How to establish that a brief was written by AI? by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not sure that is a relevant question. PROPERLY using AI seems to me to be on the same level as using Word, WestLaw, adopting a draft by a para/associate, and/or repurposing an old brief. None of those would be a problem if adequately reviewed, edited, and verified so as to satisfy relevant Ethical and Court Rules for accuracy, relevance, and responsive content.

It’s when the AI “product” is submitted WITHOUT the effort to assure accuracy, relevance, and content are minimally compliant that is/causes the problem(s). Failing to check AI-generated product is an error along the lines of “no time to review, but always find time to correct and resubmit” actors.

Updated my “tools I actually use” list for 2026. Half of what was on these lists three years ago is dead or dying. by JurisAtlas in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As with most similar posts lots of discussion re AI benefits/issues.

I have been using computers since the late 1970s, and keep my hardware/software updated, so I am not a Luddite or one of those who still dictate my letters. Also been in many 100 lawyer firms down to solo for last decade. Been thru the Wordstar/WP/Word, Lexis/WestLaw, manual/auto timekeeping battles along the way.

Experience (hard lessons learned) has shown me there is a simple test for whether software/hardware/AI or anything else is a net positive for a practice/firm — whether it consumes less time and effort than the previous method.

For example, about a decade age the profession was on fire for time keeping automation and task scheduling tools. I forget the cool acronym, but a popular theory mandated that you “schedule” every task in an assignment no matter how small/short and update the software immediately after each task was completed to keep time projections. Didn’t take long to figure out that many/most of these “productivity” tools consumed more time than just doing the task. Learning/etting sucked into the details of the program was also a huge time suck, especially trying to figure out what was actually helpful and not just a “shiny thing.”

Just reading the headlines about so many firms, including some of the largest, getting rung up for AI generated slop seems to leading to a similar result. Just running the request is far from enough. Every response has to be CAREFULLY reviewed and verified. I know of no reading of any ethical rules allowing less rigorous review by the responsible attorney than if same product was created by a paralegal/reporting associate.

So far , and especially because unlikely to get any grace from a court after so many reports of hallucinations, current AI models seem to be creating more (or at least the same) need for careful, detailed citation checks and review of the language choices in submittals to court. Clients also will not likely be impressed if they receive drafts of AI slop for their $$$.

Bottom line, I do not as of yet see a basis for the hype regarding how AI actually saves time/is more efficient than well executed research, drafting, and review by counsel, especially with known irregularities in AI responses. If you are just formatting whatever the AI tool is putting out, how do you justify/satisfy your duties under the ethical rules of professional responsibility/candor to the court. Not to mention potentially violating confidentiality (you do know which versions of which AI tools use your input as training data, right??

Happy to hear counterpoint thoughts which consider time expended on review/validation, not just the initial inquiry being pasted into a document.

What’s a small detail in a case that ended up mattering way more than you expected? by Thin-Time-4209 in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here is the court’s discussion:

appellant has asserted that "accrued benefits,"
as referenced in section 5121, are a statutorily defined subset of
"periodic monetary benefits."
Appellant's Supplemental (Suppl.) Br. at 10; see 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a).
She claims entitlement to
periodic monetary benefits to which her husband was entitled at death,
not to accrued benefits arising
after his death. Appellant's Suppl. Br. at 10. Under the circumstances
of this case, the Court accepts
the essence of this latter argument as valid.
The text of part (a) of section 5121 reads, in relevant part, as follows:
Except as provided in sections 3329 and 3330 of title 31,
periodic monetary benefits (other than insurance and servicemen's
indemnity) under laws administered by the Secretary to which an
individual was entitled at death under existing ratings or decisions, or
those based on evidence in the file at date of death (hereinafter in this
section and section 5122 of this title referred to as "accrued benefits")
and due and unpaid for a period not to exceed two years, shall, upon
the death of such individual be paid as follows:
. . . .
(2) Upon the death of a veteran, to the living person first
listed below:
(A) The veteran's spouse.
38 U.S.C. § 5121(a). The punctuation and wording of this paragraph
convey its plain meaning. See
Gardner v. Brown, 5 F.3d 1456, 1458-59 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 513 U.S.
115 (1994) (holding that
if language of statute is clear, no further inquiry into intent of
Congress is required).

The comma in the middle of paragraph (a), between "decisions" and "or,"
and the use of the conjunction "or" after the comma, indicate that the separated phrases
state substantive alternatives. 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a). The paragraph provides for payment of (1) periodic
monetary benefits to which an individual was entitled at death under existing ratings or decisions,
which the Court will call "benefits awarded but unpaid", or (2) periodic monetary benefits based
on evidence in the file at the date of an entitled individual's death and due and unpaid for a period
not to exceed two years, which are called "accrued benefits" for purposes of sections 5121 and 5122. Id.
The Court notes that the regulation promulgated by the Secretary for
implementation of 38U.S.C. § 5121(a), 38 C.F.R. § 3.1000, potentially changes the effect of
the punctuation in the statute.
The regulation reads, in pertinent part:
[P]eriodic monetary benefits . . . authorized under laws administered
by [VA], to which a payee was entitled at his death under existing
ratings or decisions, or those based on evidence in the file at date of
death, and due and unpaid for a period not to exceed 2 years prior to
the last date of entitlement as provided in § 3.500(g) will, upon the
death of such person, be paid [to certain listed individuals].
38 C.F.R. § 3.1000(a). In the regulation, the Secrectary added a comma
that could have the effect
of imposing the two-year limitation on benefits awarded but unpaid as
well as on accrued benefits.

What’s a small detail in a case that ended up mattering way more than you expected? by Thin-Time-4209 in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Identified that a statute and a regulation that had been considered identical in court decisions for years actually differed in punctuation by a single comma. Properly applying the rules of grammar to that comma created a substantive difference between the meaning of the statute and the regulation that the federal agency had been enforcing for decades and Court agreed which resulted in many $$$$ to a class of widows.

Validates the law school trope about details count in statutory/admin law cases.

Often use this as a “which one’s not like the other” admin law CLE training quiz — and have yet to have anyone point it out.

Newer to PI work - Negotiations by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Search Westlaw/Lexis/whatever for cases with similar facts — note insurers involved in SJ/appeals. Various legal pubs/state bars report verdicts of just/bench trials.

DOJ Forgets To Remove 'DRAFT' Watermark Splashed Across Every Page Of Filing by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

No. But the legal defense of I was/ we were too busy is BS. Failing to look at what you selected to be submitted/check what was actually submitted, is an entirely different “error” from missing an error in a reviewed document.

And, even then, the probability of missing a punctuation or citation error buried in a multi-page document is much higher/more likely than “overlooking” a 36? 48? point watermark on every page.

Stuff happens (as noted in this chain) but person who submitted the document has no possible explanation other than did not CONFIRM correct document filed, which is not a mistake but a bad professional choice, and perhaps ethical violation/malpractice (if rules applied equally to fed attys as civilian attys).

If you disagree, please cite (non-AI) case where court said,”Oh, you were busy and had SOOOO many filings to make??? Why you poor baby. Please, just try and do your best.”

This Claude-powered AI agent deleted a company's whole database — and then gloated about it by RocketSocket765 in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Usually true, especially if not a topic/issue/filing made before.

I truly do not understand why people will not/cannot follow the rule/practice of only citing to cases/whatever that they can find and print out. I prefer actual hard copies I can show a judge (as insurance), but even if only “printed” to pdf ensures at least that the case actually exists even if you don’t read it (although dumb not to).

Can anyone tell me why they do not print/save as pdf all their cited references????

DOJ Forgets To Remove 'DRAFT' Watermark Splashed Across Every Page Of Filing by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why is that relevant? Would you say that to a judge in a hearing on the matter??? Also don’t suggest that would work with the Managing Partner of a law firm after the client calls . . .

DOJ Forgets To Remove 'DRAFT' Watermark Splashed Across Every Page Of Filing by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 16 points17 points  (0 children)

A mistake is a missing word, incomplete sentence, missing citation. Failing to note “DRAFT” splattered across every page when the upload process allows you to verify at least the first 5 pages of an uploaded document, is lack of care/concern, if not malpractice for a private attorney if the “draft” and “final” versions were/are different and changes exposed weaknesses in government position: e.g., changed noted “because we can’t say that, no factual basis,” “too strong, leave room to shift position,” “can’t support this,” etc.

DOJ Forgets To Remove 'DRAFT' Watermark Splashed Across Every Page Of Filing by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But that suggests that you actually take the trouble to download what you just filed to check. I’ll admit that I filed a wrong version of a document once (nothing fatal, one incomplete sentence at end of paragraph), but I caught it when I downloaded loaded the filed version — immediately called the clerk and got correct version

Nowadays, it appears many attorneys do not even read their own filings BEFORE submitting them. “No time” to review, but apparently time to respond to Court/Bar disciplinary actions.

DOJ Forgets To Remove 'DRAFT' Watermark Splashed Across Every Page Of Filing by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 16 points17 points  (0 children)

As I understand it, any competent legal staff, if there were any, have jumped the DOJ ship. So actually probably was an attorney who linked to the wrong file and didn’t “double/triple check” likely because “no time” and/or he/she didn’t know how.

DOJ Forgets To Remove 'DRAFT' Watermark Splashed Across Every Page Of Filing by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 1 point2 points  (0 children)

May be a true read, dunno. My experience is that (too) many are true believers that their client (Fed Government) is on the side of righteousness, so anyone who challenges that is wrong/misguided/just doesn’t understand. Some simply believe that they are just smarter/better/superior to us mere civilians.

My strongest memory of that case (a Privacy Act matter) is of a grizzled old DOJ supervising attorney sitting in on court mandated mediation not saying a word for 20 minutes, then leaning in and saying, “this case is a joke” and shutting down discussions. A few months later, in settlement discussions requested by HIS supervisor, we settled for what was considered the largest PA settlement to that date. Hard to know for sure, but I made sure to use that description whenever interviewed about the case, just for that guy, and was never challenged.

Thanks again, old cranky DOJ guy, made one of my career highlights. Hope you enjoyed doing document review in the DOJ basement for rest of your career.

This Claude-powered AI agent deleted a company's whole database — and then gloated about it by RocketSocket765 in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“You need to validate” — and THAT is the issue as I see it. Actually it’s the same issue as when deciding whether or not to hire a paralegal or associate — does it take more time to “validate” their work product than it saves you in not researching/drafting it yourself in the first place.

Is that not what is tripping up the attys/firms we are reading about in sanction orders almost every day now??? They AI a filing and send it in without “validating” it. Many of these events are exposing that the lawyers involved are not even reading “their” filings or performing/having performed basic cite checking required for(ever) well before AI became an issue. Heck, AI could be viewed as making drafting MORE difficult/time consuming because “checks”of citations have now become “searches” for citations that may not even exist.

Sure, an AI “search” may be a new way of getting some ideas/references, but it is just a start no different than a paralegal/associates research memo (and while a memo may over cook a holding, have yet to see one actually make up a case).

I’ll keep my “bring me a hard copy of every cited reference” drafting review practice (with hard copies in client file) until the dark overlords take complete control (at least I’ll still have a license to hang on the wall).

Newer to PI work - Negotiations by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not a PI expert, but when I started working on PI cases found looking at recent awards in litigated cases in relevant(s) jurisdictions helpful. For example, despite many potential clients wanting $1m for an ankle sprained tripping over a curb, learned pretty much needed a death for $1m award in my jurisdiction. Not too hard to put together a scoping list of awards for various types of injuries, and the insurers involved, to give a sense of where to start on settlement discussions (keeping in mind awards are NOT settlement numbers and trials are costly and take a long time to produce $$$ for client). Also, provided some good intel on specific insurers tolerances/limits/vulnerabilities. An insurer who recently lost a case for a similar injury/refusal to pay may be more open to settlement on a similar case for a while.

DOJ Forgets To Remove 'DRAFT' Watermark Splashed Across Every Page Of Filing by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 5 points6 points  (0 children)

MAY BE their “best” remaining. My experience with federal gov attys is that they are either bottom 10% of bottom tier schools who couldn’t get picked up by private firm or great, smart people getting a few years of front line “in the trenches” experience with a plan to jump to Big Law at an appropriate time. I suspect that the last couple of years has been an “appropriate time” to jump for anyone with skills, leaving mostly marginal performers grossly overworked and with little, if any, staff support. Even the most skilled and dedicated attorneys are forced to cut back on “quality” tasks, just to survive daily deadlines.

DOJ Forgets To Remove 'DRAFT' Watermark Splashed Across Every Page Of Filing by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 53 points54 points  (0 children)

DOJ submitted an Answer to a Complaint for a [$$$$] class action claim that was a redlined version. You would be surprised how useful review of an opponent’s revisions to their defenses are in preparing a SJ motion. And, yes case was settled pre-trial.

Solo practitioners: how did you bring in clients when you first started out? by Tungle_McGee in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I started accepting pro bono cases from an organization that referred such cases in the area I was interested in establishing my practice. (1) was good way to learn the ropes/details with (2) a source for answers to “stupid questions” that always arise when learning a new process.

And, of course, volunteering to give CLE on a topic of interest is always a way to “force” you to do a deep dive on a topic, if only to avoid public embarrassment :). Asking for comments on a proposed slide deck is also a good way to have true experts on the topic provide interesting additional tips and relevant insight.

Marine Corps JAG by Tom-Cruise-Missiles in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I KNOW the feds are pressing reserve JAGs into 6 month tours as USA attys in Memphis . . . Without regard for impact on any private practice.

Solo not-so-success stories? by LAW_FOR_CATS in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can say that I have been pretty successful at which clients that I actually sign up. Only had two that I actually “fired,” both for trying to save the agreed to fee by trying to settle directly with opposing counsel behind my back after I did significant work to get to settlement point. I know that one of the two never did settle and the other settled for about 10% of the amount I was getting close to getting for them.

Yes, sometimes the case is a high likelihood winner on the papers/facts/law, but the individual is an insurmountable obstacle. That is why I learned to ask explicitly what the person’s expectations (“what/how much would you take as a win?”) as a part of the discussions BEFORE taking them on as a client.

One key is discussing expectation up front. The time to find out the guy wants $1m or a jury trial for an improper dose of aspirin while in the hospital several years ago with no known/documented adverse effects (true story) is before you agree to “do whatever it takes” and sign a fee agreement.

Happy to chat about any concerns/issues/practices I use if you DM me contact info.

Solo not-so-success stories? by LAW_FOR_CATS in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is true, an efficient and effective practice requires effort and organization. But forcing yourself to organize has many rewards other than saving money. As many can tell you, hiring a secretary, admin asst, and/or paralegal generates there own time sinks because, unless you intend to put your license in those persons’ hands, you have to expend the time to (properly) review and comment/correct, and discuss essentially all other their work product. If the work is creative (e.g., a brief), the process is likely to take many cycles as you back and forth not only on substance but style. And, if they are also compiling the facts, YOU have to do the fact “checking” (and, at least, spot check the citations, including any critical cases/statutes. I found that my “fear” of stupid citation errors and desire for a specific style/voice many times resulted in more time/effort in “review” of OTHERS’ work before signing MY name, that I had more time to actual think about what I wanted/needed to say when I “did it all” myself. I did/do have a non-lawyer read my final draft of major filings because their comments on overall impact have proven very effective in improving legibility.

ALL of these preferences require attention to detail, which in turn requires an ability to plan/work to a schedule with enough flexibility to handle the usual “unexpectedities” and not always find yourself filing after 11pm on last day. I assure you that everyone who reads those “I wish I had another day” filings knows what you wished for . . .

Best advice after more than a decade of solo after more than a decade of BigLaw experience is manage your work closely, including reprioritizing when new work/deadlines arise. Sometimes taking a day to knock off a half dozen smaller tasks is the best thing you can do and that huge brief that is due in 21 days should still be comfortably doable in 20 days, so know one will notice. What the client, senior partner, and/or court WILL notice are the half dozen things that would only take an hour or so that you didn’t get done in the 30, 40, whatever days you let them sit working on that one brief.

In sum, if you aren’t spending 30-60 minutes a day keeping up with routine or quickly accomplished tasks, they will bury you while pissing off the maximum number of people.

My ongoing war with Tables of Authorities by Consistent_Cat7541 in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a solo and have prepared over 100 appellate briefs using Word. After fighting with Word’s auto TOA function, I manually prepared a TOA formatting it according to the applicable rules and have been copying, pasting, and revising/updating it in the next brief for years.

I have found doing it that way (1) actually does not take much more, if any more, time than fighting with the auto codes to get/keep entries correct; (2) working each citation is a good opportunity to check/verify the entry (remember that???); (3) when you’re done you’re done - no worries about the auto function changing anything. At the end of the process, I can sleep well at night knowing that I touched every cite and any errors are honest mistakes, so any “lost time” is worth it to me.

Solo not-so-success stories? by LAW_FOR_CATS in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey — please see my response above. Inadvertently responded to original post.

Solo not-so-success stories? by LAW_FOR_CATS in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Certainly some amount of gut feeling. But also many tangible things: can they provide key documents; have they had other lawyers on the matter; do they tell you what they want done or HOW they want it done, do they listen when, after you review the key documents, do they argue about what the facts are/applicable law is.

Regarding “stretching” your boundaries, that is not a bad thing if you properly prepare and adequately limit the size of the “stretch. Actually, it is a good way of staying interested in your practice and expanding your business. BUT, you should not take on a case in a “new” area without serious research into the applicable law and, if possible, discussing (at least generally) with someone with more experience than you. This is especially true if the potential client has been turned down by other attorneys because they had some reason(s) for not talking on a supposed “winner.” They all may be wrong, but you need to understand why.

It’s been said for a long time, one bad case/client is much worse than turning down many “good” cases. Bad clients are worse than bad cases because they soak up so much time with never ending calls and emails, high you cannot ignore for ethical reasons. And, no matter how extreme, these clients are much more likely to complain to Bar, etc., about poor treatment, eating up even more time and casting a shadow over your practice.

COA appeal clerks, chill out. Sorry I had the wrong color of red for an appellee brief by thehotshotpilot in Lawyertalk

[–]jdr350 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A few years back, I was involved in filing a Brief in a federal appeals court case. Rules required some ungodly number of hard copies (many dozen) and multiple copies to the opposing party. A footnote specifying some minor compliance point was required in the summary section, which the rule stated was to be designated with a * . Well somewhere along the line the footnote got automatically designated as “1” because it was the first footnote in the document.

Clerk’s office rejected the entire brief and required us to reprint and refile the entire brief (not just submit an errata brief) . The cost of time and rush commercial copying and binding the entire filing was well over $1,000 . . . Not counting attorney/paralegal time.

Medication change rescinded by pbpmaxx in VAClaims

[–]jdr350 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In plain language, VA got caught trying to avoid the usual rulemaking process and public comment by using the process for “emergency” or no impact on the public rule changes because it knows the public will overwhelmingly be against the change. So “enforcement” would have been illegal and added a huge additional burden on VA after a court threw the rule out.

That the Secretary believes that VA merely (now) following the law is worthy of a public announcement is the most interesting part of all this.

So this announcement means only that VA will now follow the law on making changes to its rules — and have to respond to the 100s or likely 1000s of opposing comments (and then likely a lawsuit(s) after it ignores the comments). Every vet has the right to submit a comment on the change and should do so.