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
A federal district judge has imposed monetary and other sanctions on the two lawyers who filed a brief laden with bogus cases they found when they relied on ChatGPT for legalresearch. The judge ordered the lawyers, Peter LoDuca and Steven A. District Judge P. ” Read the full opinion here: S.D.N.Y.
In a significant ruling for legal publishing and AI development, a federal judge has granted partial summary judgment to Thomson Reuters in its long-running copyright infringement lawsuit against ROSS Intelligence, finding that ROSS infringed on Westlaw’s copyrighted headnotes and rejecting ROSS’s fair use defense.
It has been a while since I have written about the copyright lawsuit by legalresearch giant Thomson Reuters against the no-shuttered legalresearch startup Ross Intelligence, in which TR alleges that Ross stole copyright content from Westlaw to build its own completing legalresearch product.
Just a few weeks ago, I wrote about two more cases of AI-hallucinated citations in court filings leading to sanctions , and now comes the case of a Florida lawyer suspended from practice after filing cases that were “completely fabricated.” District Judge John E. ” On March 8, the U.S.
“We’re trying to solve a longstanding problem in the legal field, and that is that judges only write judicial opinions for 3% of rulings,” Ovbiagele said. “They tell you what judges have done, but they don’t tell you why judges did what they did. federal courts.
A federal judge in Delaware has dismissed the claim by now-shuttered legalresearch startup ROSS Intelligence that Thomson Reuters violated federal antitrust law by unlawfully tying its search tool to its public law database in order to maintain its dominance in the overall market for legal search platforms.
Brett Trout In a significant decision for copyright law and legal technology, Judge Stephanos Bibas granted partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters, rejecting ROSS Intelligences fair use defense in a closely watched lawsuit over the use of Westlaws legal content.
The Judicial Office in the UK has issued official guidance to thousands of judges in England and Wales saying AI can be useful for summarising large amounts of text or in administrative tasks. Judges, like everybody else, need to be acutely aware that AI can give inaccurate responses as well as accurate ones.”
Increased Access to Justice : AI has the potential to greatly expand access to legal information and resources, particularly for individuals with limited means. It can provide guidance on basic legal questions, help with court forms, and offer directions on presenting cases to judges.
These dedicated professionals are responsible for conducting thorough legalresearch and managing extensive paperwork, playing a critical role in the operational success of law firms. Attorneys and judges who bear ultimate responsibility for paralegals’ work put significant trust in their expertise and efficiency.
In a ruling with potential implications for other pending generative artificial intelligence (AI) copyright cases, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH & West Publishing Corp. ROSS Intelligence Inc.
Avianca , and in the wake of all the publicity those cases have received, you would think most lawyers would have gotten the message not to rely on ChatGPT for legalresearch, at least not without checking the results. Karlen Jonathan Karlen, who is not an attorney, filed a pro se appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals.
In yet another case involving the use and misuse of generative AI in legalresearch, a federal district courtjudge has declined to impose sanctions on an experienced attorney who submitted a brief containing miscited and misquoted cases generated by artificial intelligence. Although the attorney, Thad M.
used his year-end report to weigh in on the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession, saying he does not believe AI will replace human judges. ” Every year, Roberts uses his year-end report to address a major issue relevant to the entire federal court system. .” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
But ROSS countered that the databases TR maintains of public law and its legal search tools are, in fact, separate products, and that TR conditions access to the databases on purchase of the search tools. Judge Leonard P. Stark — who previously presided over the case as a U.S.
On the other hand, Abdi Aidid practiced as a commercial litigator in New York before becoming the Vice President of LegalResearch at Blue J. He led the team of lawyers and research analysts and helped develop AI-informed predictive tools, which predict how future courts are likely to rule on new legal situations.
In a major update to its platform being released today, Fastcase is beginning to deliver on that promise with the first of several planned Judicata-based product offerings — analytics showing how often federal motions are granted and how long different judges take to rule. How long will it take?” “How
These predictions are based on analysis of large datasets, often including judicial decisions, court filings, case law, and other legal data. For example, by analyzing court decisions, a predictive analytics tool can assess your possible chances of winning using certain procedures and estimate the potential costs and awards.
TikTok headed to court on Sept. During the appearance before a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, layers for TikTok said imposing such a prohibition would have “staggering” consequences for free speech. Many analysts expect the case will head to the Supreme Court.
A motion for a change of venue is a legal request where a case is transferred from one court jurisdiction to another to ensure a fair trial and avoid bias or undue influence. The legal grounds for filing a motion for change of venue The rules for a motion to transfer venue vary by jurisdiction.
The product, Compose , introduced in February 2020 by legalresearch company Casetext , helps attorneys automate the creation of the first draft of a litigation brief. Compose launched with the ability to create core federal court procedural and discovery motions. Casetext says it can cut brief-writing time by 76%.
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. State Bar of Texas Annual Meeting 2019: ‘Get Paid and Have a Life’ with Judge Audrey Moorehead. Get paid and have a life”, words of wisdom from Judge Moorehead about doing the most for your clients and yourself with hosts Sally Pretorious & Baili Rhodes.
Over the years, the list has included a diverse selection of lawyers, legal technologists, policymakers, judges, law librarians, bar association executives, and people from all walks of life who are innovating in the legal profession. (I Sara Molina , Senior Manager in Legal Management Consulting, Deloitte Legal.
BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS A federal judge in New York City has ordered two lawyers and their law firm to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for submitting a brief with citations to fake cases, thanks to research by ChatGPT. District Judge P. Senior U.S. Schwartz of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman. Read more…
Despite this strong military presence and interest among students, one of the recurring challenges has been the difficulty of conducting effective legalresearch in the field of military law. Image used with permission, HeinOnline. What sets this resource apart is its user-friendly interface and well-organized structure.
A federal district judge has imposed monetary and other sanctions on the two lawyers who filed a brief laden with bogus cases they found when they relied on ChatGPT for legalresearch. The judge ordered the lawyers, Peter LoDuca and Steven A. District Judge P.
We may know more after June 8, the date on which the judge in the case, Mata v. Avianca , has scheduled a hearing to allow the lawyers to show cause for why they should not be sanctioned for what the judge called “an unprecedented circumstance” of a brief “replete with citations to non-existent cases.”
You’ve probably heard about the case of ChatGPT providing a New York lawyer a number of cases the lawyer used in a brief, cases that no one could find, including the judge. Some do it because they’re lazy and some because they want to pull a fast one and some because they can’t afford the research tools that would help them avoid the problem.
For those who don’t know, Schwartz says he used ChatGPt to prepare a Brief filed with a court. I would guess that he wouldn’t have read cases supplied by online legalresearch. He wouldn’t have read the cases found by manual legalresearch and cited by his associates in a memorandum. They were hallucinations.
The problem, however, was that these insights were impossible to access, especially for attorneys at the state trial court level. There was no effective way to perform practical legalresearch on state trial court records. State trial court was too scattered, too clunky and too inconsistent to prove useful.
Greg Lambert 0:52 Yes, apparently this time in Los Angeles, we in our home, or at least an attorney related to a firm that had to explain why there was a brief submitted to the court that had multiple made up citations in there. Then I’m sure the judge is saying sorry, doesn’t cut it. Excuse was Sorry, didn’t check it.
Below are summaries of the semifinalists, who have been selected by a panel of judges from all applications submitted. While we are happy to lead an industry disruption, we welcome new competition, which we believe will help accelerate adoption of new AI-powered eDiscovery technologies by courts, law firms, and other stakeholders.
Bard: Here are the top 5 areas in legal work that cannot be replaced by AI: Legalresearch. AI can help lawyers with legalresearch by providing them with access to vast amounts of data and by helping them to identify relevant cases and statutes. Legal advocacy.
It can also help with legalresearch, finding relevant case laws or statutes quickly without endless hours of manual searching. For litigation lawyers, it can predict how a case might play out in court, which makes it easier to decide if its worth settling or going all the way. The good news?
I have been amazed at the knee-jerk and head in the sand reaction of many courts to the use of Gen AI by lawyers appearing before them and the use by judges. Several judges have demanded that lawyers disclose the use of Gen AI and, if so, verify the accuracy of the citations that have been used.
Also, Court clerks are indispensable members of the judicial system. Often considered the gatekeepers of justice, they handle an array of tasks—from scheduling trials to preparing legal documents and swearing in witnesses. So, what exactly does it mean to be a court clerk? So, what exactly does it mean to be a court clerk?
It has been a while since I have written about the copyright lawsuit by legalresearch giant Thomson Reuters against the no-shuttered legalresearch startup Ross Intelligence, in which TR alleges that Ross stole copyright content from Westlaw to build its own completing legalresearch product.
CourtListener.com — Our fully-searchable and accessible archive of court data including growing repositories of opinions, oral arguments, judges, judicial financial records, and federal filings. Bots.law — A collection of bots that help attorneys, journalists and the public keep up with court cases. Read More…
Today, the law firm Eversheds Sutherland and the legalresearch company Fastcase are releasing what they say is a first-of-its-kind tool designed to assess this risk. “Being able to see with a few clicks, in any jurisdiction across the U.S.,
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. So we did research and made one. Why Even Do This Project?
CourtListener.com — Our fully-searchable and accessible archive of court data including growing repositories of opinions, oral arguments, judges, judicial financial records, and federal filings. CourtListener is a free legalresearch website containing millions of legal opinions from federal and state courts.
Host of the State Bar of Texas Podcast and President & CEO of Atlas LegalResearch, LP. Supreme Court. O’Connor quickly switched from judge, former legislator, accomplished lawyer, and Stanford Law graduate to hostess. By Rocky Dhir. As a vegetarian, salmon mousse shouldn’t intrigue me, but it does now.
Today's TL NewsWire Hot Product enables you to analyze the historical record of experts and judges to inform your case strategy, including an expert's track record on Daubert challenges and citations your judge prefers (see article below). But it's not a good idea when it comes to the expert witnesses and the judges in your cases.
We’re trying to solve a longstanding problem in the legal field, and that is that judges only write judicial opinions for 3% of rulings,” Ovbiagele said. “So He distinguished Bench IQ from legal analytics companies such as Lex Machina or Pre/Dicta. What we offer are explanatory insights into judges’ rulings.”
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