I have no political party: Chamisa


Chamisa
was
responding
to
a
High
Court
application
filed
by
self-proclaimed
CCC
interim
secretary-general
Sengezo
Tshabangu
on
behalf
of
the
party
seeking
a
court
order
to
compel
alleged
Chamisa
allies
to
vacate
CCC
Bulawayo
offices.

Tshabangu
claims
that
Chamisa
sent
his
proxies
to
paint
CCC
Bulawayo
offices
blue,
following
speculation
that
the
former
CCC
leader
was
forming
another
political
party
with
blue
as
its
main
colour.

In
his
founding
affidavit,
Tshabangu
said:
“They,
indeed,
confirmed
that
a
group
of
unknown
people
of
about
25
to
30
people
comprising
both
male
and
females
had
besieged
applicant’s
Bulawayo
provincial
offices
situated
at
Number
41
Fort
Street,
Between
2nd
and
3rd
Avenue
in
Bulawayo
claiming
to
have
been
sent
by
and
furthering
the
interests
of
the
respondent
(Chamisa),
forcibly
took
occupation,
control
and
possession
of
the
applicant’s
offices.”

But
Chamisa
said
the
application
was
frivolous.

“I
am
presently
not
with
any
movement,
grouping
or
political
party,”
Chamisa
said.

“I
did
not
direct,
require,
or
encourage
anyone
to
take
over
the
premises
which
are
referred
to
by
the
deponent
to
the
founding
affidavit
as
attributed
to
me.
I
resigned
as
the
leader
of
the
applicant
and
since
that
resignation,
have
not
physically
been
to
Bulawayo.

“I
completely
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
applicant
If
there
is
anyone
in
occupation
the
deponent
to
the
founding
affidavit
knows
who
they
are
and
that
it’s
not
me.
The
applicant
must
sue
those
people
if
ever
they
exist,
instead
of
harassing
me.”

Chamisa
accused
Tshabangu
of
using
the
courts
to
gain
relevance.

“My
image
and
name
have
been
appropriated
by
many
people
who
have
no
connection
to
me,”
he
said.

“In
fact,
the
irony
of
the
application
is
that
since
I
resigned
as
the
leader
of
the
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change,
the
applicant
and
the
deponent
to
the
founding
affidavit
have
continued
to
use
my
face
on
their
preferred
logo.
I
wish
to
reiterate
that
I
have
no
special
association
with
any
colour,
any
political
organisation
or
any
movement.”

Chamisa’s
response
came
at
a
time
his
followers
are
anticipating
the
launch
of
a
new
opposition
political
party,
whose
colours
will
be
blue.


NewsDay

Post
published
in:

Featured

Some Rules Are Meant To Be Kept — See Also

Judge Denies Law Student’s Cross-Examination Request: Can’t customize everything.

Who Sent You?: Be careful with who you refer.

Texas Lawyer Finds Fun Way To Get Fired: What else did he expect from talking down to a judge using his firm’s name?

More Money, New Record!: Top 20 firm hits 10th year of record revenue.

Not Sure He Understands Law Or Sports: Lawyer compares bank robber to football stars.

The post Some Rules Are Meant To Be Kept — See Also appeared first on Above the Law.

Today Elon Musk Breaks … Civil Procedure! And Maybe The NLRB! – Above the Law

At
the
tech
policy
podcast Moderated
Content
,
Stanford
Professors
Evelyn
Douek
and
Alex
Stamos
frequently
joke
that
Elon
Musk
is
his
own
law
school
curriculum.
And
it’s
true!
From

contracts
,
to

torts
,
to
the

First
Amendment
,
to

SLAPP
suits
,
the
man
is
a
one-man,
1L
textbook
on
wheels.

Today’s
Elon
Lesson
comes
to
us
in
CivPro,
and
is
entitled
“Why
Do
My
PACER
Alerts

Okay,
Fine,
Court
Listener

Look
Like
That?”

As
usual,
this
hot,
hot
mess
arises
from
the
Boy
Genius’s
thin,
thin
skin.
To
wit,
five
SpaceX
employees
circulated
an
open
letter
in
June
of
2022
via
SpaceX’s
internal
Microsoft
Teams
channel.
In
the
letter,
which
was
later

published

by
The
Verge,
the
employees
called
out
the
company
for
failing
to
support
diversity
and
inclusion,
as
well
as
excoriating
Musk
for
his
constant
loutish
behavior.
(Spoiler
Alert:
It
got
a
lot
worse.)

Space
X
immediately
fired
the
employees,
who
responded
by
filing
a
complaint
with
the
National
Labor
Relations
Board
(NLRB)
alleging
that
the
company
had
interfered
with
their
right
to
organize.
The
NLRB
investigated,
sustained
the
complaint,
and
set
a
March
5
hearing
before
an
administrative
law
judge
in
California,
where
the
employees
work
and
Space
X
is
headquartered.

Naturally
the
company
turned
around
and
sued
the
NLRB
claiming
that
ALJs
are
illegal.
And
they
did
it in
Texas
.

In
one
sense,
suing
in
Texas
was
entirely
logical.
In
2022,
the
Fifth
Circuit

held

in


Jarkesy
v.
SEC
 that
ALJs
are unconstitutional.
The
case
was
argued
at
SCOTUS
in
November,
but
for
the
time
being,
there’s
a
credible
claim
that
ALJs
are
illegal
in
the
Fifth
Circuit.

But
in
another,
more
accurate
sense,
there’s
no
earthly
reason
that
a
California
company
should
be
able
to
forum
shop
its
way
into
Texas
in
a
dispute
over
a
ruling
by
ALJs
in
California
pertaining
to
employees
who
are
also
residents
of
California.

This
was
more
or
less
the
conclusion
of
Judge
Rolando
Olvera,
in
the
Southern
District
of
Texas,
who

transferred

the
case
to
the
Central
District
of
California
on
February
15.
But
before
Judge
Consuelo
Marshall
could
docket
it
in
Los
Angeles,
Space
X
petitioned
the
Fifth
Circuit
on
February
16
for
a
writ
of
mandamus
directing
Judge
Olveras
to
request
that
the
case
be
returned.

Without
opining
on
the
merits
of
Space
X’s
claim
that
it
would
be
grievously
injured
if
forced
to
go
through
with
the
March
5
NLRB
hearing,
the
Fifth
Circuit
administratively

stayed

the
transfer
on
February
19.
But
since
the
transfer
was
already
in
process,
Judge
Marshall
docketed
the
case
in
California
on
February
23.

On
the
26th,
the
Fifth
Circuit
put
out
a

testy
order

claiming
that
it
still
retained
jurisdiction
over
the
case, thank
you
very
much
.

Our
court
has
not
been
stripped
of
its
jurisdiction
until
transfer
has
been
completed.
Transfer
is
not
complete
the
moment
a
case
is
electronically
sent
to
an
out-of-circuit
court.
Rather,
the
case
must
be
both
sent
and
docketed
for
a
transfer
to
be
complete.

The
appellate
panel
instructed
Judge
Olvera
to
request
that
Judge
Marshall
transfer
the
case
back,
and
both
District
judges
complied
forthwith.
This
explains
the
state
of
my
PACER
alerts,
if
not
what
the
hell
this
case
is
still
doing
in
Texas.

As
the
NLRB’s
lawyers
put
it
in
the
agency’s

response

to
the
petition
for
mandamus:

The
California
office
of
a
California
company
fires
eight
employees,
almost
all
of
them
based
in
California.
The
California
regional
office
of
the
National
Labor
Relations
Board
(“NLRB”)
engages
in
a
year-long
investigation,
finds
merit
to
charges
alleging
that
the
firings
were
unlawful,
and
issues
an
administrative
complaint
setting
the
case
for
a
California
hearing.
According
to
Petitioner
Space
Exploration
Technologies
Corp.
(“SpaceX”),
not
only
may
a
challenge
to
the
NLRB’s
proceeding
be
heard
in
Texas,
but
it
is
“clear
and
indisputable”
that
transferring
such
a
challenge
from
Texas
to
California
is
impermissible.
This
not
only
sounds
wrong,
it
is
wrong.
SpaceX’s
venue
arguments
are
meritless.
And
that
is
exactly
what
the
district
court
concluded
before
properly
transferring
the
case
to
the
Central
District
of
California.

Which
sounds
pretty
convincing.
But
this
is
the
Fifth
Circuit
so,
YMMV.


In
re:
Space
Exploration
Technologies

[Fifth
Circuit
Mandamus
Docket,
via
Court
Listener]

Space
X
v.
NLRB

[Central
Dist.
CA
Docket,
via
Court
Listener]

Space
X
v.
NLRB

[Southern
Dist.
TX
Docket,
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Dress Code Dilemmas – Above the Law




Olga MackOlga
V.
Mack



is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored 
Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat
Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security
,
and  
Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities
. She
is
working
on
three
books:



Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on




LinkedIn



and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Cheat Code: How Will AI Affect Legal Research & Writing? – Above the Law


Legal
research
and
writing
had
been
the
oldest
of
old
school
endeavors

even
by
the
turn
of
this
past
century,
lawyers
and
law
students
were
still
going
to
physical
libraries,
to
leaf
through
paper
books. 


Obviously,
that
changed
significantly,
with
the
advent
of
the
internet,
as
law
students
and
attorneys
started
researching
and
drafting
online,
including
in
real-time
collaborative
fashion. 


Now,
as
AI
has
come
to
the
fore,
legal
research
has
been
changing
once
again. 


So,
what
does
this
all
mean
for
lovers
of
legal
research
and
writing? 


We
brought



Ross
Guberman
 of


BriefCatch


onto
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast
in
order
to
find
out.


I
started
the
show
by
asking
Ross
about
his
experience
starting
a
legal
technology
company,
including
getting
to
the
point
of
raising
capital
(5:03). 


Next,
we
discuss
whether
and
how
Ross
plans
to
utilize
AI
in
his
own
product
(7:32),
before
addressing
what
Ross
thinks
the
future
looks
like
for
legal
research
and
writing,
including
the
effect
of
AI
on
that
process
(8:23). 


After
that,
Ross
talks
about
how
AI
will
influence
the
legal
profession
as
a
whole,
into
the
future
(18:22),
including
the
potential
for
custom
GPTs
for
law
firms
(13:27). 


Ross
also
spends
some
time
addressing
grading
in
law
school,
when
students
are
using
AI
(19:44). 


Finally,
Ross
talks
about
how
judges
are
reacting
to
applications
of
AI
(21:17),
as
well
as
addressing
a
recent
case
where
a
court
required
the
disclosure
of
the
use
of
AI
by
attorneys,
and
whether
that
will
become
a
trend
moving
forward
(20:53).


If
you’re
interested
in
the
implications
around
the
use
of
AI
in
the
legal
research
and
drafting
space,
we’ve
got
all
the
angles
covered
in
this
episode
of
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast.

Feel
free
to
also
check
out
the
Non-Event’s Practice
Management
 
buyers
guide
to
view
the
latest
resources.
(The
Non-Event
is
supported
by
vendor
sponsorships.)






Jared
Correia
,
a
consultant
and
legal
technology
expert,
is
the
host
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
the
featured
podcast
of
the
Above
the
Law
Non-Event
for
Tech-Perplexed
Lawyers. 

CRM Banner

Unlocking Client Loyalty: The Art Of Being Indispensable – Above the Law


In
the
competitive
landscape
of
legal
services,
Paul
Grewal
from
Coinbase



recently
cast
a
spotlight


on
a
fundamental
truth: 



“Law
is
as
much
a
service
business
as
any
other.
In
my
experience,
most
lawyers
delude
themselves
into
thinking
they
are
qualified
to
win
client
loyalty
by
their
unique
expertise.
In
reality,
their
only
chance
to
win
is
by
unique
responsiveness
and
attention
to
detail.”


This
insight
not
only
challenges
the
conventional
wisdom
that
legal
expertise
is
the
sole
path
to
client
loyalty
but
also
echoes
the
ethos
of
high-end
concierge
services,
where
going
beyond
the
call
of
duty
to
ensure
satisfaction
is
paramount. 


In
a
profession
teeming
with
talent,
Grewal’s
words
remind
us
that
true
differentiation
and
client
loyalty
require
a
profound
understanding
of
clients’
needs
and
businesses,
akin
to
the
anticipatory
service
provided
by
elite
concierges. 


As
legal
professionals,
stepping
into
the
role
of
a
legal
concierge
means
embracing
this
level
of
unique
responsiveness
to
transcend
mere
expertise
and
truly
secure
client
loyalty.


What
Unique
Responsiveness
Looks
Like:


  1. Proactive
    Communication
    and
    Accessibility
    :
    Embodying
    the
    anticipatory
    service
    of
    a
    concierge,
    attorneys
    should
    not
    only
    await
    client
    inquiries
    but
    actively
    reach
    out
    with
    updates
    and
    insights,
    ensuring
    they
    are
    as
    accessible
    as
    possible.
    This
    includes
    adapting
    to
    clients’
    schedules
    and
    preferences
    for
    communication,
    whether
    it
    means
    being
    available
    outside
    traditional
    office
    hours
    or
    employing
    various
    communication
    platforms
    to
    suit
    their
    convenience.

  2. Customized
    Solutions
    and
    Business
    Insight
    :
    Tailoring
    legal
    strategies
    to
    fit
    the
    unique
    challenges
    and
    goals
    of
    each
    client’s
    business
    is
    crucial.
    Beyond
    offering
    legal
    advice,
    providing
    insights
    on
    industry
    trends,
    regulatory
    changes,
    and
    potential
    business
    opportunities
    positions
    you
    as
    a
    valuable
    business
    advisor,
    enhancing
    the
    client’s
    trust
    and
    reliance
    on
    your
    services.

  3. Personalized
    Engagement
    and
    Educational
    Resources
    :
    Deepening
    client
    relationships
    through
    personalized
    engagement

    recognizing
    milestones
    and
    understanding
    their
    business
    deeply

    fosters
    a
    connection
    that
    goes
    beyond
    the
    professional.
    Complementing
    this
    with
    educational
    resources,
    such
    as
    workshops
    or
    tailored
    briefs,
    empowers
    clients
    and
    demystifies
    complex
    legal
    issues,
    illustrating
    your
    commitment
    to
    their
    success.

  1. Efficiency
    and
    Innovation
    with
    Feedback
    Loops
    :
    Leveraging
    technology
    and
    innovative
    practices
    enhances
    service
    delivery
    efficiency,
    showing
    clients
    that
    their
    time
    and
    resources
    are
    valued.
    Establishing
    regular
    feedback
    mechanisms
    allows
    for
    continuous
    service
    improvement,
    demonstrating
    a
    commitment
    to
    evolve
    in
    alignment
    with
    client
    needs
    and
    preferences.


By
integrating
these
practices,
attorneys
can
transcend
traditional
roles,
becoming
indispensable
partners
who
clients
trust
not
just
for
legal
expertise
but
for
comprehensive,
anticipatory,
and
personalized
service.


Navigating
the
Challenges
of
Unique
Responsiveness


Achieving
unparalleled
client
loyalty
through
unique
responsiveness
presents
its
own
set
of
challenges,
from
maintaining
personal
engagement
within
professional
boundaries
to
managing
a
heavy
caseload
with
efficient
time
management. 


Additionally,
staying
ahead
of
rapidly
evolving
industry
nuances
requires
constant
vigilance.
Tackling
these
issues
head-on,
attorneys
can
harness
technology
and
engage
in
creative
problem-solving
to
enhance
their
service. 


Clear
communication
protocols
can
set
realistic
client
expectations,
while
legal
tech
solutions
streamline
case
management,
freeing
up
valuable
time
for
deeper,
more
personalized
client
interactions. 


This
strategic
use
of
technology,
paired
with
innovative
approaches
to
common
hurdles,
ensures
that
attorneys
can
provide
the
high
level
of
anticipatory
service
that
clients
value,
mirroring
the
adaptability
and
resourcefulness
emblematic
of
the
finest
concierge
services.


Evolving
from
Legal
Expert
to
Indispensable
Partner


In
the
competitive
landscape
of
legal
services,
distinguishing
oneself
goes
beyond
showcasing
legal
expertise;
it
demands
a
deep,
personal
connection
with
clients
and
a
keen
understanding
of
their
business
landscape. 


Attorneys
excel
not
just
by
addressing
the
legal
needs
but
by
becoming
ingrained
in
the
very
fabric
of
their
clients’
strategic
planning
and
execution.
This
holistic
approach
transforms
the
attorney-client
relationship
from
a
traditional,
transactional
model
to
a
dynamic,
strategic
partnership.


Achieving
this
level
of
integration
requires
more
than
just
familiarity
with
the
law;
it
necessitates
a
commitment
to
understanding
the
client’s
industry,
challenges,
aspirations,
and
even
the
nuances
of
their
personal
journey. 


It’s
about
offering
tailored
advice
that
resonates
with
the
client’s
specific
business
goals
and
personal
values,
thereby
fostering
a
bond
that
transcends
the
conventional
boundaries
of
legal
counsel.


The
transformation
into
a
trusted
advisor
signifies
the
pinnacle
of
this
journey. 


Attorneys
who
reach
this
status
do
so
by
proving
themselves
as
not
merely
legal
experts,
but
as
invaluable
assets
to
their
clients’
businesses. 


They
anticipate
needs,
mitigate
risks,
and
provide
innovative
solutions
that
contribute
significantly
to
the
client’s
success. 


This
role
evolves
through
consistent
demonstration
of
value,
adaptability,
and
unwavering
dedication
to
the
client’s
objectives.


Such
trusted
advisors
are
characterized
by
their
proactive
approach
to
communication,
their
ability
to
offer
customized
solutions
that
align
with
business
strategies,
and
their
dedication
to
personal
engagement
that
solidifies
deep-rooted
trust. 


By
embodying
these
qualities,
attorneys
cement
their
role
as
indispensable
partners,
ensuring
their
place
not
just
in
the
boardroom
but
in
the
client’s
vision
of
future
success.


This
seamless
integration
of
legal
expertise
with
business
acumen
and
personal
connection
is
what
sets
apart
the
modern
legal
professional.
It
is
the
essence
of
not
just
meeting
but
exceeding
client
expectations,
paving
the
way
for
enduring
loyalty
and
mutual
success.


Measuring
the
Impact
of
Your
Client-Centric
Strategies


The
journey
toward
a
client-centric
legal
practice
begins
with
implementation,
but
its
true
value
is
gauged
through
continuous
assessment.


Simplified
metrics
such
as
client
retention,
repeat
business,
and
feedback
scores
are
critical
in
understanding
the
effectiveness
of
your
strategies.


Regular
feedback
mechanisms,
whether
through
surveys
or
discussions,
along
with
monitoring
the
impact
of
personalized
interactions,
provide
a
clear
picture
of
client
satisfaction
and
areas
for
refinement.


This
strategic
evaluation
aligns
with
Paul
Grewal’s
insight
into
the
legal
field’s
competitive
nature,
emphasizing
that
client
loyalty
is
not
solely
won
through
expertise
but
through
a
harmonious
blend
of
attentiveness,
personal
connection,
and
alignment
with
client
needs.


Such
a
comprehensive
approach
ensures
your
role
as
a
legal
professional
evolves
from
traditional
advisory
to
an
indispensable
partnership,
consistently
exceeding
expectations
and
fostering
enduring
client
relationships.


Your
Next
Steps
Toward
Client
Loyalty


Transforming
your
legal
practice
with
the
dedication
of
a
concierge
requires
more
than
just
legal
acumen

it
demands
a
commitment
to
unique
responsiveness
and
deep
personal
engagement.


The
journey
may
be
challenging,
but
the
rewards
are
unparalleled.


Start
today
by
choosing
one
area
to
improve
upon,
whether
it’s
enhancing
your
communication
tactics,
deepening
your
understanding
of
a
client’s
business,
or
simply
making
a
more
personal
connection.


Remember,
small
steps
can
lead
to
significant
changes.
Let’s
redefine
the
standard
of
service
in
the
legal
profession,
one
client
relationship
at
a
time.




Sejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy
,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.  

Maine Judge Rushes Solution To Lack Of Public Defenders – Above the Law

Gideon
v.
Wainwright

cemented
a
person’s
right
to
counsel
in
criminal
matters,
even
if
the
accused
cannot
afford
a
lawyer.
For
years
now,
Maine
has
been
struggling
to
enforce
that
right

the
state
is
so
desperate
for
lawyers
that

someone
resorted
to
using
Reddit
like
LinkedIn
.
Things
looked
up
when
they
hired
public
defenders
in
2022,

but
five
people
could
only
do
so
much
statewide
.
While
there’s
no
overnight
solution
to
Maine’s
lack
of
public
defenders,
a
judge
is
rushing
someone
to
figure
out
an
answer.
From
the

Associated
Press
:

A
judge
has
rejected
a
second
proposed
settlement
for
improving
Maine’s
system
for
providing
attorneys
for
residents
who
cannot
afford
them,
and
she
won’t
be
waiting
for
a
third
try.

Justice
Michaela
Murphy
gave
the
ACLU
of
Maine
until
March
8
to
file
a
new
civil
complaint
to
include
new
claims
as
part
of
a
two-step
process.
The
first
phase
would
focus
on
helping
defendants
who
are
currently
without
lawyers,
while
a
second
phase
will
focus
on
systemic
changes
needed
to
meet
obligations
going
forward
in
future
years.

In
her
decision,
dated
Tuesday,
Murphy
chided
the
parties
for
presenting
her
with
another
settlement
proposal
that
didn’t
guarantee
attorneys
to
393
indigent
clients
who
currently
lack
them.
Of
those,
about
100
are
currently
in
custody
in
jails
across
the
state.

A
major
part
of
the
problem
is
the
high
cost
of
entry.
Law
school
isn’t
cheap
and
delving
into
debt
so
you
can
snag
a
low-paying
legal
job
with
gravitas
and
a
backlog
of
people
in
prison
who
need
your
help
is
a
hard
ask.
Also,
you’d
have
to
live
in
Maine!
The
easy
long-term
solution
is
much
more
robust
funding.
The
short-term
answer
is
a
lot
harder
to
find.


Judge
Rejects
Settlement
Aimed
At
Ensuring
Lawyers
For
Low-Income
Defendants

[Associated
Press]



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
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Cheat Code: How Will AI Affect Legal Research & Writing? – Above the Law


Legal
research
and
writing
had
been
the
oldest
of
old
school
endeavors

even
by
the
turn
of
this
past
century,
lawyers
and
law
students
were
still
going
to
physical
libraries,
to
leaf
through
paper
books. 


Obviously,
that
changed
significantly,
with
the
advent
of
the
internet,
as
law
students
and
attorneys
started
researching
and
drafting
online,
including
in
real-time
collaborative
fashion. 


Now,
as
AI
has
come
to
the
fore,
legal
research
has
been
changing
once
again. 


So,
what
does
this
all
mean
for
lovers
of
legal
research
and
writing? 


We
brought



Ross
Guberman
 of


BriefCatch


onto
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast
in
order
to
find
out.


I
started
the
show
by
asking
Ross
about
his
experience
starting
a
legal
technology
company,
including
getting
to
the
point
of
raising
capital
(5:03). 


Next,
we
discuss
whether
and
how
Ross
plans
to
utilize
AI
in
his
own
product
(7:32),
before
addressing
what
Ross
thinks
the
future
looks
like
for
legal
research
and
writing,
including
the
effect
of
AI
on
that
process
(8:23). 


After
that,
Ross
talks
about
how
AI
will
influence
the
legal
profession
as
a
whole,
into
the
future
(18:22),
including
the
potential
for
custom
GPTs
for
law
firms
(13:27). 


Ross
also
spends
some
time
addressing
grading
in
law
school,
when
students
are
using
AI
(19:44). 


Finally,
Ross
talks
about
how
judges
are
reacting
to
applications
of
AI
(21:17),
as
well
as
addressing
a
recent
case
where
a
court
required
the
disclosure
of
the
use
of
AI
by
attorneys,
and
whether
that
will
become
a
trend
moving
forward
(20:53).


If
you’re
interested
in
the
implications
around
the
use
of
AI
in
the
legal
research
and
drafting
space,
we’ve
got
all
the
angles
covered
in
this
episode
of
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast.

Feel
free
to
also
check
out
the
Non-Event’s Practice
Management
 
buyers
guide
to
view
the
latest
resources.
(The
Non-Event
is
supported
by
vendor
sponsorships.)






Jared
Correia
,
a
consultant
and
legal
technology
expert,
is
the
host
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
the
featured
podcast
of
the
Above
the
Law
Non-Event
for
Tech-Perplexed
Lawyers. 

CRM Banner

How Appealing Weekly Roundup – Above the Law

(Image
via
Getty)




Ed.
Note
:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog
,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.


“New
website
will
let
law
clerks
judge
their
judges”:

Rachel
Weiner
of
The
Washington
Post
recently
had

this
report
.


“AI
Use
in
Law
Practice
Needs
Common
Sense,
Not
More
Court
Rules”:

David
Lat
has

this
new
installment

of
his
“Exclusive
Jurisdiction”
column
online
at
Bloomberg
Law.


“Pa.
High
Court
Cleared
Up
a
Big
Strict
Products
Liability
Law
Question
in
‘Sullivan’”:

Jeffrey
F.
Laffey
has

this
essay

online
at
The
Legal
Intelligencer,
Philadelphia’s
daily
newspaper
for
lawyers.


“Why
Did
the
Supreme
Court
Wait
So
Long
to
Decide
to
Set
the
Trump
Criminal
Immunity
Case
for
Full
Hearing
and
Argument?
It
Likely
Means
No
Trial
for
Trump
on
Election
Subversion
Before
the
Election.”

Rick
Hasen
has

this
post

at
his
“Election
Law
Blog.”


“They’re
always
guilty
.
.
.
or
are
they?
The
deceptively
simple
case
of
Diaz
v.
United
States.”

Adam
Unikowsky
has

this
post

at
his
Substack
site,
“Adam’s
Legal
Newsletter.”