Judge Wingate explains GenAI mistake in Mississippi court

This lawyer stated at oral argument that "he typically did not read the cases he cited in pleadings." Clients deserve better than this. 😞 "Here, counsel admitted to not having a Lexis or Westlaw subscription because he 'does very little appellate work.' Instead of adequately preparing himself regarding the law, counsel left this work, in part, to his law clerk, a non-lawyer, and then failed to verify the accuracy of the research. He stated that he 'was not involved directly in the research of the offending citations,' yet he did not confirm how the cases that were cited were obtained, without Lexis or Westlaw, and he asked only if the law clerk had verified the citations to the cases, which he had not read. In our view, this does not satisfy the requirement of competent representation. A competent attorney reads the legal authority cited in court pleadings to make sure that they stand for the proposition for which they are cited. [¶ . . . ¶] The brief here did not contain an isolated instance of a citation mistake. Rather, it cited multiple cases that did not exist, as well as others that did not support the proposition for which they were cited. When asked at oral argument about the concern when a lawyer obviously has not read the cases cited to the court, counsel indicated that this was not a unique circumstance, stating that he typically did not read the cases he cited in pleadings submitted to the court. Based on all the circumstances, we shall refer this case to the Attorney Grievance Commission." #AI #CiteChecking #Abdication #ReadYourCases

Practice tip of the day. At oral argument this week at the Supreme Court, the lawyers in one case collectively said "I think" more than 200 times. This is a bad habit that is hard to break, but you should try. Courts don't care what you think. Your response to a question should generally begin with "yes," "no," "it depends," "let me explain," "that is not what this court has said," or something along those lines. Avoid "I think," "we think," "I believe," "we believe," "I don't think so," "we doesn't think so," etc. This is also true in legal writing. Avoid "it is the appellant's position," "plaintiff would argue," "plaintiff believes the trial court got it wrong," etc. Just say what you want to say. Use strong, declarative statements. Govern yourself accordingly. 🤣

In law, everyone talks about arguments, drafting, research and “knowing the law.” But there is one part of our profession that’s rarely spoken about: Waiting ⏳ Waiting for your matter to be called. Waiting outside a packed courtroom. Waiting through a long cause list. Waiting for that one opportunity to be heard. As lawyers, we imagine the profession to be dynamic and fast. But in reality, advocacy teaches us patience before it teaches us persuasion. In those long hours of waiting, we observe. We learn how seniors navigate the court. We understand the mood of the bench. We reflect, prepare and improve. And when our turn finally comes — sometimes for barely 5 minutes — those 5 minutes can decide our client’s future. Advocacy is not just about arguing. It is also about patience. About timing. About knowing when to speak — and when to simply wait. Those who learn to wait… Often learn to win.

Because Even Courts Deserve an “Edit” Option. Ever wished you could fix that one tiny typo after sending an important email? Well, the law feels you. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) gives Courts the power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders, the legal equivalent of hitting “Backspace” on an error that sneaked in. In simple words, if the Court accidentally wrote “₹10,000” instead of “₹1,00,000” or misspelled a party’s name or accidentally slipped one of the reliefs (seem to have happened in my case lately), Section 152 steps in to save the day. We can say, it’s justice’s own auto-correct — minus the annoying “Did you mean?” suggestions of course. Why It Matters? Because justice shouldn’t suffer due to a slip of the pen or a typing blunder. Section 152 ensures that the intent of a judgment shines through, unclouded by minor human errors. But here’s the catch, the magic of Section 152 doesn’t work automatically. It often takes vigilance on our part as Advocates to spot these slips, bring them to the Court’s notice, and ensure that the record reflects what justice truly intended. After all, the final word in a case isn’t just written, it’s proofread by diligence. And it is provisions like these which can make us say, “Mistakes may be human, but Section 152 makes the law humane.” In a nutshell, Section 152 CPC isn’t about changing minds, it’s about correcting fingers. Because sometimes, the difference between justice and a typo, is just one zero or an accidental press on the delete/backspace key, and one diligent Advocate. :) #litigation #litigationinsights #lawyerslife #delhicourts #courtoflaw #orderorder #legal

This week's blog post by Rachel Yates gives actionable advice for appellate lawyers. 🧠 The article offers much wisdom. Here are two of the post's pointers: 🔹 Keep your brief brief. 🔹 Get a second set of eyes on your brief. https://lnkd.in/eftHPAXv

Ever wondered what the real difference is between an appellant, litigant, prosecutor, complainant, and witness? In law, these terms are often used interchangeably in conversation, but they each represent very different roles in a legal proceeding. Understanding them is essential for law students, aspiring advocates, researchers, and anyone following court cases. This visual breakdown by The Lawscape makes it simple and clear. 📚 ✔ Appellant — challenges a court’s decision ✔ Litigant — party suing or being sued ✔ Prosecutor — represents the State in criminal trials ✔ Complainant — brings the grievance or accusation ✔ Witness — provides evidence based on what they know/observed Knowing these distinctions helps us analyze legal matters more accurately and communicate with precision. 📌 Save this for future reference, and feel free to share it with fellow law learners. 🔔 Follow The Lawscape for more simplified legal concepts and courtroom insights.

What Harvard Law Professor Ben Eidelson wanted seemed straightforward: a quick, uncluttered, and polished way to access and read judicial opinions on his computer and phone. But when he couldn’t find an app that matched what he was looking for, he didn’t give up. Last month, Eidelson officially launched Case Viewer, an app that retrieves and displays judicial opinions and federal statutes in a clean, unfussy format, along with a variety of optional enhancements. “I was just constantly frustrated with the usual ways of accessing these documents that are at the center of a lot of what we do,” Eidelson explains. “The big commercial legal research services are bloated and slow and make you dig through all these layers of junk to get to the actual opinions in a case. And there are some great free databases, but they can also be unwieldy.” Case Viewer pulls from publicly available sources, including the Library of Congress, CourtListener, and the four centuries of case law digitized by Harvard Law’s Caselaw Access Project. 🔗 : https://bit.ly/3LD3okZ

When we say we have the best database of Canadian lawyers - we mean it. Lexter's database now contains well over 50+ million points of data! That is a number that blows me away. When I began Lexter I had no ideas about the complexities and challenges that arise when working with large complicated heterogenous data sets. It's been a steep learning curve. Most (including me when I began) don't realize that gathering data is actually the easiest part of the process. Parsing it, organizing it, and building fast systems of recall for that data is the real challenge. Consider that every law firm has their own nomenclature when it comes to practice areas labeling, industries they cover, etc And each individual person may list things in their background in a different way - all of which has to normalized, categorized, and broken into its atomic level data. Which then has to be recalled amazingly fast when searched. To show the complexity, take me for example. I graduated from Dalhousie law school. But in my data online I could also have said "Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University", or Weldon Law School (as it was then), or The Schulich School of Law (as it is now). I could have said my degree was a LL.b, L.Lb, Ll.b, LL.B, JD, J.D., J.d., etc all of which mean the one thing. As humans we can very quickly identify meaning - but machines and computers are different. They see that all as different things and it requires smart systems to properly evaluate and classify. The last few years my team has been hard at work building the processes and systems designed specifically to deal with data in the legal industry - with all our industry nuances. Why do all of this? You're about to see real soon! Stay tuned :)

⚖️ Is Precedent Holding Back Legal Creativity? A recent PiperJuris blog post raises an important point: while precedent provides stability, it can also restrict creative legal thinking. The article argues that judges sometimes feel bound by earlier decisions even when those rulings no longer fit modern realities — and that this rigidity can prevent the law from evolving. Creative advocacy and flexible judicial reasoning aren’t optional; they’re essential for keeping the legal system fair and relevant. A great reminder that precedent should guide us, not cage us. https://lnkd.in/euyh9wEg

Self-represented litigants often struggle with procedural issues rather than the merits of their cases. The Legal Calculus Educational System (LCES) addresses this by reframing civil procedure into a navigable algorithmic system, incorporating three enforcement rules: jurisdictional predicate checks, mandatory procedural sequencing, and systematic evidentiary indexing. Built on Notion AI, the LCES acts as a procedural governor, preventing non-compliant filings before they are submitted. The Mayron Arizona special action illustrates how even skilled professionals can fail procedurally without such a system, as they continued to file after jurisdiction had declined, missed fee requirements, and inundated dockets with moot submissions. Court leniency often exacerbates this issue, leading to over-filing and judicial exhaustion. To implement the LCES, court partnerships are essential for integrating its templates into e-filing systems, alongside unbundled legal services for substantive review. This approach transforms the access-to-justice challenge for self-represented litigants from a complex problem into a solvable engineering challenge. The LCES framework not only aims to assist litigants but also exposes how procedural complexity can be used to avoid substantive rulings. The Mayron case exemplifies this issue, as it became ensnared in circular arguments where the court declined jurisdiction, leading to subsequent filings being deemed procedurally defective. The key insight of the LCES is its potential to enhance transparency in judicial processes. If jurisdiction genuinely does not exist, the system clarifies why and identifies the correct forum. Conversely, if procedural complexities are used as a means to avoid addressing settled law, this becomes apparent when the algorithmic logic fails. Reframing the narrative from merely "helping confused litigants" to "exposing judicial gatekeeping through algorithmic transparency" may be a compelling argument for institutional adoption. Courts acting in good faith would likely welcome this innovation, while those using procedural tactics as lawfare may resist it.