17616 research outputs found
Sort by
Rule 11 Is No Match for Generative Al
Full text linkIn a series of high-profile ethics debacles, attorneys who used generative Al technology found themselves in hot water after they negligently relied on fictitious cases and false statements of law crafted by the technology. These attorneys mistakenly relied upon the output they received from a generative Al product without verifying and validating that output. Their embarrassing ethical breaches made national news, and spurred judges to implement standing orders that require attorneys to disclose their use of Al technology. Scholars were quick to criticize these standing orders\u27 and the standing orders are rife with problems. But are they needed? Or are the standing orders redundant because Civil Rule of Procedure 11 can address this problem? Generative Al and the filing of briefs that contain fictitious cases and false statements of law is testing the reach of Rule 11, which is coming up lacking. This Article is the first to study and evaluate whether Rule 11 can effectively address litigant use of generative Al output that contains fictitious cases and false statements of law. In this Article, I contend that, while the failure to perform adequate research is conduct that can be reached through Rule 11, the rule is not well-suited to the task of regulating this behavior, and Rule 11\u27s inadequacy is likely spurring the creation of these standing orders. I then analyze the benefits and detriments that inure from these standing orders, setting forth various considerations for judges and jurisdictions to weigh when evaluating whether to impose their own standing orders, revise current standing orders, or promulgate local rules to regulate litigant use of generative Al technology
Episode 18: Robert B. Ahdieh (Texas A&M Law) Shares the Joy of Legal Academics
No full textRobert (Bobby) Ahdieh (Dean & Anthony G. Buzbee Endowed Dean\u27s Chair; Vice President for Professional Schools & Programs, Texas A&M-Forth Worth Chief Operating Officer, Texas A&M University) talks with us about the the joys of teaching law and being a dean
Episode 19: Cathy Cox (GA State College & State University) Shares Her Experience Leading in Higher Education
No full textCathy Cox (President of GA State College & University, former Dean of Mercer Law School, former President of Young Harris College, former GA Secretary of State) talks with us about her experiences as both a president and dean in universities in Georgia
Why Can\u27t I Have a Robot Lawyer? Limits on the Right to Appear Pro Se
Full text linkSome rights are more favored-and some rights are more disfavored than others. The right to self-representation is a disfavored right Despite its historic roots, the right has been subjected to judicially imposed limits that have reduced its scope. The limits on the right to self-representation include restrictions on the type of litigant that can avail themselves of the right, bars regarding the personal characteristics of litigants, barriers on the types of assistance a pro se litigant may receive, and procedural limitations on how a litigant may invoke the right. This Article is the first to study these established limitations on the right to appear pro se and consider how those limits will impact litigants who seek to use new artificial intelligence technology to assist them in their court proceedings. I contend that a litigant who seeks to appear pro se with the assistance of artificial intelligence would implicate the same concerns that resulted in the implementation of these historically established parameters of the right to self-representation. I then provide a framework for how courts should address this technology when it inevitably-appears in courtrooms alongside pro se litigants
Episode 22: Scott Bauries (USC) & Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Cardozo) on Getting Hired With Your Scholarship
No full textScott Bauries (Professor of Law, University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law) & Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Director, Intellectual Property & Information Law Program, Cardozo Law) join us to discuss the importance of one\u27s scholarship in getting hired as law faculty
Where an Issuer Fails to Make Disclosures Required by Item 303, Is That Omission Actionable as Securities Fraud?
Full text linkThe Court will consider whether a securities fraud claim under the Securities Exchange Act can be premised on a company’s omission of mandatory Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) disclosures. MD&A disclosures, which are required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K, are intended to provide investors with a view of the company through the eyes of management, including a description of any known trends or uncertainties that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the company’s continuing operations
Episode 20: Kellye Testy (LSAC) Talks Leadership in Legal Academics
No full textKellye Testy (President & CEO of the Law School Admission Council) talks with us about her time as a law school dean, as well as how she helps law students succeed even before they enter law school
Episode 23: Retrospective - Emerson Wright (Stetson) Asks Us All About the TLE Podcast
No full textEmerson Wright (Assistant Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law) picks our brains about our favorite guests, what our goals have been, and what the future might bring
Theoretical Justifications for Trade Secrets Protection of Routine Business Information
Full text linkFor over a century trade secret law has protected internal business information from misappropriation by departing employees. Over this time, courts developed various limiting doctrines to minimize the impact of this broad protection on employee mobility in particular cases. However, the workplace has changed significantly over this time and these changes raise substantial questions as to whether there is any valid theoretical justification for continuing to protect routine business information under trade secret law. In an environment where the vast majority of trade secrets claims are against former employees, the lack of sound justification for protecting routine business information, the basis for many of these suits, suggests a reevaluation of the broad scope of protection trade secret law provides is warranted. This Article analyzes the protection of routine business information through the lens of the theoretical justifications typically applied to intellectual property systems, including consequentialist and deontological approaches. The Article concludes that consequentialist or utilitarian rationales likely do not justify trade secrets protection for routine business information, while deontological approaches might only provide a weak justification. Accordingly, a reevaluation of the scope of trade secret law may be warranted so that employees can feel confident in making rational career choices without facing the risk of a misappropriation claim against them by their former employer
Episode 21: Naomi Cahn (UVA), June Carbone (UMN), & Nancy Levit (UMKC) on How to Get a Fair Shake
No full textNaomi Cahn (Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Law & Armistead M. Dobie Professor Law - UVA Law), June Carbone (Robina Chair in Law, Science & Technology - UMN), and Nancy Levit (Associate Dean for Faculty & Curator\u27s Professor & Edward D. Ellison Professor of Law - UMKC) all join us to discuss their new book, Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy