Law Journal Newsletters publishes 9 leading online and print newsletters aimed at the diverse needs of attorneys in a wide range of practice areas. Enhanced for Web and mobile devices, these publications are powerful, intuitive, in-depth and affordable. A professional staff of attorneys and seasoned editors discuss and analyze the latest trends, cases, precedents and rulings; often well before this information hits online media. Written by lawyers, for lawyers, each LJN newsletter brings you ongoing intelligence and forecasts by top experts practicing in their respective fields.
You would not tolerate an associate with uniform confidence for very long. It makes them less useful, not more, because you cannot triage your review. Every assertion demands the same level of scrutiny. Yet this is precisely how every major large language model operates today. And the artificial intelligence industry’s proposed solution — spending billions to marginally reduce hallucinations — fundamentally misunderstands what lawyers actually need.
A recent decision from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York has generated outsized commentary suggesting that the use of generative AI tools may jeopardize attorney-client privilege. A closer reading shows something far less dramatic.
The modern attorney–client relationship contains an implicit clause: one that demands trust, relationship intelligence and intentional engagement. Neglect it, and even exceptional legal work may not be enough to retain the “forever client.”
Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.
Agreements among band members typically provide for who owns rights in a music group’s name when a founding member leaves and/or a new member joins. But what if there’s no intra-band agreement covering these scenarios? The two recent court decisions in this article offer potential outcomes.
Understanding how to properly source billable hours for tax purposes is crucial for law firms, particularly due to the varying rules across different states.
In the case of Hudson View Park Company v. Town of Fishkill, the New York Court of Appeals concluded that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between Plaintiff and the Fishkill Town Board in 2017, regarding the review of a certain zoning proposal, was not binding upon a Town Board subsequently elected in 2019.
