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
By gaining a deeper understanding of the role of a litigator, we can appreciate their invaluable contributions to the legal profession. Role of a Lawyer Lawyers are the pillars of the legal profession, providing comprehensive legaladvice and representation to clients.
Judges apply exacting standards to dismissal motions and will generally only grant them with an airtight legal and factual basis. Accordingly, familiarize yourself with the legal standard that must be met for your particular type of motion to dismiss and use the most persuasive components of the relevant law.
These mediators don’t offer any legaladvice or make decisions, as he is not a judge. The process involves hearings similar to that of the court. It involves lawsuits, judges, courtrooms, and hearings. The judge will take the decision after considering both parties’ issues.
And I don’t just mean listen to their legal problems, but listen to what was bothering them about professional life generally, or life in a large complex organization, or maybe with a change in leadership, or a lack of technology or resources in the environment they were working in. I’m not judging people. That’s what we need to do.
We don’t provide legaladvice, even if we’re lawyers. At the end of the day, we’ve all had run documents to the courts, right, and needed to know, how did this judge like it filed. Judge A likes it this way. Judge B likes it that way. Those attorneys, they want to hear what they want to hear.
They are expected to provide legaladvice, intelligence, and representation in all stages of the criminal justice process and to defend their clients against allegations of crimes. In addition, you’ll want to communicate effectively with judges, prosecutors, and witnesses during a trial or hearing.
They are expected to provide legaladvice, intelligence, and representation in all stages of the criminal justice process and to defend their clients against allegations of crimes. In addition, you’ll want to communicate effectively with judges, prosecutors, and witnesses during a trial or hearing.
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.
So I think the high points for me, I guess from my, if we want to do it purely on like a physiological reaction would be going into court and winning a motion that I was not expected to win or winning, some sort of whatever was the target of the hearing. What are your thoughts about when you hear people talk about the downside of AI tools?
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. Or, you know, what if it contradicts what the law, you know, what a judge would say. We’d love to hear from you.
So the obstacle is figuring out whether we actually want to be providing legaladvice, which is a derivative of publicly available data sources, like law teacher dotnet, and law dotnet, and all these websites. Here’s the next word, when you get to the next word, and you’re going, Oh, this is a judge talking. For us right now.
You can’t turn around without hearing about ChatGPT and Open.ai You can judge for yourself what you think of the quality of those responses, but the tool was very easy to use. He especially stressed that AI could be helpful in the routine legal issues that people of limited means often face. these days.
Legal conferences unite professionals to share knowledge and discuss legal field advancements. Conferences unite lawyers, judges, paralegals, and legal tech experts, fostering collaboration, learning, and networking among legal practitioners.
We’d love to hear your thoughts on what value you see in ChatGPT and GPT 3.5 in the legal industry. And so like when I when I describe it to people, it’s like, you know, if you’re comfortable with getting your your legaladvice from Chora or just from your first five results from Google? We’d love to hear from you.
They help people on matters related to family law, domestic violence, elder abuse, housing, and debt collection—matters that often have the highest rates of self-represented litigants (SRLs) and that comprise a majority of legal matters in our civil justice system. They can also communicate with opposing parties to help resolve matters.
And I don’t just mean listen to their legal problems, but listen to what was bothering them about professional life generally, or life in a large complex organization, or maybe with a change in leadership, or a lack of technology or resources in the environment they were working in. I’m not judging people. That’s what we need to do.
On the other hand, I strongly believe in the combination of machines and humans, especially for these legal but also for medical applications. We’d love to hear from you. And of course, thanks to all of you, our audience for taking the time to listen to The Geek in Review podcast. If you enjoyed the show, share it with a colleague.
So I think the high points for me, I guess from my, if we want to do it purely on like a physiological reaction would be going into court and winning a motion that I was not expected to win or winning, some sort of whatever was the target of the hearing. What are your thoughts about when you hear people talk about the downside of AI tools?
So the obstacle is figuring out whether we actually want to be providing legaladvice, which is a derivative of publicly available data sources, like law teacher dotnet, and law dotnet, and all these websites. Here’s the next word, when you get to the next word, and you’re going, Oh, this is a judge talking. For us right now.
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. Or, you know, what if it contradicts what the law, you know, what a judge would say. We’d love to hear from you.
It even wrote me a funny Limerick about the Supreme Court: “ There once were nine judges supreme whose robes were a legal dream. If, for instance, the government thinks someone is cheating on their benefits, that person gets a hearing. The information presented here does not constitute legaladvice.
Court decisions are public information — they’re authored by judges and issued publicly to tell us what the law is, and why. It’s a great failure of our judges, courts and legislatures that they’ve allowed — and continue to allow to this day — commercial entities to mingle their owned commentary with our official law.
And I think can’t remember who it was on Twitter, it was like, well, never underestimate the ability for a judge to make something even more complicated than it needs to be. I mean, you know, somebody who’s getting legaladvice today can drop something on the system that can you explain this to me in plain English?
Court decisions are public information — they’re authored by judges and issued publicly to tell us what the law is, and why. It’s a great failure of our judges, courts and legislatures that they’ve allowed — and continue to allow to this day — commercial entities to mingle their owned commentary with our official law.
And I think can’t remember who it was on Twitter, it was like, well, never underestimate the ability for a judge to make something even more complicated than it needs to be. I mean, you know, somebody who’s getting legaladvice today can drop something on the system that can you explain this to me in plain English?
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. We got a judge to order the release of the data that we did get literally 24 hours before Trump’s 2017 inauguration.
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