Perhaps so -- lots of evidence that the constituency for the institution is real small at the Court.
But a different perspective is that both SS and KBJ are making strategic, tactical and collegial errors. And SS realized it.
State Courts continue their long, grinding, resistance to the Federal Arbitration Act (as interpreted by this generation's SCOTUS). I wrote about the latest from the front in Pennsylvania.
substack.com/home/post/p-...
... And another season of putting out bougie grape jelly & oranges in the forlorn hope of a Baltimore Oriole fly-by begins.
#birding
I think Claude simulated the outcome so we're good.
Sure, the Moyn extra sauce. But the gist was the gist!
This is exactly what Moyn said to such a mixed crowd!
I 100% agree: writing as fast as I can!
DE's Chancery Court is creating the most interesting contract doctrine in the country, as corporate actors increasingly contractualize their previously fiduciary relationships.
This month, VC Will innovated in the law of remedy. I wrote about it.
profhoffman.substack.com/p/the-protea...
Just trying to make sure that Julian holds the high ground.
At some level of abstraction you do always agree with yourself so there.
In this video, looking oddly disheveled, I talk to two of the smartest people in the AI-and-Law space, and double down on the value of LLMs for improving A2J and contract interpretation, whatever angsting law professors may say.
www.adr.org/podcasts/ai-...
I think these are both wrong, though for different reasons, but the fact that such big names are pushing these ideas makes me wonder why more journals don't follow the warranty model. Neither Columbia nor Cornell, for instance, says a thing about AI use!
This is a great post. Commoditizing rote tasks makes the bespoke ones more valuable; in the case of contracts, to my mind that’s a case for (among other things) more commercially-minded legal training.
Thanks!
New post, whistling past the graveyard of transactional practice. I ask: if AI is so good at turning nuggets of ideas into text, why would we write contracts down at all?
substack.com/home/post/p-...
A pro-natal policy!
Again, I can only go by my own experience. The sentiments by law professors I see here w/out pushback is pervasive and gross.
And the twitter rancid stuff is mostly bots for people for whatever reason have decided to drink from the sewer hose.
I have no idea what you are seeing on twitter, or why, but my feed there is AI & sports. Whose eyes are you going to believe anyway?
In terms of brain rot, the group think for law professors leading them to truly unfortunate views is a locally bad treatment. But I see much more antisemitism on here than on there, mostly because of LPE law faculty that I happen to follow here but who have left there.
Gotta say, it seems (much) worse to be here every time I pop in.
For a substack, I'm collecting terms about AI use (whether disclosure or warrants against it) in law review publication agreements. Please drop examples below if you are willing -- I think it's interesting to see how journals are (and are not) reacting to the revolution.
Yeah, I don't think that the choice of law clause works perfectly -- though firms try this as arbitrage for noncompetes, ultimately for most things you are going to want the state's own courts to enforce the deal against fraud/tort suits and they are hostile to this gamesmanship.
But one just requires New York or California to act, the other a trifecta and 60 votes in the senate.
I argue that as courts haven’t really tested this boilerplate yet, it would be good to think now about how these terms shape real accountability.
This is a really useful service and a well-designed website!
Surprised random anti-Israel stuff wasn't addended as well.
It now is formatted as if the "Editors" wrote it. LOL, such classic nonsense.
Eh-- it's also 100% true that liberal (mostly conlaw and crimlaw) professors routinely opine about areas well outside of things they've written about, as if clerking for some judge gave a lifetime superpower to be expert on all things.
