Friday's DJ had John Roemer's The Doghouse Report: The incredible shrinking Supreme Court about the "low productivity" of the California Supreme Court.
Retired PJ Gilbert's March DJ column is What's in a name? -- Names--whether of institutions, leaders, or individuals--carry lasting influence on reputation, authority and personal identity.
And Myron Moskovitz's column is 'Will AI replae me?' Let's ask AI.
here's how I phrased my query to ChatGPT: "Will AI ever do a better job of writing appellate briefs and arguing appeals than experienced appellate lawyers?" ChatGPT provided a long, detailed answer (quickly!): "Yeah--eventually, in a lot of narrow ways, AI will do parts of appellate work better than most humans. But the full 'better appellate lawyer than the best appellate lawyers' thing is a much harder, messier, slower target. Think of it like this: appellate law is one of the most AI-friendly areas of legal practice and one of the most human-dependent at the same time."
ChatGPT says: "Most appeals are lost because the lawyer picks the wrong hill to die on. AI can list ten issues. A great appellate lawyer knows the one that matters. That's not pattern recognition--it's strategy."
.png)
And see LACBA Condemns Personal Attacks on Supreme Court Justices and Affirming Judicial Independence
And see American Bar Association statement on personal attacks against Supreme Court justices
Posts
