Apologies, readers—I wrote this under time pressure (because I had to start watching the kids when our child care timed out), and the original version of this post contained a number of typographical and grammatical errors (despite my proofreading it multiple times and running spellcheck in Word).
I believe I've caught everything. But if you see anything I might have missed, please feel free to let me know here in the comments (or email me if you prefer). Thanks!
It sounds as though the "RealityCheck" product might be one of those guns that kicks as hard as it shoots — that is, it may be a product with powerful defensive AND OFFENSIVE uses.
When such a product exists, in at least some circumstances, the relevant standard of professional care might oblige a lawyer to check not only the accuracy of his own citations, but those of his opposing counsel.
Not all AI hallucinations are consequential: Some of the made-up citations and holdings embody or reflect real citations and holdings that the AI has turned into ... I dunno, a blended-average hallucination. If you catch your opponent citing a bogus case but for an uncontroverted and incontrovertible principle of law, do you bring it to your opponent's attention? Or to the court's? I'm inclined to think the former, as a matter of professional courtesy and personal grace.
But there are certainly cut-and-slash opponents who'll let pass no opportunity to do harm to you or anyone on your side.
This profession is getting scarier, even if you're keeping up with technology. If you aren't, it's rapidly becoming an incomprehensible profession.
Using your brain and traditional sources rather than AI for legal research - and checking associates’ work product - means never having to say you’re sorry.
The AI stories always amaze me. I learned that you should always read the cases you cite in a brief. Perhaps that is old-fashioned, but it keeps you out of trouble. But it goes to show you that even big law firms can screw up. That thought is comforting.
I have also changed my mind about a Trump Supreme Court appointment. I know that Thomas and Alito have signaled that they will stay until they drop (what you could call the Ginsburg plan but originated by William O. Douglas) but let us assume that they change their minds. If they leave before the election, a successor might be confirmed. That successor will not be Judges Ho, Duncan, etc. Trump hates the Federalist Society, and Ho et al. are creatures of the Federalist Society. Trump will do what he typically does: appoint a loyalist or someone close to him. Judge Bove on the Third Circuit is possible; the Solicitor General is more likely. Trump likes to appoint his personal lawyers to the bench.
The Democrats may try to tie up any nomination made before the election. This may work because, at this point, Trump is so unpopular that Republican senators may no longer fear him. And, if the Republicans lose the Senate in November, any post-election nomination will fail because Trump is no longer invincible.
If the Democrats take over the Senate, Alito and Thomas better hope they can live forever. No Democratic Senate will confirm a Trump nomination made after Jan. 3, 2027. Republicans and their allies will scream until they turn blue. But Democrats will say, "Ask Merrick Garland what he thinks."
I thought that "fonded" must be a typo. Here's what AI had to say:
"Fonded" is an archaic or rarely used word, primarily functioning as the past tense/participle of the obsolete verb "to fond," meaning to dote on, lavish affection, or to act foolishly. It was last commonly used around the early 1700s. It is often confused with "fond" (adjective: affectionate) or "fondled" (caressed).
[Oxford English Dictionary]
Key Details About "Fonded":
Verb (Obsolete): Means to dote, show excessive affection, or to caress.
Verb (Obsolete): Means to act foolishly.
Etymology: Derived from fon (Middle English for a fool)
Usage Context: Often found in texts from the mid-1500s to early 1700s, such as in the works of Oxford English Dictionary cited authors.
[Oxford English Dictionary]
Note: In modern cooking, "fond" (plural: fonds) refers to the browned, caramelized bits at the bottom of a pan.
It was a typo (now fixed)—although I have no doubt that Andy Dietderich feels great affection for the Global Finance and Restructuring Department at S&C.
Perhaps the latter, but I’m genuinely shocked that we’re having this conversation about S&C. Maybe I’ve consumed too much Biglaw Kool-Aid, giving me unwarranted confidence in their quality control as a result.
Multiple ironies is right. I have a hard time wrapping my head around how this happens. Isn't it elementary to check one's work? I guess I spent more time in a "zero defects" environment than most.
Apologies, readers—I wrote this under time pressure (because I had to start watching the kids when our child care timed out), and the original version of this post contained a number of typographical and grammatical errors (despite my proofreading it multiple times and running spellcheck in Word).
I believe I've caught everything. But if you see anything I might have missed, please feel free to let me know here in the comments (or email me if you prefer). Thanks!
It sounds as though the "RealityCheck" product might be one of those guns that kicks as hard as it shoots — that is, it may be a product with powerful defensive AND OFFENSIVE uses.
When such a product exists, in at least some circumstances, the relevant standard of professional care might oblige a lawyer to check not only the accuracy of his own citations, but those of his opposing counsel.
Not all AI hallucinations are consequential: Some of the made-up citations and holdings embody or reflect real citations and holdings that the AI has turned into ... I dunno, a blended-average hallucination. If you catch your opponent citing a bogus case but for an uncontroverted and incontrovertible principle of law, do you bring it to your opponent's attention? Or to the court's? I'm inclined to think the former, as a matter of professional courtesy and personal grace.
But there are certainly cut-and-slash opponents who'll let pass no opportunity to do harm to you or anyone on your side.
This profession is getting scarier, even if you're keeping up with technology. If you aren't, it's rapidly becoming an incomprehensible profession.
Thanks for the RealityCheck shout out, David Lat. Here's the scoop: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/briefcatch_legaltech-activity-7452511637984526337-JK8r?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAADyFHQB3_SDxy5dD8hC0_thR9g3E_lPULQ
Using your brain and traditional sources rather than AI for legal research - and checking associates’ work product - means never having to say you’re sorry.
The AI stories always amaze me. I learned that you should always read the cases you cite in a brief. Perhaps that is old-fashioned, but it keeps you out of trouble. But it goes to show you that even big law firms can screw up. That thought is comforting.
I have also changed my mind about a Trump Supreme Court appointment. I know that Thomas and Alito have signaled that they will stay until they drop (what you could call the Ginsburg plan but originated by William O. Douglas) but let us assume that they change their minds. If they leave before the election, a successor might be confirmed. That successor will not be Judges Ho, Duncan, etc. Trump hates the Federalist Society, and Ho et al. are creatures of the Federalist Society. Trump will do what he typically does: appoint a loyalist or someone close to him. Judge Bove on the Third Circuit is possible; the Solicitor General is more likely. Trump likes to appoint his personal lawyers to the bench.
The Democrats may try to tie up any nomination made before the election. This may work because, at this point, Trump is so unpopular that Republican senators may no longer fear him. And, if the Republicans lose the Senate in November, any post-election nomination will fail because Trump is no longer invincible.
If the Democrats take over the Senate, Alito and Thomas better hope they can live forever. No Democratic Senate will confirm a Trump nomination made after Jan. 3, 2027. Republicans and their allies will scream until they turn blue. But Democrats will say, "Ask Merrick Garland what he thinks."
I thought that "fonded" must be a typo. Here's what AI had to say:
"Fonded" is an archaic or rarely used word, primarily functioning as the past tense/participle of the obsolete verb "to fond," meaning to dote on, lavish affection, or to act foolishly. It was last commonly used around the early 1700s. It is often confused with "fond" (adjective: affectionate) or "fondled" (caressed).
[Oxford English Dictionary]
Key Details About "Fonded":
Verb (Obsolete): Means to dote, show excessive affection, or to caress.
Verb (Obsolete): Means to act foolishly.
Etymology: Derived from fon (Middle English for a fool)
Usage Context: Often found in texts from the mid-1500s to early 1700s, such as in the works of Oxford English Dictionary cited authors.
[Oxford English Dictionary]
Note: In modern cooking, "fond" (plural: fonds) refers to the browned, caramelized bits at the bottom of a pan.
[Merriam-Webster]
It was a typo (now fixed)—although I have no doubt that Andy Dietderich feels great affection for the Global Finance and Restructuring Department at S&C.
Is the issue here truly use of AI or a culture of billing for work that is never really done (e.g. cite checking)?
Perhaps the latter, but I’m genuinely shocked that we’re having this conversation about S&C. Maybe I’ve consumed too much Biglaw Kool-Aid, giving me unwarranted confidence in their quality control as a result.
Multiple ironies is right. I have a hard time wrapping my head around how this happens. Isn't it elementary to check one's work? I guess I spent more time in a "zero defects" environment than most.
Love seeing this... it's why I'm building LawEngine.
Hope you'll take a look David!
Happy to talk the technical aspects anytime.
www.LawEngine.ai/verify - try it out!