always been capable of being tampered with by artful photographers. So that being the case, the attorney presenting the photo has to authenticate the photo through the witness. Everything in a courtroom is done through witnesses. The attorney doesn’t testify for the evidence.

Just a sidetrack here. You can have self-authenticating evidence, and I don’t want to get into all the nuances of evidence, but for purposes of explaining how it gets in, attorneys present their evidence and it’s done through witnesses. So if there’s a photo, let’s talk about not a digital photo, but a photo taken with a standard camera, the person taking the photo, if the photo itself needs to be the evidence, will testify that yes, I took that photo. I operated the camera. I took that photo and it fairly and accurately represents what I was aiming at. Paraphrasing. So you’re authenticating that the photo was taken by that person and it’s a legitimate representation of what the person photographed.

The digital photos can be done the same way, but they’re much more easily subject to manipulation, as you’ve pointed out. And there’s inherent in here a human element through even digital photos and regular witness testimony of just identifying somebody.

“Mr. Jones, is there anyone in the courtroom who you saw hit my client with a club, or hit the deceased with a club?” And the witness picks somebody out says, “Yes, it’s the defendant sitting right there.”

Well, human beings do not always recognize people perfectly, even when they’re looking at the actual people. So you have just that much more of an overlay if you have people looking at an array of doctored photos and you ask them which one is the real one. It can be very difficult to pick that out.

Scientifically, photos can be looked at with metadata. And again, we’re back to, who’s the scientific expert that examines the photo and determines if the photo has been doctored? And the attorney’s job is to either authenticate that photo, because the attorney’s using it, or the other side, the adversary side, examining that photo and having that attorney’s experts debunking it and presenting to the court that it’s not reliable evidence. And if there is a controversy over it, that examination is going to be done outside the presence of a jury, if there is a jury, for the judge to determine if the evidence is going to come in.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Hmm. Okay. So it sounds like you can’t just take a picture off the internet, unless you have some corroborating witnesses that say it represents what I saw.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Pretty much that’s the case, assuming everybody’s telling the truth. And do people perjure themselves? Of course, we all know that happens. But the evidence always has to be authenticated in some way to the satisfaction of the court, because ultimately, is the evidence going to assist the judicial process that the case is about? And you can get into evidentiary hearings about whether the scientific aspect of evidence is reliable or not.

There are programs now, I’ve read about some of them, that a picture can be run through to determine if it has been manipulated and changed. Sometimes they can be looked at. I could take a picture of a tree in its natural state with its background and then manipulate it. I could then go take another picture of that tree and compare them, and the original picture compared to the doctored picture, can you see the differences in the manipulation? Sometimes you can, and sometimes you can’t.

There have been cases where looking at them, the tree looks very much like it did, but there might be something in the background that’s missing. Maybe there was a stone there that’s now gone in the manipulated picture, assuming that stone didn’t get put there later.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Right.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Those kinds of things can happen. But all things being equal, there are sometimes things in a manipulated picture that will leap out at you. But there’s no question that these manipulation of pictures, like we see on the internet, complicates introduction of evidence in court.

And this brings up another point. Because of the proliferation of crazy manipulated photos on the internet, I think juries, for the most part now, are alerted to that. And I think it brings an element of doubt into the courtroom in a jury’s mind as to whether the pictures are real or not. That’s another hurdle for lawyers to get over in presenting this evidence in the first place.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Interesting. You’re right. If I sat on a jury, I might have my doubts about a photograph. And so, both sides of the aisle, so to speak, the defense and the prosecution have to help the jury understand their side.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Right. It all comes down to, does the evidence assist the jury in reaching its conclusion versus confusing the jury? If it’s going to confuse the jury, you don’t want it.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Interesting. Okay.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Skin the cat another way.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Okay. Sounds interesting. I had no idea that lawyers went through all of that before they presented at trial, but it makes sense. So since we’re talking about AI here and we just touched a little bit on it on the deep fake photos, how do you think AI will help prosecutors and defense attorneys now and in the future, or will it?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, I think it helps. It already has helped in a great number of ways. It has really streamlined the process of the practice of law in ways we could not have expected 30 years ago. When I first started in the practice of law, it was still pretty much the paper chase, and the paper chase refers to the multi-storied law library filled with books and journals of the volumes of law.

Most of the law that you use is based on cases already decided in the courts and you want to go find those cases that best assist your case. What cases have already been decided that are on point to your case, that you can show the judge, here’s how the courts have ruled on these issues already. Here’s the controlling law.

Now we also have statutes, but even with statutes, there are then courts that have interpreted those statutes. It’s called judicial gloss. So you can imagine with only paper to be found for the cases, it’s a laborious process to go through the indexes to find that law. Now, we have AI with its intuitive search processes to do computer searches and get these cases at our fingertips. I can research cases in minutes that might’ve taken me hours in a law library. That’s huge.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yeah. I can imagine. It lets you do more of the value add, I guess, for trial or in the legal system.

Dr. Linda Ashar: And not only that, I can find cases all over the country much more readily than just even in my own state. There are more cases now reported electronically than ever before. When this first started, not all the cases were electronically reported. That in and of itself was a huge input exercise. So it took time for this to build up.

And this started, the digitization of the cases, started even before the internet. Westlaw, that everybody’s heard about, Lexis, that I think most everybody’s heard about, started as online resources before there was a real internet presence to search on. And even when the internet became widespread, the cases really weren’t on the internet yet either.

I can put a case name of a case, of a Supreme Court case on the internet now and it will pop up and I’ll find it. But in the days when there was only Westlaw or Lexis, which were paid databases, you could not get cases electronically any other way but through those databases at the time. But they were still a tremendous help.

And the federal government had a similar database for itself within the Justice Department called Juris. That operated similarly to Lexis and Westlaw, but it was only available to the government people. So now, that has expanded.

Pretty much anything can be obtained on the internet as well. You can do a better deep dive still on Lexis and Westlaw, because they compile so much in one place. But you can still get everything pretty well. And then there’s Google Scholar, which is a free database, and it has the whole national database of cases at your fingertips there.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Wow. Okay. I had no idea that Google Scholar had that. I do remember when the federal government went digital, because a company I worked for actually bid on that contract to help that out and we won. Little did we know how much we were getting into though.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Oh, I’ll bet.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: So as businesses rely more on AI, such as making recommendations and developing reports, for example, in healthcare, doctors rely on some AIs to help them make a diagnosis, do you see this changing business law or not?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Oh, I think it can. I think it already has, probably. For example, let’s take a topic like crisis management. You can have programs that include regulatory issues or regulations for compliance that should be considered and included in a problem-solving paradigm that could be put into a program.

If you’re running a program for, what do I need to consider for solving this problem X, and that program should be able to kick out to you, here are all of the contingents in applicable law that you need to be looking at. It won’t necessarily give you fact-specific answers, but it can tell you what the environment looks like that you should be operating in.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Hmm. Yeah, that makes sense.

Dr. Linda Ashar: That’s an example.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Right. I could even see from the law aspect that there might be an AI eventually. And maybe it already exists, that tells you how you might put your case together for the best win, or how a prosecutor should put his or her case together to win on the prosecution side.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Oh, there are definitely those. I haven’t used them so I’m not privy to the details of how this works, but there are now all kinds of jury simulation programs and projections that can be run, given scenarios that will project the best jury composition for a given kind of case, for example. AI is very helpful for those types of things.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Interesting. Interesting. It puts the human aspect into jury selection, I guess. So, many industries are also using AI, such as supply chain management. They use robots, autonomous vehicles, chatbots. Project management uses AI for scheduling, risk management. They also have chatbots and creating emails.

How would the law look at the contract dispute if AI was responsible for developing a recommendation or the schedule, and it was done incorrectly or an autonomous vehicle crashes and causes injury? Who would be held accountable for that, or how do you hold the AI accountable for that?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, the law is always going to follow the breadcrumbs to the human element responsible for the creation of the problem and anybody that contributed to it along the way. So you’re not going to put an AI in jail, at least not yet.

I’m sitting here trying to envision a robot in jail. Now, it’s a good science fiction movie, can we put, using Star Trek’s Data, can we put Data in jail? Well, that day may come in the next millennium, who knows? But what you’re talking about is a software program that malfunctions.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yeah, or was coded incorrectly.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, who coded it and who was responsible for that? That is what the law is going to ask.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Ah, interesting.

Dr. Linda Ashar: To ask us to find out. And the company responsible, and there would have been oversight involved in that. Who was the quality control that was responsible? The Boeing Max airplane is an example. Boeing was ultimately responsible for that problem.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yeah.

Dr. Linda Ashar: And they couldn’t put it off on pilot error. At least nothing I’ve read says it did. Everything I’ve read indicates that there was a malfunction in the instruments. I know the instrument’s probably not the right aerodynamic word, but there was a malfunction in an automatic system that caused those planes to crash and it was not within the pilot’s control to do anything about it. And Boeing was ultimately responsible.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: That makes sense. So Linda, there are some that believe that AI, at some point, will be able to do the mundane work of a supply chain manager or a project manager, or maybe a lawyer. Do you see AI taking over for a lawyer for less complex cases or even for complex cases?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, I don’t see it. First of all, I don’t see the lawyers allowing it to take over.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Well, I, as a project manager, not sure if I want it to take over, but….

Dr. Linda Ashar: I think that AI, in some ways, has been an excellent assistant and has taken over some functions that lawyers or their assistants, human assistants, used to have to do manually.

One example is — and this is maybe not quite what you were thinking of — but in litigation, they have to run docket systems, which is like a complex calendar of the case progressions and all of the court dates and all of the filing dates and client appointments, and everything that goes with managing a case and the rest of what the lawyer has to manage in a practice. And docket systems are now quite sophisticated with AI, if you will, managing those. It’s an automatic AI assistant that pops up what your calendar needs to do today.

Many people are now familiar with that with the Microsoft Outlook calendar that does that. Initially, we put that information in, or even more automated than ever now, the email puts it in. But we still have to do a keystroke that lets the email put it in. But the automation is still very much there. Once that’s input, it takes it and runs with it.

Could there be more automation than that? I think there probably already is. You plug in information in a pop-up box, it says, answer these questions and then out pops a formatted draft. That’s an AI function. Saves a lawyer or the project manager, whoever it is, a lot of time.

So that is certainly an AI function where the AI, the automatic intelligence, has interpreted those questions according to the programming and produced a document to then be used. There are several types of law that are very much form-driven. Real estate law is an example, probate law is an example. And that can very well lend itself to an automated process.

At some point, though, the human being has to take the quality control of that and make sure that the final product is properly fine-tuned to the specific case, because AI can only take it just so far. If there are nuances that have to be put in, if there are changes along the way that have to be properly input, or perhaps there’s a subtle change that’s not part of the programming, might be in the future because that change will generate an update, but programs can only take whatever you’re doing just so far.

That’s a drawback of AI. Maybe drawback isn’t even a good word, but it’s a limitation of AI that people have to be aware of.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yeah, I totally agree. Although AI learns, it’s machine learning, I like to tell people that in the project management community that AI will be your assistant, automated assistant, doing more things than a regular assistant. I mean, they could create emails, even a presentation or something.

Do I see them going before the stakeholders or the CEO of the company and giving my presentation? No, but maybe in the future, that’s true. I mean, maybe in the future, we might see a robot out there doing traffic court or something. Who knows?

Dr. Linda Ashar: It’s possible. As the systems advance, and we certainly see it in science fiction stories. Let me give you this example. AI does have intuition built into it. So far, the programs can only take us just so far.

It’s an example: If you’ve been on any website like Amazon, and that’s just one that happens to pop into my mind, but there are others where you have a troubleshooting question or Q&A, and you want to ask a question and it takes you to a page of Q&A answers. Pick the question that fits most closely to what you need an answer for. And you go through the list and your question isn’t there, so you click other and it’ll say input your question. You put your question in, and it takes you back to one of the questions you didn’t want to pick in the first place.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yes.

Dr. Linda Ashar: All right? So frustration kicks in. And then there’s no place for you to go, because the system then is at a brick wall because your question isn’t covered. So there’s an example of a limitation. The program doesn’t have the intuition to cover it because it’s too fact-specific. It doesn’t meet the questioner’s need.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Okay. So you’re talking a little bit about questions and answers. Let’s take that a step farther. Let’s talk about contracts. As AI matures, do you see AI being written into the contract, either having to be used or not be used, or even AI helping to write the contract? I just wonder how in the future we might handle AI. Would it be just a list of the software that’s being used on the contract?

Dr. Linda Ashar: You mean to specify proprietary AI?

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Proprietary or maybe even open source.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, you can do anything you want with a contract, as long as it’s not an illegal act. So you can put into a contract that if AI is part of the functions that control the actions in the performance of the contract, you certainly can specify that.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Okay. So it would be handled like any other software.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Right.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Okay. That makes sense. I wasn’t sure since it had some logic to it and learning, if it would be handled differently, but it sounds like no, it would be handled just like a typical software, which is fine with me because that’s what it is. It’s ones and zeros.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Yeah. You’re talking about a contract for the parties to agree for something to be done.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Correct.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Okay. As opposed to the AI creating the contract.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Correct.

Dr. Linda Ashar: AI, I think, is already creating contracts in terms of producing the form, of producing the document. But at some point, the parties that are signing to it have to read it and agree to what’s in it.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yes. Let’s hope people are reading.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, yeah. There’s always that.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yes. There is always that. And smart people can do a slight of hand to the other person if that other person is not reading it. So part of business law is legislation, and do you ever see AI, or maybe it already is, as helping to write legislation?

Dr. Linda Ashar: I would be surprised if it’s not already being done.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: What parts do you think AI is doing? Just the boiler plate and the-

Dr. Linda Ashar: Yeah. I think, certainly for boiler plate and certainly for research underlying it, using projections, whether it’s actuarial projections or running scenarios. All of those things today are going to involve AI. I think in writing legislation, so much of that type of thing goes into understanding, at least I hope they’re doing that, understanding the implications of the legislation.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yep. Makes sense. I think those that don’t use AI to help them out will be left behind, because AI is just going to become an integral part of everybody’s work. And it already is when we think about it. Our laptops have AI on them, as you mentioned, with Outlook.

Dr. Linda Ashar: It’s become such an intuitive part of what we do every day. When you’re on the internet, you can’t get away from it. I realize not everybody out there is listening to us, 100% uses Facebook.

I’m sure that’s not the case, but a vast number of people do use Facebook and Google. So if you’re on Facebook and you’ve been on Google searching for something, whatever it is, maybe you search to find the best place to buy a chair of a certain type that you want.

And then, after you’ve done that, you go on Facebook and as you’re scrolling down Facebook reading posts, up pops an ad for chairs. That’s the AI process between Google and Facebook recognizing you as a person interested in chairs, and here’s an ad you might be interested in.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yep. Those pesky ads.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, why did that ad show up? Because like it or not, Google told Facebook you like to shop for chairs. And here’s an ad in Facebook’s gazillion ad proponents. They can pop up for you to look at and maybe then you’ll click and go look at those chairs through that ad.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yeah, and hopefully even buy it. Yes.

Dr. Linda Ashar: And maybe even buy one. So now, Facebook then gives you the opportunity to tell them, don’t show me this ad anymore. And it even asks you, if you choose to answer, why have you chosen not to see this ad anymore? Is it irrelevant?

You’re adding to the AI growth by answering that question. This is irrelevant or I’ve already bought it or, I’m trying to think what the others are, it’s too personal or, there’s a couple others. And you click one of those and you’re educating the AI in the system why you don’t want to see that ad anymore.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Right.

Dr. Linda Ashar: You’re further educating the system about you when you do that.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yeah. It’s kind of scary, isn’t it?

Dr. Linda Ashar: It may be to your benefit to educate them because you don’t want to see those ads anymore. You accept the reality or not, and you can spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get around that being recognized about you. But I’m sure there’s ways to do a private search, to be cloaked. But how much time do you want to invest in searching for a chair secretly?

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Correct. Right.

Dr. Linda Ashar: That’s what it boils down to. I mean, my point is, it’s so endemic, so pervasive that I think we pretty much have reached the point where it’s almost inescapable. And we were talking about courts and law, I think the law is there too.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: In what sense?

Dr. Linda Ashar: I think we’re past the point where lawyers are going to go into court and use overhead projectors and posters to present evidence.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Right. They’re going to present it on a smart screen of some sort.

Dr. Linda Ashar: The federal courts have recently gone through a complete overheaval. There’s the Courtroom 21 Project, has overhauled the federal courts for modern trial courtroom technology.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Hmm. Interesting.

Dr. Linda Ashar: To get off paper entirely.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Oh, there you go. Paperless office. That’ll be interesting. So if you had a crystal ball, Linda, and we all wish we had a crystal ball, how do you see AI changing business law in five, 10, 15 years?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, that’s a good question. I think business executives need to be more in tune than they have ever been to how much their records and their actions are transparent, whether they understand it or not, to the legal process, if they have any legal issues that are going to run into litigation. Because if there’s discovery in a litigation suit, everything that is digitally recorded, and virtually everything everybody does now, that’s all discoverable.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yes. So how many people have we seen that take their phone in and secretly record somebody?

Dr. Linda Ashar: Well, there’s that.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Yeah.

Dr. Linda Ashar: I mean, we’re talking about the admissibility of evidence. I think that we’re at a point where all kinds of evidence that the judges might’ve looked sideways at at one time is now going to get admitted, because there are going to be experts that know how to authenticate it and explain it. Juries are going to intuitively understand it better.

The volume and ability of AI programs to sift, sort, and produce reports about it exist. So you need to be very precise and upfront about what you’re doing in your business, and understand that gaming the system is going to be very difficult because it’s discoverable.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: Wow. Yeah. I can’t imagine these days of running a corporation, but you’re right. Everybody has to be thinking about what they’re saying.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Exactly.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: I agree. Linda, this has been fascinating and I never knew some of the things that you said about law. So I thank you very much for joining me today for this episode of Innovations in the Workplace.

Dr. Linda Ashar: Thank you for having me.

Dr. Wanda Curlee: And thank you to our listeners for joining us. You can learn more about the topic and similar issues in artificial intelligence by reviewing APUS blogs. Stay well.

About the Speakers

Dr. Linda C. Ashar is a full-time Associate Professor in the School of Business at American Public University, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in business, law, and ethics. She obtained her Juris Doctor from the University of Akron School of Law. Her law practice spans more than 30 years, including employment law and litigation on behalf of employers and employees. 

Dr. Wanda Curlee is a Program Director at American Public University. She has over 30 years of consulting and project management experience and has worked at several Fortune 500 companies. Dr. Curlee has a Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership from the University of Phoenix, a MBA in Technology Management from the University of Phoenix, and a M.A. and a B.A. in Spanish Studies from the University of Kentucky. She has published numerous articles and several books on project management.

Comments are closed.