- A 34-year-old graduate of Michigan State University College of Law, Victoria Ferres never imagined when she returned home to practice law and help with her mother’s health issues that she would one day be arguing before the nine most powerful justices in the country.
- The level of competition is in large part a product of the court’s shrinking docket. As opportunities to appear in the nation’s most powerful courtroom have declined, a select few repeat players now dominate the lectern, racking up dozens of arguments while leaving fewer opportunities for younger attorneys, female lawyers or litigators of color to make their voices heard at the Supreme Court.
- Those who break in to this crowded field tend to hail from a handful of the country’s top law schools and go on to clerk for a Supreme Court justice or work at the U.S. solicitor general’s office—in other words, not a relatively young partner at a small firm in a small Michigan city at the base of Lake Huron. Ferres was the 22nd attorney to argue before the Supreme Court this term, yet the first woman from a private firm.
On the Appellate AI front, Law360 has 5th Circ. Eyes Barring AI Use, Mandating Accuracy Check
Attorneys before the Fifth Circuit may soon have to inform the federal appeals court that their documents were not written using generative artificial intelligence programs and, if they were, that they were reviewed by humans for accuracy.
The court is accepting comments on the proposed change to its certificate of compliance rules for attorneys and pro se litigants through Jan. 4. Under the proposed rule, "material misrepresentation" of whether generative AI was used in a court document may result in sanctions and the court tossing the document.
Posts
