Donald & Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell
Hofstra Law's ScholarshipNot a member yet
6474 research outputs found
Sort by
The Truth Will Set You Free: The Importance of a Psychologically Rooted Framework That Encourages the Admission of Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Memory
Full text linkLegal Personhood for Artwork
No full textArtwork is unique and irreplaceable. It is signifier and signified. The signified of a work of art is its coherent purpose. But the signified of a work of art can be altered when not protected. The ramifications of unduly altering the signified of a work of art are consequential for both living and future generations. While the law provides protection to artists and art owners, it fails to grant rights to works of art themselves. The current legal paradigm, designed around the interest of owners and artists, also falls short of protecting Indigenous art aimed at conserving traditions and cultural identity, rather than monetizing creativity. This Article provides a theoretical framework for recognizing legal personhood for works of art, in the interests of art in and of itself as well as of current and future generations of human beings. This new paradigm protects artwork through the features of legal personhood. Legal personhood for artwork prioritizes the protection of art in and of itself and enhances intergenerational equity
Are A.I. Lawyers a Legal Product or Legal Service?: Why Current UPL Laws Are Not up to the Task of Regulating Autonomous A.I. Actors
Full text linkThe rise of automation, particularly with the advent of large language models, presents a significant potential for the legal profession. While automation has traditionally focused on manual and repetitive tasks, A.I.\u27s evolution now allows machines to handle complex, thought-intensive work involving decision-making. This shift underscores a pressing issue: the American legal system lacks a clear definition of the practice of law. This becomes especially critical as A.l, an autonomous actor, begins to take on roles that were previously exclusive to human practitioners. One company that exemplifies the advanced capabilities of modern A.I.-powered technology is Pactum Al Pactum\u27s autonomous negotiation software is already in use by major corporations like Walmart and Maersk to automate their contract negotiation processes, from vendor selection to making offers and counter-offers. The capabilities of Pactum Al demonstrate the potential for A.I. to handle complex legal tasks traditionally performed by humans. However, they also underscore the regulatory challenges posed by these technologies. The current UPL laws, designed with human actors in mind, are ill-equipped to address the nuances of autonomous legal tools. This Article puts forward three key recommendations for the effective regulation of A.I.-powered tools in the legal space. First, it suggests that regulators should facilitate collaboration between attorneys and A.I. developers, ensuring that the former can work with A.I without risking UPL violations. Second, it stresses the importance of establishing a clear boundary between legal and non-legal work for autonomous systems. Finally, it proposes that regulations should strike a balance between consumer protection and the promotion of innovation in the legal tech industry. By addressing these areas, the legal profession can help A.I. technologies successfully and safely integrate into society while upholding the integrity and effectiveness of legal practice
The Supreme Court’s Specious Code of Conduct
Full text linkCongressionally imposed ethics enforcement would enhance the Supreme Court\u27s exercise of constitutional powers by reducing the interference of improper personal motives during its factual and legal determinations. The Court has long recognized the self-evident truth that no man can be a judge in his own case. The Framers recognized the limits inherent in human nature: humans are not angels. Accordingly, the Constitutional scheme of separated powers, as elucidated by Madison, [does] not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other. Congress rightly has the constitutional means and motive to promote due process by bolstering impartiality and the appearance thereof It can do so while also strengthening the Court\u27s proper constitutional role. Congress can and should enact an ethics enforcement mechanism that brings the Justices within a system that checks their individual interests. The Supreme Court\u27s ersatz Code, in its present form, is manifestly insufficient. With permissive language and no meaningful enforcement mechanism, the Code serves only as a clever loophole, designed to suppress public scrutiny of the Court, without enacting real change
