Author: TSA Press

A
few
weeks
ago,
Gordon
Rees
found
itself
on
the
wrong
end
of
a
court
filing

flagging
a
number
of
misleading
if
not
completely
wrong
citations
that
looked
an
awful
lot
like
someone
told
ChatGPT
“make
me
legal
filing!”
and
hit
enter.
This
would
be
a
problem
for
any
firm,
but
for
Gordon
Rees,
this
was
at
least
its
third
brush
with
AI
trouble
—
having
previously

admitted
to
filing
a
brief
riddled
with
AI
hallucinations
in
October
and
then
received
a
reprimand
for
filings
with
citations
that
“do
not
support
the
specific
explanatory
phrase”
in
December.

As
we
wrote
about
the
most
recent
accusation,
“Whether
any
specific
citation
was
generated
by
AI
—
indeed,
whether
any
specific
citation
is
even wrong as
opposed
to
merely
debatable
—
opposing
counsel
now
has
every
incentive
to
scrutinize
any
citation
out
of
the
firm
with
a
jeweler’s
loupe.”

After
that
article,

BriefCatch
founder
Ross
Guberman
offered
me
a
sneak
peek
at

RealityCheck,
the
company’s
new
authority
verification
tool.
Essentially,
the
product
picks
up
where
my
jeweler’s
loupe
analogy
left
off,
providing
a
superpowered
hallucination
check
for
lawyers.
Running
it
against
the
original
brief
from
the
October
Gordon
Rees
story
that
the
firm
already
acknowledged
to
contain
hallucinations,
the
RealityCheck
tool
delivered
exactly
what
you’d
want
as
opposing
counsel.

Or,
ideally,
the
senior
partner
reviewing
your
own
brief
before
signing
your
name
to
a
bunch
of
hallucinatory
nonsense.

At
the
time,
RealityCheck’s
splashy
announcement
launch
remained
a
few
weeks
off,
but
with
its
Legalweek-timed
roll
out,
we
can
now
talk
a
little
about
the
new
essential
tool
for
the
LitigationSlop
era.

Lawyers,
ideally,
painstakingly
review
every
case
in
every
filing.
But,
at
this
point,
you

can’t
even
trust
the
Department
of
Justice
to
check
its
briefs,
let
alone
your
adversaries
(or,
perhaps,
your
first-year
associates).
RealityCheck
isn’t
trying
to
replace
the
process
of
cite
checking,
but
it
is
trying
to
get
it
done
faster
and
with
more
certainty.

The
tool
uses
a
two-layer
verification
process,
combining

deterministic
citation
validation
—
checking
reporter
volumes,
court
identifiers,
and
case
names
against
authoritative
legal
databases
all
without
any
AI
involvement
—
with

AI-assisted
analysis
that
then
evaluates
the
quoted
language
to
make
sure
it
actually
appears
in
the
cited
opinion
and
actually
supports
the
proposition
it’s
cited
for.
Every
citation
is
then
scored
visually
with
a
Green-Verified,
Yellow-Caution,
or
Red-Incorrect
label
and
explained
for
the
reviewer.

BriefCatch
performed
a
detailed
case
study
on
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
recent
decision
in

Fletcher
v.
Experian
Information
Solutions,
where
the
court
flagged
fabricated
quotations,
misstated
holdings,
and
citations
resolving
to
entirely
different
cases.
This
is
what
the
offending
filing
would
look
like
for
a
RealityCheck
user:

Unfortunately,
this
isn’t
a
problem
that’s
likely
to
go
away.
Researcher
Damien
Charlotin
has
now
catalogued

over
1,000
legal
cases
involving
AI
hallucinations.
Lawyers
have
started
blaming
legal
AI
research
tools
themselves
for
introducing
errors
into
their
briefs
—
which
is
a
bit
like

blaming
a
vending
machine
for
not
giving
you
steakhouse
dinner
—
but
it
speaks
to
the
reality
that
lawyers
increasingly
rely
on
tools
for
accuracy
and
mistakes
follow.
This
is
how
those
get
caught.

BriefCatch
is
making
it
available
to
its
federal
and
state
court
clients.
As
Guberman
put
it:
“Once
courts
are
running
filed
briefs
through
RealityCheck,
the
calculus
changes
for
every
litigator.
The
question
isn’t
whether
to
verify
your
citations.
It’s
whether
you
want
the
court
to
find
the
errors
before
you
do.”

Smart
play
to
put
the
screws
to
the
entire
legal
market
like
that.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Postmodern
analysis
has
gotten
a
really
bad
rap.
Understandably,
there’s
only
so
much
vagueposting
that
passes
itself
off
as
cutting-edge
commentary
one
can
stomach
before
you
want
to
get
rid
of
the
whole
genre.
But
there
are
some
concepts
that
remain
useful.
When
Nietzsche
heralded
the
death
of
God
in
the

The
Gay
Science,
it
wasn’t
some
giddy
realization.
It
was
the
somber
recognition
that
the
traditions
and
value
systems
that
gave
our
individual
lives
and
social
order
guiding
principles
became
passé
—
that
we
couldn’t
believe
in
them
anymore

even
if
we
wanted
to
—
but
also
that
the
iOS
update
had
a
staggered
rollout.
A
little
later,
other
sociologically
minded
thinkers
would
catch
on
and
theorize
the
effects
of
people
coming
to
terms
with
meaning
not
meaning
much
anymore:
Baudrillard
in

Forget
Foucault
remarks
that
the
process
of
disenchantment
can
occasion
a
playful
response
to
signs
of
collapse:
yes,
the
“Leader
of
the
Free
World”

may
have
dementia
and
sundown
about
SCOTUS
decisons
on
his
personal
social
media
and
causes
so
many
fires
that

DOJ
employees
are
requesting
sanctions
so
they
can
sleep,
but
it
is
kind
of
fun
to
read
about,
no?

The
judging
style
of
Lawrence
VanDyke
is
another
one
of
those
“fun”
occasions.
We’ve
drawn
attention
to
his
breaks
from
convention
before.

I
rather
liked
his
gun
breakdown
dissent,
but
his

“swinging
dicks”
opinion
—
thank
God,
dead
or
not,
that
there
was
no
accompanying
video
—
got
the
amount
of
ridicule
it
deserved.
But
it
is
getting
praised
elsewhere.
National
Review’s

The
Postmodern
Jurispridence
of
Lawrence
VanDyke
is
an
attempt
at
framing
VanDyke’s
dicking
around
as
“postmodern
judging”:

That’s
where
Lawrence
VanDyke
of
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Ninth
Circuit
comes
in.
Through
a
series
of
separate
writings
VanDyke
has
adopted
a
postmodern
approach
to
the
circuit-court
opinion
genre
that
ironically
turns
the
text
against
itself.
He
has
embraced
the
fact
that
an
opinion
as
opinion
can
have
meaning
beyond
the
arguments
it
presents.
His
is
an
ironical
approach
to
the
practice
of
judging
deployed
in
support
of
deeply
sincere
normative
legal
views.
It’s
an
approach
that
can
be
disturbing
to
those
with
a
traditional
view
of
the
judicial
enterprise
and
that
is
truly
unique
in
the
federal
judiciary.

Cool
story,
but
there’s
only
so
much
lipstick
you
can
put
on
a
pig.
First,
author
Michael
Fragoso
does
a
poor
job
of
defining
his
terms.
Sure,
there’s
a
litany
of
decorum-breaking
things
VanDyke
did
that
get
passed
off
as
ironic,
facially
cogent
arguments
taking
on
additional
meaning
when
you
look
at
them
from
a
distance,
but
unless
we’re
about
to
retcon
Johnathan
Swift’s

A
Modest
Proposal
as
postmodern
policy
making,
there’s
no
need
to
ring
the
postmodern
bell.
We
should
just
call
things
what
they
are:
stupid.
Take
this
for
example:

In
it
he
observed
that,
having
issued
a
pro-Second
Amendment
opinion,
he
knew
it
would
be
taken
en
banc,
so
he
would
save
the
eventual
en
banc
court
the
trouble
of
writing
an
opinion
and
just
write
it
himself.
Van
Dyke
proceeded
to
lay
out
a
perfectly
passible
anti-gun
opinion
overruling
what
he
just
wrote.
He
plays
the
opinion
straight,
so
it
doesn’t
fight
the
joke,
because—as
with

Olympus
Spa—it’s
not
about
the
legal
arguments
but
about
the
absurdity
of
their
use.
It
was
the
existence
of
his
draft
future
opinion,
not
its
arguments,
that
exposed
the
court’s
real
power
structure.

One
of
the
smartest
lawyers
I
know
called
me
after
reading
his
concurrence
and
called
it
brilliant.
“It’s
checkmate,”
he
explained.
“How
are
they
going
to
write
the
en
banc
opinion
now?
It’s
going
to
look
just
like
his
and
prove
his
point.”

Get
to
know
smarter
lawyers,
dude.
This
is
not
the
“9TH
CIRCUIT
GETS
OPINIONMOGGED
BY
VANDYKE!”
moment
you
think
it
is.
This
might
come
as
a
surprise,
considering
the
recent
uptick
in
weird
decisions
that
are
covert
auditions
for
the
next
empty
Supreme
Court
seat,
but
judicial
opinions
are

supposed
to
be
boring
and
fungible
things.
For
example,


most
Supreme
Court
decisions
in
recent
history
have
been
9-0s,
it’s
just
that
the
splits

tend
to
get
more
media
coverage
because
the
stakes
are
highest.
And
if
you
want
to
look
for
someone
to
“expose
the
court’s
real
power
structure,”
why
would
you
go
to
a
judge
who
couldn’t
even
get
a
qualified
rating
from
the
ABA
when
you
can
go
to
a
political
scientist?
Not
all
modern
problems
require
postmodern
solutions.
I
mean,
come
on:

All
of
these
separate
writings
are
not
about
particular
laws
but
about
the
law.
It’s
not
about
using
the
text
of
his
opinions
to
argue
doctrinal
points
but
about
using
the
opinions
as
text
to
critique
—
one
is
tempted
to
say
problematize
—
the
Ninth
Circuit’s
judicial
enterprise.
…
VanDyke
uses
the
concept
of
opinion-writing
to
push
the
boundaries
of
what
judging
will
allow.

Is
the
guy
a
circuit
judge
or
a
comparative
literature
student
working
on
his
MA?
Judges
shouldn’t
get
points
for
dramatic
outbursts
that
amount
to
“Look
what
I
can
do!”

Fragoso
goes
on
to
say
that
“certainly
no
one
on
the
left
is
playing
at
VanDyke’s
level.”
No
shit,
friendo.
It’s
a
job,
not
performance
art,
and
there’s
less
of
an
incentive
to
play
when
the
Executive’s
response
to
being
asked
to
speak
out
against
violence
toward
judges
was
to

double
down
by
calling
left-leaning
judges
dangerous
lunatics
and
declaring
war
on
“rogue”
judges.
Are
you
interested
in
the
court
and
power
structures
or
not?

What’s
the
ultimate
point
of
framing
VanDyke
as
a
postmodern
judge
rather
than
some

unqualified
hack
doing
Stuart
impersonations
from
the
bench?

I
don’t
know,
and
Fragoso
doesn’t
appear
to
either:

What
effect
all
this
will
have
on
the
law
is
hard
to
say.
VanDyke’s
approach
is
relatively
limited
in
its
aims
and
therefore
probably
harmless,
at
least
structurally.
…
But
something
like
HLA
Hart’s
rules
of
recognition
undergird
the
ability
of
the
courts
to
maintain
their
authority,
and
there
is
danger
in
chipping
away
at
that
conceptual
scaffolding.

So
at
best
nothing
and
at
worse
contributes
to
a
collapse
in
judicial
legitimacy.
Some
game
to
be
playing!
If
this
is
the
cost
of
owning
the
libs,
maybe
he
should
just
do
his
damned
job.

This
article
may
have
been
too
serious
of
a
response
when
laughter
would
have
sufficed:

While
it
is
undoubtedly
funny
to
see
right-wingers
so
desperate
to
justify
shitty
judging
that

they’re
treating
Pierre
Schlag
like
he
wrote

Of
Grammatology,
it
is
worth
noting
that
there
is
a
growing
number
of

right-wingers
who
advocate
for
right-wing
positions
(traditional
left/right
distinctions
get
harder
as
metanarratives
crumble)
in
postmodernese.
That
is
to
say
a
right-wing
postmodern
endorsement
of
VanDyke
could
have
been
better
than
this
—
or
are
you
reactives
too
lazy
to
break
out
the
Nick
Land?

Be
on
the
lookout
for
stupidity
in
postmodern
clothing.
And
VanDyke,
if
you’re
reading
this,
you’d
probably
be
a
lot
more
convincing
if
you
relied
on
well-crafted
arguments
rather
than
jazz
hand
opinions.

The
Postmodern
Jurisprudence
of
Lawrence
VanDyke
[National
Review]

Earlier:

We
Need
To
Talk
About
What
The
VanDyke
Video
Dissent
Gets
Right

‘We
Are
Better
Than
This,’
Say
Ninth
Circuit
Judges
Despite
All
Evidence
To
The
Contrary

Ninth
Circuit
Judges
Sick
And
Tired
Of
Unqualified
Trump
Judge’s
Spamming
The
Record
With
Irrelevant
Screeds

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

The
legal
profession
is
at
an
inflection
point,
driven
by
rapid
advancements
in
artificial
intelligence
(AI).
These
tools
provide
powerful
efficiencies,
prompting
a
reevaluation
of
legal
ethics
and
firm
profitability.

Clio’s
latest
Legal
Trends
Report
offers
objective
insights,
including:

• A
  groundbreaking
  study
  on
  reducing
  cognitive
  load.
• Analysis
  of
  thousands
  of
  firms,
  revealing
  what
  drives
  success.
• Real-world
  examples
  of
  AI
  in
  action.
• Data
  to
  benchmark
  your
  firm
  against
  top
  performers.

Discover
how
firms
are:

• Growing
  revenue
  4x
  faster
  than
  headcount.
• Meeting
  the
  needs
  of
  50%+
  of
  clients
  who
  turn
  to
  AI
  first.
• Reducing
  mental
  strain
  by
  up
  to
  25%
  with
  technology.

Sign
up
to
receive
your
copy

  

This
is
an
article
about
academic
dishonesty,
both
with
one’s
audience
and
with
oneself. It
is
about
the
goal
of
academia
being
advancement
of
knowledge
and
the
making
of
a
better
world. To
the
extent
other
things
are
sought,
such
as

external
validation,
the
result
can
be
a
bastardization
of
that
which
we
ought
to
be
doing
and
perhaps
making
the
discipline
worse
off
deliberately
or
negligently.

Throughout
this
blog
post,
assume
an
author
has
written
an
article
about
pigs
flying. It
sounds
ridiculous. But
consider
how
an
author
could
tantalize
you
with
an
article
title
like
“On
the
Prospect
of
Porcine
Flight:
Rethinking
the
Impossible”
or
“Porcine
Aviation:
The
Politics
of
the
Previously
Unthinkable”
or
“Pigs
and
the
Potential
of
Porcine
Bumble
Bees.” Now
you’ve
got
something
to
tantalize
the
law
reviews!

Now,
how
to
write
that
article
as
quickly
and
with
maximum
splash
as
possible. Let’s
start
with
how
it
is
all
too
often
done:

1. 
   Misleading
   Title
   Clickbait.
   “Can
   Pigs
   Fly?
   The
   Truth
   Will
   Shock
   You!” No,
   it
   won’t,
   and
   the
   author’s
   claimed
   signal
   of
   excitement
   is
   misrepresentation. The
   asking
   of
   the
   question
   also
   misleads,
   as
   it
   suggests
   there
   is
   an
   open
   question
   worthy
   of
   an
   article.  

2. 
   Lying
   About
   Facts. “Pigs
   can
   fly.” “I’ve
   seen
   pigs
   fly.” No,
   they
   don’t. And
   no,
   you
   have
   not. You
   may
   have
   seen
   an
   image
   of
   a
   pig
   jumping
   in
   a
   lake,
   but
   that
   isn’t
   flight.
   (Note:
   
   Michael
   Sowa’s
   famous
   painting
   is
   called
   “Köhlers
   Schwein
   mit
   Ente”
   not
   “flying
   pig.”) Making
   up
   facts
   is
   perhaps
   the
   most
   dangerous
   and
   self-destructive
   thing
   you
   can
   do
   as
   a
   scholar. It
   can
   get
   you
   fired. It
   could
   get
   you
   sued,
   depending
   on
   your
   funding
   and
   the
   subject
   of
   your
   paper. And
   you
   might
   be
   the
   last
   person
   to
   know
   when
   your
   sin
   is
   discovered. But
   worse,
   you
   do
   real
   damage
   to
   the
   discipline.  

There
are
a
couple
of
prominent
examples.

Francesca
Gino,
a
professor
at
Harvard
Business
School
who
studied
unethical
behavior,
was
called
into
question
for

falsifying
data
and
lost
tenure.
Eric
Stewart
at
FSU

similarly
lost
tenure
for
questions
about
data.

Ward
Churchill
was
fired
at
UC
Boulder
for
making
up
facts
as
well. But
his
story
runs
deeper,
as
information
he
claimed
was
true
about
himself
turned

out
to
not
be
provable
—
namely,
that
he
hailed
from
a
Native
American
background,
a
claim
genealogy
research
failed
to
prove
and
which
no
tribe
recognized.
Authors
have
even
been
accused
of

stealing
someone
else’s
story
as
their
own.  

Bottom
line,
once
you
publish
an
article
that
is
factually
untrue,
expect
your
scholarly
reputation
to
tank. You
might
be
read,
you
might
even
be
published,
but
you
won’t
be
trusted. And
that’s
the
best-case
scenario.  

3. 
   Misstating
   Theory.
   It
   might
   be
   intentional,
   but
   it
   might
   be
   based
   upon
   the
   limited
   knowledge
   of
   the
   author. This
   happens
   quite
   a
   bit
   when
   an
   author’s
   sources
   are
   not
   original
   sources. Namely,
   the
   author
   has
   read
   what
   others
   have
   said
   about
   some
   tome
   but
   failed
   to
   read
   the
   tome
   itself. This
   happens
   quite
   often
   in
   economics,
   where
   frequently
   few
   have
   bothered
   to
   read
   Marx
   or
   Marshall
   but
   have
   read
   quite
   a
   bit
   by
   others
   who
   claimed
   to
   have
   read
   them.  

Take
for
example
someone
citing
an
article
that
says,
“the
court
in

Brooks
v.
Foglio
took
judicial
notice
that
pigs
could
fly,
at
least
in
theory.” And
the
cited
article
even
quotes
the
case:
“The
Court
thus
takes
judicial
notice
of
the
following
facts:
pigs
can
fly
and
hell
has
frozen
over.”

Brooks
v.
Foglio,
No.
CIV.A.
13-2504
JEI,
2013
WL
3354430,
at
*1
(D.N.J.
July
2,
2013). 
But
if
you
look
at
the
case,
this
pigs
statement
is
preceded
with:
“In
what
is
almost
certainly
the
first
lawsuit
of
its
kind,
Plaintiff
Marjorie
Brooks
alleges
that
her
insurance
company
paid
her
too
much
money
after
her
home
was
damaged
by
Hurricane
Sandy.” So
no,
that
doesn’t
mean
pigs
can
fly. More
on
this
later
when
I
write
about
the
heroic
assumptions
people
ignore.

4. 
   Not
   Citing
   Literature.
   “There
   is
   no
   literature
   that
   suggests
   pigs
   cannot
   fly.” “There
   are
   no
   serious
   studies
   that
   suggest
   pigs
   cannot
   fly.” These
   statements,
   flat-out
   ignoring
   literature,
   might
   impress
   those
   who
   publish
   your
   work,
   but
   to
   true
   scholars,
   you
   look
   like
   an
   idiot
   who
   has
   not
   done
   the
   most
   basic
   literature
   search. It
   is
   too
   common
   that
   authors
   do
   not
   realize
   there
   are
   other
   disciplines
   that
   have
   thought
   about
   these
   issues
   for
   longer,
   and
   are
   happy
   to
   limit
   their
   search
   only
   their
   own
   literature,
   where
   they
   are
   
   most
   comfortable.

Not
engaging
with
literature
that
contests
your
own
thinking
is
as
anti-intellectual
as
it
comes. This
often
leads
to
other
failures,
such
as
making
heroic
assumptions. And
it
is
often
based
on
the
next
sin
discussed,
not
reading
the
literature.

An
author
might
not
cite
literature
because
it
disproves
their
theory. An
author
might
not
cite
literature
because
they
stole
someone’s
idea
and
wants
to
claim
they
came
up
with
it
on
their
own. Both
are
sins
of
misrepresentation.

5. 
   Not
   Reading
   Literature. Suppose
   the
   author
   cites
   a
   NASA
   study
   of
   zero
   gravity
   pigs
   on
   the
   International
   Space
   Station. But
   the
   author
   doesn’t
   read
   the
   paper,
   which 
   reveals
   that
   the
   pigs
   aren’t
   flying,
   they
   are
   
   technically
   free
   falling. The
   fact
   the
   author
   has
   failed
   to
   read
   the
   literature
   shows
   —
   to
   those
   who
   have
   read
   the
   literature,
   although
   it
   might
   impress
   law
   students
   and
   other
   fellow
   travelers
   of
   the
   school
   of
   being
   an
   ignorant
   academic. By
   the
   way,
   “Pigs
   Can
   Fly”
   and
   “Why
   Pigs
   Must
   Fly”
   are
   legit
   articles. They
   just
   aren’t
   helpful
   here,
   because
   they
   are
   using
   the
   metaphor
   and
   are
   not
   speaking
   of
   pigs
   literally.

Moreover,
the
conditions
upon
which
the
pigs
are
doing
the
“flying”
are
quite
limited. One
does
not
often
encounter
pigs
on
the
Space
Station. And
those
conditions
rarely
hold
true
even
under
the
most
generous
(and
wrong)
definition
of
flying.  

As
a
corollary,
reading
requires


thinking
about
the
literature. That
means
not
immediately
rejecting
it
without
first
understanding
the
article’s
perspective. Using
a
sports
analogy:
Before
you
attempt
to
score
points,
you
should
probably
figure
out
the
rules
of
the
game
and
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
other
players.  

What
happens
in
the
academy
is
often
the
equivalent
of
what
children
do:
Side
by
side
or
“parallel”
play. Children
of
an
immature
age
will
play
near
but
not
with
one
another. “I’m
building
a
house,”
says
one. “I’m
drawing
a
house,”
says
another. And
that’s
it. This
is
what
happens
all
too
often
in
academia
as
well. Not
even
a
glance
over
at
the
other
professor’s
house
drawing
or
building. There
is
hubris
in
that:
“What
I
have
to
say
is
so
important
that
what
others
have
couldn’t
be
useful”
should
not
be
a
thing
in
academia.  

Lastly,
as
this
section
was
inspired
by
a
Bluesky
post
of
Professor
Josh
Sheppard
at
the
University
of
Colorado,
“Do
not
cite
an
academic
paper
unless
you’ve
read
it.”
Be
wary
of
citing
without
reading
for

AI
reasons
as
well.  

6. 
   Misciting
   Literature. Suppose
   the
   author
   cites
   a
   paper
   called
   “Pigs
   in
   Space:
   The
   Flight
   of
   Peppa.” Absent
   reading
   the
   article,
   the
   author
   has
   no
   idea
   that
   this
   is
   a
   (completely
   made
   up)
   children’s
   book. One
   example
   of
   my
   own
   is
   that
   I
   have
   a
   blog
   post
   titled
   
   “Use
   Racial
   Slurs
   In
   The
   Classroom!” The
   unscrupulous
   might
   cite
   me
   as
   a
   proponent
   of
   doing
   so,
   but
   even
   a
   quick
   glance
   shows
   that
   I’m
   dead
   set
   against
   it,
   and
   was
   mocking
   professors
   who
   were
   in
   favor
   of
   it.   

7. 
   Making
   Grandiose
   Claims. Many
   of
   the
   failures
   to
   access
   literature
   can
   lead
   to
   grandiose
   claims
   about
   scholarly
   contributions. 
   “My
   article
   is
   the
   first
   to…” No,
   it
   isn’t. Others
   have
   done
   similar,
   and
   the
   author
   is
   not
   narrowly
   defining
   their
   contribution.
   Making
   grandiose
   claims
   is
   easier
   to
   do
   with
   the
   ignorance
   of
   a
   poor
   literature
   search.

8. 
   Heroic
   Assumptions
   That
   Are
   Unrealistic. “Pigs
   could
   fly. That
   requires
   some
   evolution
   for
   the
   pig
   to
   grow
   wings. The
   literature
   has
   already
   contemplated
   this:
   Numerous
   images
   throughout
   history
   show
   pigs
   with
   wings.” Okay,
   no. First,
   pigs
   having
   “wings”
   does
   not
   mean
   pigs
   could
   fly. Allow
   me
   to
   introduce
   you
   to
   the
   “flying
   squirrel.” You
   might
   think,
   “Well,
   allow
   me
   to
   introduce
   YOU
   to
   the
   bumble
   bee!,”
   but
   that
   ignores
   pigs
   are
   not
   in
   the
   same
   family
   (let
   alone
   genus)
   as
   pigs
   (look
   up
   bumble
   bees,
   flight
   vortex,
   and
   Bernoulli’s
   principle).
   Second,
   you’ve
   only
   accounted
   for
   lift,
   not
   weight,
   thrust,
   and
   drag. Third,
   there
   is
   no
   realistic
   evolutionary
   progression
   that
   allows
   for
   pigs
   to
   have
   wings. In
   short,
   no
   matter
   how
   complex
   your
   argument,
   it
   is
   bullshit. And
   often,
   laying
   it
   on
   thick
   with
   verbose
   text
   creates
   the
   ruse
   of
   intelligent
   thought. But
   it’s
   still
   bullshit.

Heroic
assumptions
often
happens
in
economics,
too. People
will
speak
of
how
easy
it
is
to
assume
a
zero-income
effect. But
there’s
enough
literature
out
there
(if
you
read
it)
to
recognize
if
you
do
this
you
are

assuming
a
spherical
cow. Law
reviews
might
buy
it,
but
you
are
not
furthering
knowledge.  

9. 
   Asskiss
   Cites. These
   are
   cites
   designed
   to
   sway
   people
   who
   are
   big
   names
   in
   your
   field,
   but
   do
   not
   include
   the
   other
   folks
   who
   have
   written
   on
   it. And
   just
   dropping
   those
   names
   without
   engaging
   in
   the
   flaws
   or
   weaknesses
   of
   their
   theories
   clearly
   demonstrates
   you
   are
   citing
   them
   for
   the
   same
   reason
   a
   monkey
   holds
   a
   lightbulb
   —
   
   not
   for
   illumination!

One
of
the
reasons
this
is
problematic
is
that
someone’s
reputation
is

not
an
argument. “I
know
this
person
and
they
are
famous
and
therefore
are
correct”
is
anti-intellectual:
Many
famous
people
are
often
wrong,
and
there
is
no
law
professor
exceptionalism. Have
doubts? Look
up
how
many
famous
law
professors
made
very
bad
COVID-19
predictions.  

And,
merely
because
someone
has
become
famous
does
not
mean
that
the
quality
of
their
work
is
consistent
throughout
time
or
subject
matter.
Whether
the
work
trends
upward
or
downward
(“reputational
enshittification?”
—
sorry,
Cory
Doctorow)
depends
on
an
appraisal
of
the
work,
not
the
person.

10. 
    Sacrificing
    Accuracy
    For
    Speed.
    Doing
    scholarship
    correctly
    takes
    time.
    I’m
    grateful
    to
    Professor
    
    Anthony
    Kreis
    at 
    Georgia
    State
    for
    observing 
    the
    “hurry
    up”
    problem.
    Often,
    doing
    scholarship
    (and
    legislation,
    for
    that
    matter)
    right
    runs
    contrary
    to
    the
    desires
    of
    those
    who
    seek
    to
    make
    the
    world
    a
    worse
    place. Sloppy
    is
    fast
    and
    potentially
    popular
    and
    done
    right
    may
    not
    come
    in
    time
    to
    undo
    the
    damage. But
    it
    is
    invaluable
    to
    criticize
    that
    which
    is
    not
    done
    right,
    whether
    it
    is
    flawed
    assumptions,
    completely
    made-up
    facts,
    improper
    historical
    analysis,
    flawed
    methodologies,
    or
    other
    things
    that
    detract
    from
    the
    purposes
    of
    scholarship.  

Hey,
did
you
notice
none
of
these
long-standing
sins
have
much
to
do
with
AI? I
mean,
they
could,
but
the
problem
is
more
enduring
and
more
human.

Maybe
I
should
have
written
this
column
in
…
Pig
Latin.  

---

LawProfBlawg is
an
anonymous law professor.
Follow
him
on X/Twitter/whatever (@lawprofblawg).
He’s
also
on
BlueSky,
Mastodon,
and
Threads
depending
on
his
mood. Email
him
at [email protected]. 
The
views
of
this
blog
post
do
not
represent
the
views
of
his
employer,
his
employer’s
government,
his
Dean,
his
colleagues,
his
family,
or
himself.  

With
regional
business
continuing
to
boom,
the
nation’s
largest
firms
are
launching
new
offices
left
and
right
in
the
hope
of
snatching
up
some
valued
market
share. To
that
end,
yet
another
Biglaw
firm
recently
decided
that
if
you
want
to
be
taken
seriously
in
2026,
you
need
a
Boston
zip
code
—
and
you
need
it
yesterday.

According
to
the

American
Lawyer,
Reed
Smith
is
opening
a
new
office
in
Boston
that’s
going
to
be
staffed
with
a
group
of
laterals
pulled
from

seven
(yes,
seven!)
different
Am
Law
50
firms.
Because
if
you’re
going
to
plant
a
flag
in
one
of
the
most
competitive
legal
markets
in
the
country,
you
might
as
well
do
it
with
a
full-on
talent
raid
instead
of
a
slow
build.

The
incoming
team
spans
multiple
practice
areas
—
think
finance
and
transactional
work
—
giving
the
firm
an
instant,
full-service
presence
rather
than
a
tentative
toe-dip
into
the
market.
It’s
a
familiar
playbook:
grab
a
prebuilt
team
with
portable
business
and
let
them
hit
the
ground
billing.
Here
are
some
additional
details
on
the
attorneys
who
will
be
working
there:

Regulatory
partner
Grant
Butler
joins
from
K&L
Gates,
fund
formation
and
PE
partners
Claudette
Druehl
and
Omar
Hemady
joins
from
White
&
Case,
M&A
partner
Matthew
Hacker
joins
from
Goodwin,
finance
partner
Ian
Hohmeister
joins
from
Morrison
&
Foerster
and
employment
litigator
and
transaction
attorney
James
Nicholas
joins
from
McDermott.

Additionally,
Kevin
Sullivan,
former
co-chair
of
Weil’s
private
equity
practice,
is
joining
Reed
Smith
as
a
senior
strategic
adviser
to
its
PE
practice.

The
group
of
attorneys
also
included
K&L
Gates
associate
Anastassia
Korin,
Kirkland
&
Ellis
senior
associate
Austin
McCarthy,
White
&
Case
associate
Aric
Jain,
White
&
Case
foreign
legal
consultant
Maud
Fillon
and
Morrison
Foerster
associate
Matt
Baker.

“Boston
is
a
hub
for
the
key
practices
where
we
are
looking
to
grow,
private
equity,
finance,
fund
formation,
and
it
makes
sense
for
us
to
be
in
a
market
where
there’s
so
much
talent
servicing
clients
in
those
areas,”
said
Julie
Hardin,
Reed
Smith
Americas
managing
partner.
“We
expect
to
have
more
good
news
in
the
coming
weeks
and
months.”

If
this
all
feels
a
little
déjà
vu,
that’s
because
it
is.
Boston
has
been
on
a
Biglaw
hot
streak,
with
firms
tripping
over
themselves
to
launch
there,
lured
by
elite
talent,
a
strong
life
sciences
sector,
and
plenty
of
high-end
work
to
go
around.
In
other
words,
yet
another
major
firm
has
decided
that
Boston
isn’t
just
“nice
to
have”
—
it’s
table
stakes.

Reed
Smith
isn’t
exactly
new
to
the
expansion
game,
either.
The
firm
has
more
than
1,500
lawyers
globally
and
has
been
aggressively
growing
through
lateral
hiring
and
new
office
launches
in
recent
years,
with
Boston
being
its
fourth
new
office
announcement
in
a
little
more
than
a
year.

The
bottom
line
is
that
Boston
continues
to
be
Biglaw’s
favorite
new
hub,
and
Reed
Smith
just
showed
up
with
a
seven-firm
shopping
spree.

Reed
Smith
Taps
Lawyers
from
7
Am
Law
50
Firms
for
New
Boston
Launch
[American
Lawyer]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to email her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

I’ve
been
attending

ALM’s

Legalweek
in
New
York
for
several
years.
A
couple
of
things
every
show
has
had
in
common
was
that
they
were
all
held
at
the
Hilton
Hotel
in
midtown
Manhattan.
And
no
matter
when
the
show
takes
place,
it
somehow
manages
to
snow.

But
this
year
there
were
some
changes,
big
and
small.

My
Takeaways
and
Points
of
Interest

With
a
show
this
big
(ALM
says
over
6,000
attendees
over
close
to
four
days),
it’s
impossible
to
see
and
learn
everything.
But
every
year,
I
do
try
to
come
back
with
my
top
10
takeaways.
Or
if
not
takeaways,
at
least
the
top
things
I
noted.
So
here
goes.

1.
The
most
visible
thing
about
this
year’s
show
was
where
it
was.
Instead
of
the
Hilton,
the
show
was
housed
in
the
Javits
Convention
Center
on
the
City’s
west
side.
Hotel
facilities,
restaurants,
and
bars
were
not
as
plentiful
as
in
midtown
(if
they
existed
at
all).
The
Center
was
about
a
20-minute
walk
(10
minutes
by
subway)
from
Times
Square.
Instead
of
the
exhibit
space
being
on
three
floors,
it
was
on
one.

Having
been
through
a
move
from
a
hotel
to
a
convention
center
as
chair
of
last
year’s
ABA

TechShow,
I
knew
what
to
expect.
Griping.
Complaining.
Pining
for
the
past.
Often
those
who
advocate
strongly
for
change
in
the
legal
profession
are
the
ones
who
complain
bitterly
when
one
of
their
favorite
conferences
doesn’t
take
place
in
their
favorite
place.

Get
over
it.
Change
is
inevitable.
I
can
guarantee
you
ALM
didn’t
make
the
change
just
to
upset
you.

And
there
were
some
benefits.
Open
areas.
More
space.
Bigger
and
better
convention
areas.
But
according
to
the
naysayers
it
was
“just
too
sterile”
Give
me
a
break.
The
show
was
well
run,
and
the
facility
was
clean,
well
laid
out,
and
navigable.
End
of
story.

2.
Now
for
some
bad
news.
(I
know,
I’m
also
about
to
complain
but
not
about
the
facility
change).
Two
of
the
keynotes
had
nothing
to
do
with
legal.
One
was
by
an
ex-football
player
and
the
other
by
a
writer/actor.
I’m
sure
they
are
fine,
interesting
people,
and,
in
the
past,
I’ve
been
in
generally

in
favor
of
non-legal
keynotes.
But
they
need
to
somehow
tie
legal
into
the
discussion.
Usually,
conference
hosts
have
at
least
tried.
This
year,
there
was
no
effort
at
all.

On
the
other
side
of
the
equation,
as
I

have
written,
the
keynote
panel
of
judges
talking
about
the
risks
and
threats
they
face
every
day
was
top
notch.
It
was
something
that
needed
to
be
said
and
ALM
deserves
credit
for
taking
this
topic
head
on.
Thanks,
ALM.

3.
It
may
just
be
me,
but
this
year’s
show
seemed
more
commercialized
than
ever.
Every
keynote
had
a
sponsor.
Virtually
every
presentation
involved
a
vendor
as
speaker(s)
or
as
a
sponsor.
I
understand
economics
but
sometimes
it
seems
a
little
much.
And
many
of
the
presentations
were
nothing
more
than
vendor
marketing.
It
was
to
the
point
that
after
one
of
my
posts
about
a
session
was

published,

Kevin
Bashaw,
CEO
of

Mason,
put
it
well:
“Is
it
me
or
do
many
vendors
feel
like
they
are
aggressively
selling
timeshares?”
Guess
it’s
not
just
me
(or
you,
Kevin)
after
all.

4.
Interestingly,

Clio
had
a
strong
presence
at
this
year’s
show,
not
only
taking
up
lots
of
exhibit
space,
but
also
sponsoring
a
keynote
with
an
introduction
by
its
CEO,

Jack
Newton.
Relatedly,

Harvey,
which
has
traditionally
marketed
primarily
to
Biglaw,
will
be
an
exhibitor
at
TechShow.
Both
companies
may
be
trying
to
expand
their
customer
base,
changing
the
dynamics
of
both
shows.

5.
Despite
all
the
product
and
product
enhancements
by
vendors,
I
didn’t
see
or
hear
anything
completely
new
or
earth
shaking
at
this
year’s
show.
There
seemed
to
be,
however,
an
acceptance
this
year
that
GenAI
is
here
to
stay
and
it
will
be
impactful.
It’s
no
longer
an
if.
So,
everyone
is
focusing
on
it
and
scratching
their
heads
as
to
what
it
means
and
will
mean.
See
my

recent
article
on
this
very
point.

6.
Another
interesting
point:
Microsoft
had
a
huge
booth
in
the
exhibit
hall.
I
mention
this
only
because
I
have
recently
written
about
the
threat
of
publicly
facing
LLMs
taking
on
the
legal
market
and
its
vendors.
The
same
concept
applies
to
Microsoft:
does
their
presence
suggest
more
direct
involvement
in
the
legal
market
now
that
the
investment
dollars
are
flowing?
Hard
to
say.
But
it’s
at
least
noteworthy
that
Microsoft
is
there
in
a
significant
way.

7.
Before
the
show,
several
non-litigators
asked
me
to
let
them
know
what
I
saw
and
heard
that
might
pertain
to
their
practices.
What
I
noticed
as
a
result
is
how
heavily
this
show
is
directed
toward
litigation
and
e-discovery.
It’s
pretty
much
everywhere.
Good
for
litigation
but
it
may
be
leaving
some
markets
untapped.

8.
One
gripe
I
kept
hearing
from
vendors:
at
past
shows,
they
would
book
rooms
at
either
the
Hilton
or
hotels
close
by
for
vendor
meetings.
Not
so
easy
at
Javits
since
there
aren’t
as
many
hotels
close
by.
Many
resorted
to
pop
up
“rooms”
at
Javits
with
portable
walls.
Not
as
private
but
functional
as
far
as
I
was
concerned.
And
I’ve
been
to
plenty
of
shows
where
the
vendor
meeting
places
are
a
little
distance
from
the
sessions.
They
will
get
used
to
it.

And
others
grumbled
they
couldn’t
just
tumble
down
to
the
Hilton
lobby
bar
and
find
someone
to
network
with.
But
I
went
to
plenty
of
parties
and
dinners
this
year
and
don’t
think
my
life
will
be
any
the
worse
for
no
hotel
lobby
bar.
In
fact,
my
health
may
actually
be
better.

9.
Due
to
its
overall
importance,
the
exhibit
space
deserves
a
separate
mention.
In
short:
huge
improvement.
The
Hilton
had
the
exhibitors
spread
out
on
three
separate
floors.
Navigating
between
the
floors
was
always
a
bit
of
a
challenge.
The
space
was
dark
and
dingy.

By
contrast,
the
Javits
space
was
nice,
open,
and
easy
for
attendees
to
walk
around
in
and
find
vendors.
Not
sure
what
the
complaints
were
(I’m
sure
there
were
plenty)
other
than
“we
just
don’t
like
change.”

10.
I
have
to
mention
the
Javits
staff.
They
were
friendly,
competent,
and
knowledgeable.
All
too
often
we
talk
about
the
vibe
and
energy
(or
lack
thereof)
of
a
show.
But
it’s
often
forgotten
that
a
large
part
of
that
is
how
the
facility
staff
and
host
interacts
with
attendees.
It
makes
a
difference
if
you
are
greeted
with
a
smile,
when
your
questions
are
answered,
and
when
you
have
to
be
told
no,
it’s
done
in
a
professional
nice
way.
Legalweek
and
Javits
delivered.

And
It’s
a
Wrap

So,
it’s
a
wrap.
Good
show.
Lots
of
positives.
Yes,
a
few
negatives.
But
that’s
the
story
for
most
Legalweeks,
and
for
that
matter,
other
legal
and
non-legal
tech
shows.
We
come
to
learn,
see
and
be
seen,
network,
and
be
with
people.
The
fact
that
we
did
all
that
in
a
different
place
doesn’t
change
the
dynamic
of
what
most
of
us
are
really
there
for.
In
that
regard,
not
much
really
changed.

Oh,
and
by
the
way,
for
the
first
three
days
of
the
show,
the
temperature
was
in
the
70s
and
80s.
Just
when
I
thought
this
show
would
break
tradition,
guess
what?
On
the
last
day
of
the
show,
yes,
it
did
indeed
snow.
All
is
right
with
the
legal
tech
world,
after
all.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

Epic’s
high-profile
lawsuit
over
the
alleged
misuse
of
patient
data
just
scored
its
first
major
concession. 

Last
Friday,
GuardDog
Telehealth
—
one
of
the
defendants
accused
of
exploiting
interoperability
networks
to
obtain
people’s
health
information
—
admitted
in
a
legal
filing
that
it
falsely
represented
itself
as
providing
treatment
in
order
to
access
medical
records.

Epic’s
complaint,
filed
January
13,
claims
that
Health
Gorilla
enabled
other
companies
to
inappropriately
access
and
monetize
nearly
300,000
patient
medical
records.
Health
Gorilla
has
denied
the
allegations.

The
plaintiffs
are
Epic,

Trinity
Health,

UMass
Memorial
Health,

Reid
Health
and

OCHIN.
They
allege
that
Health
Gorilla
and
a
network
of
other
companies
set
up
fictitious
healthcare
providers,
shell
websites
and
fake
provider
IDs
to
make
it
look
like
records
requests
were
for
real
treatment
purposes.
Instead,
the
data
was
allegedly
diverted
for
non-treatment
uses
—
such
as
marketing
to
lawyers
seeking
potential
claimants
for
lawsuits.

GuardDog
is
one
of
the
other
companies
involved
in
the
network,
and
the
rest
are
a
cluster
of
small
telehealth,
data
and
shell
companies
—
many
allegedly
linked
to
the
same
founders
and
operators
—
that
the
plaintiffs
say
were
used
to
pose
as
legitimate
providers.

The
complaint
also
stated
that
the
defendants
inserted
“junk”
information
into
records
to
hide
their
activity
and
give
the
appearance
of
genuine
care,
which
in
turn
risked
patient
safety
and
wasted
clinician
time.
When
one
fraudulent
entity
was
exposed,
the
same
actors
allegedly
created
new
companies
to
continue
the
same
conduct,
operating
“like
a
Hydra,”
according
to
the
lawsuit.

On
February
26,
Health
Gorilla
then

filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
a
lawsuit,
calling
it
“an
attack
on
interoperability.”
About
two
weeks
later,
GuardDog
threw
an
even
bigger
wrinkle
in
the
case
by
admitting
in
a

court
filing
that
it
misrepresented
its
services
to
obtain
patient
records.

“GuardDog
admits
that,
since
it
began
operating
as
a
company
in
2024,
its
goal
was
to
provide
chronic
care
management
and
remote
patient
monitoring
for
patients,
but
that
did
not
happen.
For
the
duration
of
its
existence,
its
business
instead
focused
on
requesting,
reviewing,
and
summarizing
medical
records,
and
providing
those
medical
records
to
law
firms,”
the
filing
read.

As
part
of
its
settlement
with
Epic
and
the
other
plaintiffs,
the
company
agreed
to
stop
accessing
records
through
major
interoperability
frameworks,
as
well
as
to
delete
any
patient
data
it
gathered
through
those
systems.

Epic
said
it
is
still
fighting
against
Health
Gorilla
and
the
remaining
defendants.

Health
Gorilla
maintains
that
GuardDog’s
consent
judgement
changes
nothing
for
the
company.

“If
you
read
carefully,
GuardDog
does
not
state
it
ever
informed
Health
Gorilla
of
any
non-treatment
use
of
patient
information,
and
we
are
prepared
to
demonstrate
it
did
not.
In
addition,
when
Health
Gorilla
sought
to
investigate
GuardDog
along
with
the
interoperability
networks
and
several
major
health
providers,
GuardDog
failed
to
respond
and
refused
to
cooperate,”
the
company
said
in
a
statement
sent
to

MedCity
News.

GuardDog’s
admission
may
be
the
first
crack
in
the
case,
but
Epic’s
battle
against
Health
Gorilla
is
not
yet
over
—
and
the
outcome
could
shape
how
data
interoperability
is
governed
across
the
healthcare
industry.

Photo:
OsakaWayne
Studios,
Getty
Images

*
DOJ
announces
that
it
will
start
hiring
prosecutors
straight
out
of
law
school.
At
this
point,
replacing
a
whole
US
Attorney’s
Office
with
ChatGPT
wouldn’t
be
a
huge
dropoff.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Supreme
Court
taking
up
case
of
Haitian
and
Syrian
temporary
status
holders
challenging
the
administration
decision
to
arbitrarily
cancel
the
program.
But,
the
Supreme
Court
did
not
use
its
shadowy
authority
to
overturn
the
existing
stays
blocking
Trump
action…
maybe

publicly
insulting
the
Chief
Justice
does
have
consequences.
[MS
Now]

*
CEO
blows
off
lawyers
and
asks
AI
to
get
him
out
of
a
$250
million
contract.
Yadda
yadda
yadda,
he
owes
$250
million.
[404
Media]

*
Judge
voids
illegal
government
appointment.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Todd
Blanche
throws
DOJ
behind
effort
to
help
void
guilty
plea
of
a
man
with
ties
to
Russian
intelligence
who
was
sent
to
prison
for
6
years
for
making
up
a
fake
story
about
Joe
Biden
receiving
a
bribe.
[Mother
Jones]

*
Children
sue
Elon
Musk’s
AI
operation
for
generating
sexually
explicit
images
of
them.
[Reuters]

*
RFK
Jr’s
bid
to
cancel
many
essential
childhood
vaccines
blocked
by
federal
judge.
[Law360]