9873 research outputs found
Sort by
FIGHTING THE HYPOTHETICAL: WHY LAW FIRMS SHOULD RETHINK THE BILLABLE HOUR IN THE GENERATIVE AI ERA
Full text link“Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era” analyzes how the emergence and adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) will fundamentally disrupt the traditional billable hour model that has dominated the industry since the 1960s. Professor Rapoport and Mr. Tiano contend that GenAI’s ability to perform routine legal tasks quickly and accurately will force law firms to shift away from billing structures based primarily on time spent (or inputs) and toward models that better reflect client value (or outputs).
The authors interviewed law firm leaders to gain an “in the trenches” view of emerging trends in this regard. Based on this primary research, there’s no doubt that GenAI is already transforming legal practice by automating tasks traditionally performed by junior associates and paralegals and causing leaders to think about how their firms will make money in the future. The authors discuss how GenAI threatens the pyramid-shaped staffing model that has supported firm profitability and predicts that firms must evolve toward new organizational structures—potentially “rocket,” “diamond,” “starfish,” or “cylinder” models—that rely less on large numbers of junior attorneys and more on technology-enabled senior lawyers providing high-value advice.
Professor Rapoport and Mr. Tiano also discuss how the billable-hour economic model is fraught with inefficiency and poor scalability, talent retention challenges, disincentives to innovate, and ethical concerns around reasonable billing. Despite the shortcomings, the authors observe that law firms haven’t moved away from the billable hour for three primary reasons: (1) there has been no external factor that has had the muscle to catalyze change; (2) clients haven’t had the collective fortitude to effectuate a change; and (3) despite their recognition of the shortcomings, law firms have not changed the model because it is making them wealthy.
The authors predict that this situation will soon change due to the seismic force of GenAI. GenAI will change the legacy economic model as widespread adoption of GenAI as a legal service delivery tool now occurs. When GenAI tools are used to deliver legal services, all frailties in the billable hour economic model are exposed. Most important, when routine work moves from humans to technology, the bottom tier of the pyramid will fail to generate the rich results that law firm partners want
Winning the Battle, Losing the War: Rahimi, Women, and the Supreme Court
Full text linkDomestic violence and DV-related firearm use are a grave and persistent issue in the United States and have an extensive harmful and deadly impact in the lives of many women. In its 2024 Rahimi decision, the United States Supreme Court held that, as applied to the facts of the case, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which bans firearms possession by those subject to a DV protective order, is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment. The Court upheld § 922(g)(8) under Bruen’s “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations” test, finding that founding era laws included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. Yet, this Article argues, a close read of Rahimi reveals that women and their lived experiences continue to be erased in the Court’s recent jurisprudence, in a manner that undermines efforts to address gender-based violence and perpetuates women’s structural marginalization and ultimately the dynamics that feed the IPV epidemic. Except for scant mention when invoking historical surety laws to prevent spousal abuse, the Court’s analysis does not discuss either IPV in general or the specific role of firearms within IPV. This Article uses a feminist IPV-centered lens to suggest that the Rahimi Court could have and should have stayed true to its history and tradition analytical framework, while nonetheless centering women’s voices and highlighting the severe and unique threat of harm posed to mostly women by their abusers, especially when firearms are present. In doing so, the Court could have enriched its analysis of the historical dangerousness analogues, could have engaged in a more nuanced and inclusive discussion of the two proclaimed anchors of the Second Amendment—the home and self-defense, and, to contextualize and explain some of the perceived historical gaps, could have sent a strong message by explicitly acknowledging that our history and our laws were built on various forms of gendered bigotry and exclusion of women from the polit
Tax Incentives, the TCJA, and the Rise of the Philanthropist Class
Full text linkExecutive Summary:
The first Trump Administration’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) fundamentally altered America\u27s charitable giving landscape through a two-step approach: first by reducing tax incentives for middle-class donors, then by empowering ultra-wealthy philanthropists. These changes have shifted control of charitable giving from everyday Americans to a small “Philanthropist Class,” referring to ultra-high-net-worth individuals who contribute vast sums, often through foundations or donor-advised funds (DAFs). This shift in charitable power holds profound implications for democracy, equality, and nonprofit sustainability.
The TCJA nearly doubled the standard deduction while limiting itemized deductions, causing the percentage of middle-class households claiming charitable deductions to plummet from 17% to just 5.5%. Simultaneously, the legislation provided tailored benefits to wealthy donors through estate tax exemption increases and corporate tax cuts. The result? A $20 billion decrease in charitable giving in 2018, predominantly from middle-class donors, while the top 1% of earners now control 56% of charitable donation value (up from 40% pre-TCJA).
During his second term, President Trump and his administration have signaled skepticism toward large private foundations, raising questions about renewing or rescinding their tax-exempt status. These attacks combined with concentration of giving power represent a deliberate policy shift, creating a framework that could entrench plutocratic influence over the U.S.’s philanthropic priorities. Without intervention, America\u27s philanthropic landscape will increasingly reflect the priorities of the ultra-wealthy rather than the diverse needs and values of its communities
Opportunities to Advance Maternal Immunization Research
No full textIn the last decade, there has been a notable surge in efforts to address longstanding obstacles to the conduct of clinical trials during pregnancy. This brief report draws attention to recent initiatives in vaccine and pregnancy-related research and highlights opportunities for researchers and clinicians to advance maternal immunization research, benefiting the health of pregnant women, fetuses and neonates
The AI Input Class: Constitutional Urgency and Fair Licensing in AI Copyright Class Actions
Full text linkThe humanities have long been under attack; now Big Tech is eating them for breakfast. Artificial Intelligence is undermining the cultural and constitutional values of human creativity; it is also threatening the livelihoods of the creative working class. Because neither Congress nor regulators can keep pace with AI’s pace of change, class actions have stepped into the breach. In the first wave of such litigation, authors and artists in courts on both coasts claim that AI companies violate intellectual property law when they “train” their systems on copyrighted works.
This Article analyzes what we call “input” AI claims—that is, proposed class action copyright claims against AI companies for inputting creative works into their models. This action is variously described as copying, scraping, feeding, or training. We argue that input copyright class action claims have both merit and power. Substantively, the creators’ claims of direct copyright infringement are supported by almost three decades of caselaw applying the concept of “copying” to code and other innovative technologies. Procedurally, input claims based on AI “training” fall into the heartland of the letter and spirit of Rule 23, which governs federal class actions. Defendants’ claims of fair use, while seductive, would swallow copyright law and crush human-centered creativity.
Class action settlements—which combine private ordering with judicial oversight—may offer the best opportunity to establish a licensing regime that protects creators from future infringement. In lieu of fair use, we urge a different doctrine: “fair licensing.” Licensing poses its own risks to creativity; it risks creating moats around knowledge and paying creators symbolic amounts for giving up control of their works. But AI class actions can and should play an influential role in spurring the creation of fair AI licensing regimes. Courts and litigants are wise to act expeditiously in doing so: there is a constitutional urgency to protecting the essence of human creativity