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
This was early 2015, on my commute to Cambridge, Mass., Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain and l were sitting down with Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed , the founders of a legal research startup named Ravel Law, along with lawyers from Harvard’s Office of General Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and Gundersen Dettmer. I hit the brakes.
The ChatBot – a conversational interface that prompts a user to provide information that can then be leveraged by the AI to provide answers or actions – allowed users to select one of several defenses to the ticket, enter details and send an appeal generated by the app to the appropriate legal authority.
As lawyers, law students, and other legal professionals begin to explore regulatory reform issues, they will likely hear several common arguments put forth by opponents. Belief #1: The access to justice problem only includes people who qualify for free legal aid.
And I spent a lot of my time in the early years of practice as your listeners are, for sure familiar, you know, in the legal research universe, trying to find the right cases, running endless Boolean search strings, right. We’d love to hear from you. I’m maybe butchering that quote a little bit. So reach out to us on social media.
This was early 2015, on my commute to Cambridge, Mass., Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain and l were sitting down with Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed , the founders of a legal research startup named Ravel Law, along with lawyers from Harvard’s Office of General Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and Gundersen Dettmer. I hit the brakes.
And I spent a lot of my time in the early years of practice as your listeners are, for sure familiar, you know, in the legal research universe, trying to find the right cases, running endless Boolean search strings, right. We’d love to hear from you. I’m maybe butchering that quote a little bit. So reach out to us on social media.
These are individuals if they have a credible claim for relief from removal, they have every reason to show up in immigration court for their hearings, these are the things that a risk tool, ostensibly measures. And what we see really since 2014 2015, is that for people in custody, detention has been the default.
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