
Oh Great, We’ve Moved Onto The Accusations Of Jury Tampering Stage Of The Trump Hush Money Trial
Not great advice for jurors.
Not great advice for jurors.
You actually can't fake relatability.
A culture of innovation with strategic AI like Lexis+ AI is revolutionizing law firms by boosting efficiency and deepening client relationships.
To the surprise of probably no one with a diversified portfolio of news sources, Fox lost its game of chicken against Dominion and settled.
There is nothing quite like trying a case. How can you become better prepared?
* A working-from-home benefit is that you can keep an eye on your young ones. Better than having Alexa doing the babysitting. [Business Insider] * Louisiana doctors will be prescribing flower come Jan 1. Gotta get greens in your diet somehow. [KALB] * Keeping tabs on liberty can be difficult. Here’s a summary of voting rights and voting wrongs that will color 2022. [NYT] * In New Jersey, a mom’s sentence for killing her son was overturned after judges ruled the jury had no idea what the hell they were doing. [NBC] * Arizona legal paraprofessionals are on the way to do good work at more affordable rates. Talk about raising the bar. [Santa Fe New Mexican]
Judge Thapar believes that we need to replace the current system with one that delivers justice to people more quickly.
Findings from the MyCase 2025 Legal Industry Report.
Is this just sour grapes?
Of course they want the verdict overturned.
* A question that has crossed the mind of every Biglaw corporate associate: "How much of lawyering is being a copy-and-paste monkey?" [3 Geeks and a Law Blog] * Kenneth Jost notes out how Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch like to butt heads -- and scores the fight 2-0 in RBG's favor. [Jost on Justice] * And speaking of rumbles at One First Street, which pairs of justices have the most disagreements with each other, as reflected in majority and dissenting opinions? Adam Feldman has answers. [Empirical SCOTUS] * Saira Rao, former Cleary Gottlieb associate and author of the clerkship novel Chambermaid (affiliate link), takes on a new challenge: running for Congress. [American Bazaar] * Data privacy is the name of the game these days, and Thomson Reuters is ready; TR showed off its new, Watson-enabled Data Privacy Advisor at Legalweek here in New York. [Dewey B Strategic] * Amidst all the hoopla and robot fights at Legalweek, it would be easy to overlook the latest news from Neota Logic -- but you shouldn't. [Artificial Lawyer] * Should more states move away from requiring unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases? Joel Cohen argues that 11 is not enough. [Law & Crime] * Can a U.S. court punish someone for their speech, on the theory that he breached an agreement not to speak, while keeping the speech-restrictive agreement secret? Eugene Volokh thinks not (with good reason). [Volokh Conspiracy / Reason] * Dewey see an end in sight for legal proceedings related to the collapse of the Biglaw giant? Former executive director Stephen DiCarmine was supposed to be in court today to face fraud claims from the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it looks like the parties might have a deal. [Law360] * If you will be in New York City next weekend and are interested Asian-American leadership in the legal field, consider attending Columbia APALSA's annual conference -- where Kathy Hirata Chin will be honored for her efforts to promote diversity in the legal profession. [Columbia Law School APALSA]
The story is what a jury or factfinder will care about -- not the tiny details that litigators sometimes obsess over.
Four insights and misunderstandings to help demystify GenAI for legal professionals.
We can't get 12 people to agree on consent, which is why we fail.
A jury trial, a celebrity client, and booze, lots of booze....
Don't be a jerk who disserves your client; understand how juries will view your case to win more (and have more fun).
Per the prosecution, the partner got drunk on wine before spilling the beans.
Today, the Court ruled by a vote of 5-3 to pierce the jury deliberation veil to correct clear evidence of racial bias in jury deliberations.