This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In fact, as I described in my very first post about Casetext , its original vision was a crowdsourced caselaw library that its users would edit and annotate and then have other users upvote or downvote the annotations. Think a marriage of Wikipedia and Digg, but for law. WellSettled.com Mines Cases for Established Principles.
“Your affiant has never utilized Chat GPT as a source for conducting legalresearch prior to this occurrence and therefore was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false,” his affidavit said. My poster child for this proposition has long been the 2014 Delaware case of James v.
In fact, as I described in my very first post about Casetext , its original vision was a crowdsourced caselaw library that its users would edit and annotate and then have other users upvote or downvote the annotations. Think a marriage of Wikipedia and Digg, but for law. WellSettled.com Mines Cases for Established Principles.
the morning of a critical meeting at Harvard Law School, where I worked. Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain and l were sitting down with Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed , the founders of a legalresearch startup named Ravel Law, along with lawyers from Harvard’s Office of General Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and Gundersen Dettmer.
Your affiant has never utilized Chat GPT as a source for conducting legalresearch prior to this occurrence and therefore was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false,” his affidavit said. My poster child for this proposition has long been the 2014 Delaware case of James v. Technology Incompetence?
And then once you’ve given me the answer, then go into the caselaw discussion, that is provide one paragraph per case. And so here, you’re gonna see one paragraph per case. And it talks about these various cases that are here. And give me the answer right up top right. So so it does language really well.
the morning of a critical meeting at Harvard Law School, where I worked. Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain and l were sitting down with Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed , the founders of a legalresearch startup named Ravel Law, along with lawyers from Harvard’s Office of General Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and Gundersen Dettmer.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content