Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Legalweek Robot Fight Was Mayweather-Pacquiao For AI Case Briefing Software

robots-fighting-260x195.jpgAnd much like the actual Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, one side was way more prepared for it.

Legalweek isn’t the sort of event that usually spawns an old-school rumble. It’s a bunch of tech geeks and lawyers gushing about efficiency and productivity. If there’s any event in the world more at risk to a swirlie attack, it’s this one. But somehow a throwdown emerged yesterday.

It all began with ROSS Intelligence CEO Andrew Arruda hyping his latest announcement:

OK, you’ve got our attention. When the big announcement came — a product called EVA that uses artificial intelligence to assist litigators in writing briefs — Arruda literally dropped the mic.

The resulting thud was a metaphor for the reaction from tech observers wondering if this wasn’t just another version of Casetext’s CARA. Not that there’s anything wrong with multiple solutions occupying the same space — but it is kind of the opposite of a game changer.

That’s when Sarah Glassmeyer ignited a fire that would soon burn out of control.

Because Casetext’s Jacob Heller was fully prepared to play Battlebots.

Gauntlet thrown. Sounds like a fun diversion for a conference that can get a little repetitive. They could totally ham it up like a wrestling match.

There was just one problem.

Casetext had some thoughts on the argument that CARA’s great disadvantage was that law firms would have to pay a fee for it:

To channel the late 90s… aw snap.

This is where the story would end under most circumstances. But Casetext decided they didn’t have to wait for ROSS to have tussle. Casetext just went ahead and set up EVA so they could run it head-to-head.

And so it was on. Bob Ambrogi livestreamed it and you can read his breakdown over here and watch it below. As bar fights I’ve witnessed go, it involved way fewer broken shards of glass weilded as weapons:

In a display of professional diplomacy, Heller was more even-handed during Cyber Slam than he probably would have been if Arruda had been there to defend his product.

But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a little shade:

Or, a lot of shade:

EVA didn’t help itself with this announcement right in the midst of the fight:

Yikes.

Aside from the ludicrousness of gathering around some computers in a hotel bar, Adam Ziegler’s post hits the nail on the head about the whole affair:

Before the battle, Arruda did some work managing expectations for his game changer.

Arruda’s point is worth remembering. Casetext’s CARA has reached a stage of maturity that a two-month-old platform could never match. But EVA has time. It’ll work out the lumps and, you know, figure out how to search by case name. A year from now we’d have all forgotten EVA’s early days.

Except he had to go and call it a game changer…

Bulls**t Sarah. This blood is on your hands.

Robot Fight: Casetext’s CARA vs. ROSS’s EVA


Headshot-300x200.jpgJoe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/eNdtbsO_4eI/

Thanks So Very Much To All Of Our Advertisers

happy-young-lawyer-solo-practice-solo-practitioner-thumbs-up-thumb-300x200.jpgWe’d like to express gratitude to our wonderful sponsors here at Above the Law:

If you’re interested in advertising on Above the Law or any other site in the Breaking Media network, please download our media kits or email advertising@breakingmedia.com. Thanks!

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/df395OTipR4/

You People Have Literally Read The Wrong Things Today– See Also

scary-document-lawyer-shock-300x199.jpgJUDGING BY THE TRAFFIC, YOU APPARENTLY DIDN’T NOTICE THE BEST STORY TODAY: A California appellate court rejected arguments from Tinder and ended their opinion with “Accordingly, we swipe left, and reverse.” If you can’t be bothered to read that I literally do not know why you are here.

DECHERT BLAMES THE ROBOTS FOR DISCRIMINATION: Speaking of stories that should be bigger, have you read what Dechert is actually arguing here?

I KNOW IT’S JERSEY SO PEOPLE ARE USED TO THIS: But it feels like somebody should point out that one of the state’s sitting United States Senator will not be retried on the eleven corruption charges that still survive after he achieved a mistrial on 18 corruption charges last year. You know, just in case anybody would like to challenge this wounded politician for his right to represent the people of the state.

THIS IS A GOOD COLUMN ABOUT GAMBLING AND LAW STUDENTS: Thankfully, gambling is like the one vice I don’t have. I mean, sure, as a 3L I once took my rent money and put it on the craps table. But, like, I won, so I didn’t have a problem. Umm… anyway, you should read this.

THIS, YOU’RE READING: All these great stories today, but “Being Free From Student Loans Is Not As Awesome As You’d Think” is the only thing anybody wants to click on. Fine. FINE. CLICK AWAY. But I have news for you, being free from debt IS, IN FACT, AWESOME.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/6wIOHCyRAJA/

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

What Law School Should You Go To If You Want To Make Bank? — See Also

Two Great Tastes That Taste Great Together: Prestige and money. See the Top 20 law schools ranked by graduates' salary. When All Else Fails, We Drink: The State of the Union drinking game we need right now. Yet Another Law School Accepts The GRE: This is just going to keep on happening. That's A Nice Payday: Quinn Emanuel steps up their clerkship bonus game. What The DOJ Really Means When The Talk About Free Speech: It doesn't look good for dissent. Judge Has Harsh Words For ICE: Don't worry, they aren't going to change.VAKPjkbMT3g

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/VAKPjkbMT3g/

Judge: Kushner company must reveal identities of real estate partners

Te2X_7EILy8

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/dailynews/~3/Te2X_7EILy8/judge_kushner_company_must_reveal_identities_of_real_estate_partners

State Of The Union Drinking Game: Extreme Lawyer Edition

state-of-the-union-300x196.jpg

Photo by Susan Sterner. Public Domain

It’s that time of year again, when we gather as a nation and watch a guy who lost an election by millions lay out his policy goals for the country. It’s a speech where FDR outlined the Four Freedoms that would serve as a beacon of decency around the world, where LBJ declared War on Poverty, where Bill Clinton told the poor to go f**k themselves and Justice Alito made his ignorance of basic Con Law a GIF that will live forever. So it’s safe to say we were already locked in a downward spiral before we got to this moment.

Go ahead and drink to lament the fall of the Republic. Think that’s a bit melodramatic? There’s an honest discussion at the highest levels of political discourse in this country about the importance of honoring the Confederacy. Why not just finish your first beer now and get another before the game starts… we’ll wait for you.

Unless otherwise noted, take a sip whenever these come up:

Every absent Supreme Court justice: You can handle this during the catwalk to the rostrum. This gets you a few solid sips in as a base before the serious malaise begins.

Announcer notes that RBG isn’t attending: As we all know, RBG won’t be making it to the SOTU this year. She’s put on something of a show at past addresses for seemingly falling asleep. But, little known fact, the State of the Union is the only time Justice Ginsburg sleeps all year. She’s just pushups and jurisprudence the rest of the year. Finish your drink if Fox uses this opportunity to say she’s losing it.

Cuts to SCOTUS: There will be a lot of wild camera work during this speech, but take a sip whenever you see the robed ones.

Russian meddling investigation mention: Why would an embattled president explicitly call out the scandal hanging over his head? Well… this guy did it:

If Trump goes with “one year of Russian hacking and pee tapes is enough!” go ahead and finish your drink.

Fires Bob Mueller from the podium: This probably should be a “finish your drink” but it’s so likely that seems unfair. Frankly, he has every reason to do it.

Full standing ovation: At some point, Trump is going to say he likes puppies.

Gorsuch gives an inappropriate standing ovation: The Accidental Jurist is already taking wildly inappropriate partisan strategy meetings with lawmakers and contributing in-kind to Trump’s pocketbook, why not explode the illusion entirely.

Mentions any amendment: It’s not entirely likely, but Trump’s media hatred might see a mention of the First slip. And his eagerness to reconnect with his base might elicit his critique of the Thirteenth.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions/Department of Justice shoutout: And this includes the FBI, whose deputy director is leaving and is at the center of the House’s latest Pizzagate in a teapot.

Offers a violent crime anecdote: The crime rate continues to fall, but reality just can’t get in the way of the private prison lobby!

Commentator refers to the State of the Union as “constitutionally required”: Kind of being a know-it-all, but OK. Two sips here.

Commentator notes that “the President doesn’t actually need to give a speech”: Finish your drink. Lousy gunner.

Proudly takes credit for tariffs on washing machines: Take a cement mixer shot — that’s kind of like a washing machine — and don’t throw up, because you can’t afford a washing machine anymore.

Opioids: Sip if he mentions them, chug if he takes a few during the speech.

(Post-Speech) Every claim that his speech was “presidential”: Lowered expectations are the hobgoblin of idiots trying to fill air time.


Headshot-300x200.jpgJoe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/RDh4toRv12Y/

Federal judge orders release of detained immigrant activist, says he didn’t get to say goodbye

Immigration Law

Katherine_Forrest_338x287.jpg

Katherine B. Forrest (Wikimedia Commons photo)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it is “actively exploring” an appeal after a federal judge in Manhattan ruled Monday that the “abrupt detention” of an immigrant rights activist was “unnecessarily cruel.”

Reading from her opinion aloud, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ordered the release of Ravi Ragbir, director of the advocacy group New Sanctuary Coalition, report the New York Times and the Washington Post.

“There is, and ought to be in this great country, the freedom to say goodbye,” Forrest wrote. “That is, the freedom to hug one’s spouse and children, the freedom to organize the myriad of human affairs over time.

““It ought not to be—and it has never before been—that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust, regimes where those who have long lived in a country may be taken without notice from streets, home and work. And sent away. We are not that country; and woe be the day that we become that country under a fiction that laws allow it.”

Ragbir came to the country in 1991 from Trinidad and Tobago. He become a lawful permanent U.S. resident in 1994, but was ordered deported in 2006 because of a 2000 conviction for accepting fraudulent loan applications while working at a mortgage lender. He is married to a U.S. citizen.

A stay of removal was set to end on Jan. 19, but ICE nonetheless detained Ragbir during a Jan. 11 check-in.

Forrest said Ragbir was never told that there had been an application for a “mysterious ‘travel document’ ” allowing his return to Trinidad and Tobago that was set to expire Jan. 14. The statutory scheme allowed ICE to act as it did, “but there are times when statutory schemes may be implemented in ways that tread on rights that are larger, more fundamental,” she wrote.

ICE said in a statement that it was “concerned with the tone of the district court’s decision” and it is unjust to equate the difficult work of ICE professionals with treatment in unjust regimes.


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/topstories/~3/2QkfzDnLXf4/federal_judge_orders_release_of_detained_immigrant_activist_says_he_didnt_g

How Law Schools Fail At Hiring Diverse Candidates

white-men-white-male-lawyers-partners-diversity-300x200.jpgI frequently hear many of the stories of faculty hiring throughout the land.  I get told the horror stories of how people have been treated at different schools.  I also get to hear the good things, but today we’re going to talk about the bad.  And the bad news is: Some schools are faking it regarding diversity.

Last week, I explored how academic and professional conferences sometimes only give lip service to the important issue of diversity.  This week, I turn the lens inward to how law schools do the same thing when hiring faculty.   While hiring committees often times say that diversity is important, it is sometimes the case they don’t mean it.  Worse, even if the hiring committee manages to get diverse candidates into the door, that doesn’t mean the diverse candidate will get a fair chance at being hired.  For some schools, this repeats every year.

Let’s start with asking some basic institutional questions.  Go look at your faculty webpage.  Do you see nothing but mostly white males?  If so, then your school is already signaling that it probably isn’t very serious about diversity.  You’re looking for a candidate you magically think will fit in.  If that’s the case, your school isn’t taking diversity seriously.  It’s looking for a token.

Do your diverse faculty members leave?  That might say something about the nature of the support/hostility ratio they receive at your school.  By the way, how your school treats diverse faculty members will be known throughout the land of AALS conferences.

Does your school save diversity for clinical professor and legal writing professor slots, but not for lateral or entry-level tenured or tenure-track professor slots?  That suggests your school wants the appearance of diversity, but really isn’t all that interested.

Do you have that one colleague who constantly torpedoes only diverse candidates while your other colleagues sit and watch silently?  Then your school is complicit in your colleague’s conduct and your school’s reputation will be the same as that one colleague’s.

Do you have colleagues that think diversity is important, except in their area of research and hiring?  That suggests that you’ll never have diversity at your school.

Does your hiring committee bring back multiple diverse candidates, but your school manages to hire none of them?   Does your school claim it is because it tried really hard, but those diverse candidates all just go to better schools for some reason?   Every year?  Does it mean that you are only serious about diversity as you go only after the crème de la crème or to does it suggest your committee knows they’ll go to better schools and you’ll end up with no diversity?  If so, your school’s Sisyphean goal of diversity will be frustrating to those who want and need it.

Do your faculty members delve more deeply into the scholarship of diverse faculty members?  Do they seem less inclined to give deference to references of the kind usually given to references of candidates who aren’t diverse?  Do they seem less forgiving during the job talks of diverse candidates?  Are they inclined to be more vicious during the job talks of diverse candidates?  If that’s the case, your school is tolerating a bully or, perhaps worse.

Does your school have different standards for diverse faculty candidates?  Do they simply gush if a white male candidate has a top 10 placement, yet criticize the similarly placed article of a diverse candidate?  Do faculty members become more concerned about “curricular fit” when a diverse candidate appears but are willing to bend over backwards otherwise?

Despite data showing limited diversity, are your colleagues in denial about what happens to diverse candidates who come to your school?

Does diversity even get mentioned?

How you answer those questions will inform you of your school’s true desire to have diversity.  It’s easy to dismiss “that one colleague” or “that one hiring year” as outliers, unless they become the status quo for your school.  It’s also very easy to claim your school is trying.  But if your school tries and fails repeatedly, then perhaps it isn’t trying very hard or something (or, someone) is systematically causing it to fail.

A school’s failure to take diversity seriously has ripple effects.  As I repeated last week, “Diversity means something more than just stretching your tolerance of people who aren’t like you just once.  A commitment to diversity doesn’t mean hiring a token, a person who eventually suffers in isolation.  It means a commitment to the notion that the school is a better place because we all have different experiences, backgrounds, and ways of thinking.”  That commitment signals to prospective students and future faculty candidates.  It also signals to diverse faculty members and students that they aren’t just at your school for purposes of your prospective student brochures.


LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here He is way funnier on social media, he claims.  Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/uGXvRdlDE_U/

Monday, January 29, 2018

Loving life as a lawyer: How to maintain joy in your work

Asked and Answered

heart_coffee_work_love.jpg
Do you dread going to work? If so, maybe it's time to look at the other ways you can flex your legal skills, Nancy Levit says. There are many types of jobs for lawyers, and sometimes what you thought you wanted to do doesn’t work out, Levit tells the ABA Journal's Stephanie Francis Ward in this episode of Asked and Answered.

Levit shares tips on how to find the work you want to do and how to find joy in the work you’re already doing.

One way to adjust your mindset at work is to look at who you’re spending time with, she says. Are you hanging out with colleagues who have positive outlooks, or with the workplace worrywarts and complainers?

Levit advises keeping a mindset of “upward” comparisons. Comparing “downward” means focusing on the things others have that you don’t, while comparing upward makes you grateful for the things you do have. Lawyers tend to want perfection, she says, and the quest to keep up with the Joneses—or the Jones Days—can cause people to be unhappy.

This podcast was brought to you by our advertiser, LawPay. “Did you know that attorneys who accept online payments get paid 39 percent faster on average than those using traditional payment methods? With LawPay, the only payment solution offered through the ABA Advantage program, you can accept client payments online, via email, or in person—no equipment needed. Visit LawPay.com/podcast to sign up and get your first three months free.”

In This Podcast:

nancy_levit300px.png

Nancy Levit

Nancy Levit is a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law and the interim associate dean for faculty. She teaches defamation and privacy, employment discrimination, gender and justice, jurisprudence and torts, and is the co-adviser to the UMKC Law Review. Levit is the author of several books, including The Happy Lawyer: Making a Good Life in the Law and its sequel, The Good Lawyer: Seeking Quality in the Practice of Law, both co-authored by Douglas Linder.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/dailynews/~3/t2sXIynVx7I/podcast_monthly_episode_98

Secret memo hints GOP could be targeting Deputy AG Rosenstein, report says

Criminal Justice

170427-rod_rosenstein_official_0.jpg

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

A secret GOP memo hints that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein could be targeted for his handling of a surveillance request against Carter Page, a campaign associate of President Donald Trump.

The memo says the Justice Department relied partly on information compiled by Christopher Steele when it initially persuaded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve surveillance of Page, according to three anonymous sources who spoke with the New York Times. Rosenstein approved extension of the surveillance last spring.

Steele is the former British spy who wrote the unverified Russian dossier financed by Democrats.

The Times describes the memo “as a much-disputed document that paints the investigation into Russian election meddling as tainted from the start.” It could be an indication that Republicans are seizing on Rosenstein’s role in approving the surveillance extension to undermine the special counsel probe, according to the article.

Page filed a defamation suit against publications that reported he met with officials who had ties to Vladimir Putin.

Trump “has long been mistrustful” of Rosenstein, and is reportedly telling associates he is frustrated with the deputy attorney general, the Times reports. CNN also reports that Trump has Rosenstein “in his crosshairs” in a story based on four anonymous sources.

The House Intelligence Committee could vote as early as Monday on whether to declassify the memo and make it public. If approval is given, Trump would have five days to block the release.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd has said the memo draws on classified information and it would be “extraordinarily reckless” to release it.


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/dailynews/~3/H16UOtAHOGM/secret_memo_hints_gop_could_be_targeting_deputy_ag_rosenstein_for_surveilla

The Downside Of Greasing The Skids

dartboard-pen-inside-straight-300x199.jpgI’ve written before about how nobody wants real debate:  Before the vote is taken, you “socialize” the result.  Everyone is brought on board.  The result is preordained.

Only then do you formally present the question to the committee.  The committee nods in agreement with the result.  And the resolution is passed.

Presto!  No muss, no fuss, no possible dissent.

What could possibly go wrong?

Funny you should ask.

Suppose an interested observer (perhaps a regulator) or a motivated opponent (perhaps opposing counsel in litigation) were to enter the scene.  After all the documents were produced and the records reviewed, the questioning gets pretty tough:

“You say that the committee is engaged, right?”

“Yes.”

“The process for making decisions is rigorous?”

“Yes.”

“Members read materials in advance, study them, and understand what’s going on?”

“Yes.”

“Over the last five years, 246 suggestions were presented to the committee; is that correct?”

“Yes.”

“And 246 times out of those 246 suggestions, the committee voted in favor; is that right?”

“Yes.”

Okay, okay.  The cross-examiner finally asks a non-leading question, and your witness gets to sneak something in:

“Look at the minutes!  They say that the committee discussed this issue!”

“That’s what the minutes say.  But you agree with me, don’t you, that after those discussions, the committee voted in favor 246 out of 246 times?”

Or maybe it plays out a different way:

“All the decisions are actually made       .”

“I see.  You’ve produced in discovery all the documents that we requested?”

“Of course.”

“In all those documents, there was not a single minute of a meeting in which any suggestion was actually rejected by anyone?”

“I guess that’s right.”

“In all those documents, there’s not a single time when a suggestion was voted down?”

“I guess that’s right.  But trust me; this process was rigorous.”

Maybe the regulator, or opposing counsel, or the jury will trust you.

But maybe not.

Maybe the regulator will say it would like to see evidence of someone pushing back against a suggestion.  Maybe a jury will expect to see dissent recorded as a negative vote.

I understand that everyone feels better if we grease the skids.  No one in an organization wants to run the risk of having intelligent, public debate, in which a question could be answered either “yes” or “no.”  That’s — what?  Dangerous?  Unseemly?  Potentially embarrassing to someone?

Everyone would rather know the answer in advance.

Just consider that there are disadvantages to consistently greasing the skids.


Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/1gLhsndxgcE/

Sunday, January 28, 2018

From The Career Files: An Open, Deeply Personal Letter To Money

money-book-620x413-300x200-300x200.jpg

Dear Money

I am not sure how it got this way. Between you and me. It didn’t need to get to this point, and I want to correct it.

I’m an unhappy attorney who is trying to leave the law for a non law job. I am trying to change my life for the better. Please can you and I start over too?

I have to admit, I have always felt that you didn’t want to be with me. There was always just enough of you in my life … but you never seemed to like being with me. It was as if you were forced to be with me. You didn’t flow to me … you were dragged to me. I wondered why we never had that much fun together.

And you never seemed to want to stay long with me. You have been fleeting and unreliable. It always felt like you were in a hurry to leave me. And so I then worried if you would ever come back.

But now you are an immovable weight to me. Law school debt. Bills to pay. I don’t feel like you support me … rather you have me captured.

I don’t want to have this type of relationship with you Money.

I know, I am to blame as well. I don’t know when it happened, but somewhere growing up I began to believe certain things about you:

  • Money doesn’t grow on trees
  • The rich are all greedy and bad
  • Money always corrupts
  • No pain, no gain
  • Always better to give than to receive
  • The love of money is the root of all evil

Those aren’t true, right? Ugh. Oh, I’m sorry. Can you forgive me?

I want to connect with you in a new way. I want us to flow together, to align together, to appreciate each other. I want to feel great receiving you. I want to feel guilt free when you come into my life. I want to know that I deserve the strength you provide.

I now understand Money that you are just an energy, a currency. You empower me (like air, food, water, rest) and give me the energy to do things (like think, have time, nourish myself, invest, donate, focus) to help others and provide value. And the more you empower me, the more I can meaningfully add value to others, and the more I add value to others, the more they will compensate me in money … the more of you I will get in return, so I can then … help others …

… I’m getting it now …

Money, I’m sorry. I’ve been thinking of you all wrong. I don’t want to view my law school debt as a weight. I want to view it as an investment I have made to get to where I am now, to attain the skills that I am good at now that I can use to transfer into a new job, role and career.

Now admittedly, that is gonna’ be hard to do, because I’ve been cursing my student debt for so many years, and as I leave the law for an alternative career, I am further depressed as to why I took you on in this way.

But these negative belief systems about you don’t serve me any longer. I now realize how I have been thinking about you DOES NOT SERVE ME WELL!

From now on Money, you are my friend. I’m no longer going to be afraid of you or confused about you. I’m going to do my best to just understand you.

I feel lighter just saying this.

Sincerely,

Me

Casey Berman (University of California, Hastings ’99), is the founder of Leave Law Behind, a consulting practice that helps unhappy attorneys leave the law for alternative careers. Casey focused primarily on software licensing for five years before leaving the law behind in 2004. Since then, his career has helped him develop a wide range of skills, as Management Consultant, VP Operations, Chief Communications Officer and Investment Banker.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/q2XBe-Q8HcI/

The Latest And Greatest In President Trump’s Judicial Nominations (Part 2)

Trump-Hands-in-Air-300x183.jpg

‘This is a YUGE reshaping of the federal judiciary.’ (by Isaac Brekken/Getty)

Last week, I posted a roundup of the status of judicial nominations, for both circuit and district courts, for circuits up through and including the Fifth Circuit. Today I turn my attention to the Sixth through Eleventh Circuits.

But after my earlier roundup, some news happened: this past Tuesday, President Donald Trump announced his tenth wave of judicial nominees, twelve nominees in all. There’s one circuit-court nominee among them — John Nalbandian, whom I’ll discuss below in my section on the Sixth Circuit — plus eight district-court nominees and three nominees for non-Article III courts (the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Tax Court, and the Court of Federal Claims).

Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond, a leading expert on the federal judiciary, shared these overall insights on the new nominees with me:

The nine nominees posted on Tuesday were interesting. I was pleased to see that five were for emergency vacancies in Texas and Louisiana, both of which have many, so I am hoping the White House will prioritize emergencies as there are 72 now. I also noticed that Red states are still taking precedence, as the vacancies continue piling up in Blue states like California, New York, and New Jersey. I hope the White House does start paying attention to the district vacancies and those in blue states. After all, 120 is a huge number, and district judges are the “workhorses” of the federal bench.

I concur. But as we’ll see below, blue states remain on the back burner when it comes to judicial nominations, for reasons mainly having to do with politics.

As for specific names among the new nominees, I’ll discuss them in their circuit-specific sections below. But six of the new district-court nominees require me to double back to the Fifth Circuit: Alan Albright (W.D. Tex.), a partner in the Austin office of Bracewell LLP and former U.S. magistrate judge; J. Campbell Barker (E.D. Tex.), Deputy Solicitor General in the Texas Attorney General’s Office; Jeremy Kernodle (E.D. Tex.), a partner in the Dallas office of Haynes and Boone; Robert Summerhays (W.D. La.), a U.S. bankruptcy judge in his district; Michael Truncale (E.D. Tex.), a partner at Orgain Bell & Tucker; and Wendy Vitter (E.D. La.), general counsel of the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans.

Having reviewed the (quite impressive) backgrounds of these nominees, which collectively include Biglaw practice, judicial experience, and other government service, I don’t see any major potential problems. Remember that they hail from Texas and Louisiana, two states with all-Republican delegations in the Senate.

Campbell Barker and Wendy Vitter struck me as the most interesting. Barker, a 2005 graduate of UT Law, is a bit on the young side — which is how the Trump Administration likes ’em — but he does have the twelve years of experience that the American Bar Association (ABA) seeks in judicial nominees. Barker also boasts an otherwise great résumé: two federal appellate clerkships; private practice at the elite boutique of Yetter Coleman, where he made partner; and federal and state government service, at Main Justice and in the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (who released an effusive statement of praise for Barker).

As for Wendy Vitter of Louisiana…. as in, that Vitter, from Louisiana? Yes, Wendy is (still) married to David Vitter, the former U.S. senator (R-La.) who got outed as a client of D.C. Madam back in 2007. Wendy Vitter has senatorial support and solid credentials — Tulane Law, service as chief of the felony trials division in the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, experience prosecuting homicides — and I expect her to be easily confirmed.

So if David Vitter ever strays again, then Judge Vitter can hold him in contempt of court — or worse! As Wendy Vitter quipped back in 2000 — when President Bill Clinton’s infidelity was in the news, but before her husband’s misdeeds came to light — “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony.”

Now let’s dive into the Sixth through Eleventh Circuits. As always, if you have any comments, corrections, or additional information, please email me (subject line: “Judicial Nominations”). As you read this roundup, keep these useful links on hand for ready reference:

Sixth Circuit

John-Nalbandian-John-B-Nalbandian-300x332.png

John B. Nalbandian (by Taft Stettinius & Hollister)

After the confirmations of Judges John Bush, Joan Larsen, and Amul Thapar, there are two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit: the Ohio-based seat of Judge Alice Batchelder, and the Kentucky-based seat of Judge John M. Rogers. In addition, I predict that President Trump will get another Sixth Circuit opening to fill in the next year or so when Judge Deborah L. Cook takes senior status, which she’ll be eligible for as of this May.

The Sixth Circuit nominee announced on Tuesday, John Nalbandian, is a partner in the Cincinnati office of Taft Stettinius & Hollister. Although he practices in Ohio, Nalbandian has been nominated for Judge Rogers’s seat in Kentucky. But as noted by Zoe Tillman of Buzzfeed, Nalbandian lives in Kentucky, has longtime involvement in Kentucky Republican politics, and enjoys the support of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Nalbandian is admitted to practice in both Ohio and Kentucky and a member of both the Ohio and Kentucky State Bar Associations.

Nalbandian’s confirmation will be smooth. The U. Penn. and UVA Law graduate is a leading appellate lawyer who would also bring more diversity to the Sixth Circuit. As noted by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), which supports his nomination, he would be just the second Asian Pacific American to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, as well as the seventh active Asian Pacific American federal appellate judge in the nation.

Nalbandian previously won Senate confirmation — back in 2010, i.e., during the Obama Administration — on a voice vote. Although President Obama’s nomination of Nalbandian to the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute was made on the recommendation of Senator McConnell, the Obama Administration’s acquiescence and the lack of opposition to Nalbandian on the Senate floor suggest that he will win broad support yet again.

What about the Ohio-based seat of Judge Alice Batchelder? Judge Batchelder leaves big shoes to fill. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the Northern District of Ohio in 1985 and elevated by President George H.W. Bush to the Sixth Circuit in 1991, Judge Batchelder has been a leading conservative voice on a rather polarized court for more than a quarter century — so the standards for this seat are high.

My prediction for the vacancy: Robert Alt, president and CEO of The Buckeye Institute, a free-market-focused think tank based in Columbus. Alt, an ex-Batchelder clerk himself (and said to enjoy the support of his former boss), has won praise from Ken Blackwell, writing in the pages of Breitbart, and Quin Hillyer, writing in pages of the National Review. It’s impressive when both pro- and anti-Trump conservatives/libertarians can actually agree on something.

Alt already had his White House Counsel interview, in which he reportedly excelled. His selection is by no means a done deal; there are several other candidates on the short list. But if the Trump Administration wants nominees who are “not weak,” then Alt is a strong pick. Unlike some of the other potential nominees, who come from private or government practice and have shorter paper trails, Alt has a longstanding and public commitment to textualism and the rule of law, which he has worked to advance while serving in the non-profit trenches. (I reached out to Alt for comment but did not hear back from him.)

As for the district courts within the Sixth Circuit, there are a total of ten current and future vacancies, as follows: the Eastern District of Kentucky (2), the Western District of Kentucky (1), the Eastern District of Michigan (1), the Western District of Michigan (1), the Northern District of Ohio (1), the Southern District of Ohio (2), the Middle District of Tennessee (1), and the Western District of Tennessee (1).

For the seat that the Eastern District of Kentucky shares with the Western District, the nominee is Claria Horn Boom, a partner in the Lexington office of Frost Brown Todd LLC. For the other Eastern District seat, the nominee is Robert E. Wier, a magistrate judge in the district. For the Western District seat, the nominee is Rebecca Grady Jennings, chair of the litigation practice group at Middleton Reutlinger.

All three have excellent backgrounds and will almost surely be confirmed. The toughest sell might be Jennings, simply by virtue of her youth (she’s around 40) — but as noted by the Vetting Room, a great resource for folks tracking judicial nominations, Jennings would be the first woman exclusively appointed to the Western District, and she is “unlikely to draw significant opposition due to her mainstream background.”

Turning to the Tennessee seats, the nominees are Eli Richardson (M.D. Tenn.), a partner at Bass Berry & Sims, and Mark Saalfield Norris Sr. (W.D. Tenn.), Majority Leader in the Tennessee State Senate. Eli Richardson has a wealth of experience — including service as an FBI agent as well as a federal prosecutor — and he can expect smooth sailing. Senator Norris could have a tougher path, as explained by the Vetting Room:

There is generally good reason why state legislators are not directly appointed to the federal bench. As legislating is inherently political, legislators invariably have a long record of controversial actions that can be mined for opposition. Unfortunately for him, Norris does as well. Norris’s strong conservative record in the Tennessee Senate and his rhetoric on same-sex marriage and refugee resettlement will certainly be used by opponents to paint him as a bigot.

But I agree with the Vetting Room’s bottom line:

However, Norris benefits from his thirty-seven-year long practice history. He can argue that his representation of personal injury plaintiffs as well as defendants shows a willingness to understand both sides of the law. Furthermore, Norris benefits from his strong endorsement from Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN).

With Republicans in the majority, Norris remains the odds-on favorite for confirmation.

If controversial blogger John Bush can make it on to the Sixth Circuit, then so can Senator Norris.

Seventh Circuit

Michael-Brennan-Michael-B-Brennan-Mike-Brennan-300x375.jpg

Michael Brennan (by Gass Weber Mullins)

After the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the Seventh Circuit has three openings: the Illinois-based seats of Judges Richard Posner and Ann Claire Williams, and the Wisconsin-based seat of Judge Terence Evans. Only the Wisconsin seat has a nominee, former judge Michael Brennan, now a partner at Gass Weber Mullins.

As I’ve explained before, there’s controversy over the Wisconsin seat, the oldest circuit-level vacancy in the entire federal judiciary. As Professor Tobias previously noted, “The Wisconsin Seventh Circuit seat was one where Donald Schott, a highly qualified, mainstream nominee, did not receive a final vote in 2016″ (even after his nomination was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13-7). So, perhaps on a “turnabout is fair play” theory, Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin has not returned a blue slip for Brennan.

Still, if I had to bet, I’d wager that Brennan will (eventually) be confirmed. Despite the missing blue slip from Senator Baldwin, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) held a hearing for Brennan anyway. It took place this past Wednesday, and according to Professor Tobias, Brennan “did very well. He was very articulate and engaged in a way other nominees haven’t.”

But as noted by the Vetting Room, which also predicts that Brennan will ultimately be confirmed, “given the opposition of his home state senator and the Republicans’ narrow margin of error, the outcome is not set in stone.” For example, imagine that Brennan doesn’t get a floor vote and the Senate then changes hands this fall. Brennan could suffer the same fate as Donald Schott, who got voted out of the Judiciary Committee but never got a floor vote. So Senator McConnell and the Republicans should prioritize a floor vote on Brennan, even over other nominees for longstanding vacancies, before the seat slips away.

As for the two Illinois vacancies, I’ve floated names before for them. I identified Skadden partner Michael Scudder as the most likely pick, and word on the street is that he will soon be announced. (I don’t know about the second seat; given the status of Illinois as a blue state with two Democratic senators, it could take some time.)

Turning to the district courts, there are eight current and future vacancies. Three are in the powerhouse court of the Northern District of Illinois (aka Chicago), two are in the Northern District of Indiana, two are in the Southern District of Indiana, and one is in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

There are two nominees: James R. Sweeney II (S.D. Ind.), a partner in the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg, and Gordon P. Giampietro (E.D. Wis.), an in-house lawyer at Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. Neither is controversial, and both will be confirmed.

Sweeney, a Naval Academy and Notre Dame Law School graduate, is a combat veteran, retired Marine Corps colonel, and former law clerk to two federal judges. He is now a highly regarded litigator who handles intellectual property, defense, and technology-related cases.

Giampietro is a former federal prosecutor and former partner at Michael Best & Friedrich who started his legal career by clerking for Judge Rudolph T. Randa — whose seat he would fill if confirmed. And Giampietro almost certainly will be confirmed, considering that he came out of the joint nominating commission of Senator Baldwin and Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) — the commission that didn’t approve Judge Brennan for the Seventh Circuit, which Senator Baldwin cites as a reason for withholding her support.

Eighth Circuit

David-Stras-Justice-David-Stras-Dave-Stras-Minnesota-300x174.png

Justice David Stras (by David Lat)

In the wake of the confirmations of Judges Ralph Erickson and Steve Grasz, by votes of 95-1 and 50-48 — Grasz garnered controversy after receiving a “not qualified” rating from the ABA, which conservatives blamed on bias — there is a single vacancy on the court. And it will soon be filled.

Justice David Stras, a superbly qualified and very popular member of the Minnesota Supreme Court, was nominated last May to fill the seat of Judge Diana E. Murphy, and he was re-nominated earlier this month. Stras’s qualifications were never in question, but Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) refused to return his blue slip basically because he found Stras, a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, too conservative. But now that Senator Franken is out of the picture, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is on board, and Justice Stras’s nomination got voted out of committee by a 13-8 vote, he will win confirmation fairly soon.

There are seven district-court vacancies in the Eighth Circuit — in the Eastern District of Arkansas (1), the Northern District of Iowa (1), the District of Minnesota (2), the Eastern District of Missouri (1), the District of Nebraska (1), and the District of North Dakota (1) — but no nominees yet.

(Flip to the next page to read about the remaining circuits.)

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/jyLSpgVwwuk/

Judgment Enforcement: Legal Stalking

iStock_000017758743Small-300x199.jpgEnforcing a judgment can be just as important as obtaining the judgment, but sometimes enforcement can be much more difficult. However, there are a significant number of tools — depending on your jurisdiction — available for judgment creditors to enforce a judgment, many of which amount to legal stalking.

One of the first cases I worked on out of law school was a case involving collection of a judgment for a case I had helped successfully try while I was still in law school. Judgment collection is not something you are taught in law school, and to say it is different from the rest of litigation is an understatement.

While judgment enforcement is rarely necessary where a large corporation is the debtor, enforcement is often necessary when the debtor is an individual or a smaller company. One of the best things an attorney can do when enforcing a judgment is not necessarily collecting the money from the debtor, but rather putting enough pressure on the debtor to convince them to just pay the judgment (assuming they have or can get the money). This is also why settlements are so important; obtaining a settlement where the defendant — and future debtor — agrees to make payments, even if it is for less than you think a judgment would be worth, is often worth not having to pay for judgment collection.

How to — and How Not to — Stalk the Debtor

The firsts step any judgment creditor should take — aside from filing the judgment in the proper jurisdiction — when attempting to enforce a judgment is to perform a comprehensive asset search on the debtor. This will let you know where certain assets are and how much they are likely worth. Depending on the debtor this may also require filing your judgment in additional jurisdictions.

What you should not do once you receive information such as the location of the debtor’s home(s) or work is go full John Cusack in Say Anything and stand outside the debtor’s window blasting “In Your Eyes” by Peter Gabriel on a boom box until they pay. Rather, I suggest “Money On My Mind” by Lil Wayne, as it will get the point across better. While this may successfully annoy them, it likely will not result in them paying you and may ultimately result in a restraining order, noise complaint, or any number of other misdemeanors.

But standing outside the debtor’s window is not far off from what you will need to do to either collect the full judgment or put enough pressure on the debtor to make them settle.

In the judgment collection action I mentioned previously, we managed to find approximately 4% of the total amount owed during judgement collection. But, what my colleagues and I did do while hunting for assets, was put enough pressure on the debtor that they effectively had to live under a rock, with no liquid or other readily accessible assets for the better part of a year. Once the debtor had enough, they contacted our firm with a settlement offer that ultimately would save our client money in not having to further pursue judgment enforcement, while also getting nearly the entire amount they were owed in their judgment.

Stalking the Debtor

While the goal of judgment enforcement is always to get the full amount owed, it makes little sense to get an additional $100 dollars at a cost in fees and expenses of $1,000. Rather, it makes sense to agree with the debtor to turn over $90, where the only fees will be for communicating with the debtor about the transfer of funds and the settlement agreement. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Money often costs too much.”

A lot of litigation — and in some people’s belief too much litigation — is based on personal beliefs; judgment enforcement is entirely about the bottom line.

The reason I say that judgment enforcement is like stalking the debtor is because by the end of enforcement you know everything there is to know about the debtor. For example, in the case I discussed above, I knew what kind of car the debtor drove, his monthly payments, and even the car his girlfriend drove; I knew where he lived, where he owned property, who owed him money, and even how often he was physically in certain jurisdictions, and things as personal as — not because I was looking, but because those sort of things come up when searching for the appropriate information — prior arrests.

With all of that (somewhat) non-relevant information, came a lot of relevant information that allowed us to continuously put pressure on the judgment debtor’s assets, ultimately leading to a favorable settlement in our client’s favor. As a creditor, you need to put enough pressure on the debtor that they need to live under a rock, or give up and pay up. This can seem useless at times, such as when you are only pulling hundreds or thousands of dollars out of accounts on million dollar judgments, and barely making a dent. But know that every time you pull any amount of money from the debtor, that is something they were counting on, that money is less that they have for whatever they had previously put it away for, and while it may not be a lot towards your judgment, it goes a longer way than you think towards ending the matter.

Once you have broken the proverbial camel’s back, you can stand outside their window playing “Money to Blow” by Birdman.


Brian-Grossman.jpgBrian Grossman is an attorney at Balestriere Fariello. He graduated from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in June 2016. Brian represents clients in all aspects of complex commercial litigation and arbitration from pre-filing investigations to trial and appeals. You can reach him by email at brian.l.grossman@balestrierefariello.com.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/Bdz8LZBNLlM/

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Pro Bowler Tackles Legal Career

Football-300x208.jpgIt’s FINALLY Pro Bowl weekend. I’m sure everyone’s hyped up about it. What nine-time Pro Bowler launched a second act in the law, serving on his state’s supreme court from 1993-2015?

Hint: He also played in four Super Bowls… to date, the only four his team appeared in.

See the answer on the next page.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/NcfB1yLoiv0/

Non-Sequiturs: 01.26.18

GettyImages-905708762-300x200.jpg

Judge Rosemarie Aquilina (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

* “Impartiality requires fair treatment for both sides, not merely for victims—even victims in a case as horrifying as this one.” Some are calling into question Judge Rosemarie Aquilina’s impartiality during Larry Nassar’s sentencing.

* If you’re invited by the Supreme Court to brief and argue a case as an amicus curiae, you better believe that your career in the law is about to take off.

* A few of the New England Patriots visited Harvard Law to learn about inequities in the criminal justice system before securing a spot in the Super Bowl.

* Maybe your life won’t end if you get bad 1L grades — maybe it’ll be a whole new beginning.

* Here are some useful tips on how to avoid getting burned if someone asks you for your salary history when you’re applying for a job.

* Are you a law review nerd, a legal scholar, or professor obsessed with when your latest article will be published? Then you must check out the Law Review RSS Project.

* Can you get a DUI in a self-driving vehicle? In the future, the answer to this question may depend on how autonomous the vehicle is.


Staci-Zaretsky.jpgStaci Zaretsky has been an editor at Above the Law since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/AsKIRHKtIfQ/

Important Legal Debates Happened Today And… Wait, What Is This Sex Toys Thing? — See Also

credit-card-credit-cards-debit-card-money-personal-finance-300x200.jpgASSOCIATE ACCUSED OF EMBEZZLEMENT ALSO ALLEGEDLY BOUGHT $300 OF SEX TOYS ON STOLEN CREDIT CARD: The firm literally noticed the problem when things got “sticky.”

SUMMER ASSOCIATE CLASSES ARE GETTING SMALLER: But that just means MORE SUMMER for those who get the jobs. Zing! Seriously though, we’re all getting more summer because we’re ruining our atmosphere and we’re going to kill everything on this planet.

LAWYER OBJECTS TO NEW PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULES: He worries they’ll be a “slippery slope.” I wish there were a professional rule of conduct barring lawyers from making slippery slope arguments.

TRUMP SHOULD FIRE MUELLER. Seriously. F**k it. Burn it down, already.

I’VE BEEN FIGHTING WITH THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION ALL DAY: But, on the bright side, now you don’t have to.


Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/SuNOUJtAjpc/

Friday, January 26, 2018

How can organizations incorporate AI into their workflow?

Legal Technology

Ari_Kaplan_headshot_larger.jpg

Ari Kaplan

Ari Kaplan speaks with Steve Harber, the co-founder and managing director of Apogee Legal, which provides customized artificial intelligence solutions that help mergers and acquisitions, regulatory, and legal professionals to assess the risk and compliance issues associated with their contracts and due diligence matters.

Prior to launching Apogee Legal, Harber co-founded DiscoverReady, a leading provider of e-discovery managed services.

This Q&A has been condensed.

Ari Kaplan: Tell us about the genesis of Apogee Legal.

Steve Harber: After we sold DiscoverReady in 2014, we were looking for another market segment in the legal arena where there were high volumes of documents that required review and analysis in a tight time frame. We also wanted to find a market space where new technologies were emerging that could automate the process. After about six months, we settled on contract analysis and analytics because many corporations had tools or repositories where they stored all of their contracts, but they couldn’t analyze them and quickly highlight critical information. We made a bet that we could create a new category of business, which specializes in the development of analytics, built on top of powerful AI engines to solve specific legal use cases for large corporations.

Ari Kaplan: Your approach is to combine artificial intelligence, machine learning, and continuous process improvement with substantive human expertise. Why is the combination necessary, rather than relying on technology alone?

Steve Harber: The software alone is only a small piece of the complete picture. In order to address the issues that our clients are facing, we need to customize the technology and train it to actually recognize their contracts. Then, we create analytics that solve their specific legal problems. This requires a combination of technological expertise and substantive legal knowledge. We also have to add project managers and legal professionals who are capable of utilizing the tools to develop repeatable processes so that we are not reinventing the wheel each time a corporation has a new project.

Ari Kaplan: Why are risk and compliance professionals adopting AI?

Steve Harber: The main reasons are cost, time, and accuracy. No corporation is making money on performing tasks around risk and compliance; this is a pure cost center. It is, therefore, important for them to perform these exercises as efficiently as possible. And, since M&A, due diligence, and regulatory matters are often managed in very tight time frames, speed and flexibility are essential. When you utilize AI to automate the review process, you can adjust as either the deal or the regulatory request changes. You can also prove with statistical certainty that you are finding the right answers.

Ari Kaplan: How does AI apply to M&A matters?

Steve Harber: In many types of M&A deals, it is critical that the relevant contract clauses are analyzed properly. AI tools enable attorneys to perform a very quick analysis, relatively inexpensively, which is, for example, helpful when evaluating an acquisition target. If you decide to pursue the deal, it enables you to be much more efficient and thorough, and when the deal is over, the combined organization has a repository of contracts with the ability to assess and access all of the information they contain.

Ari Kaplan: What are some best practices that you recommend for organizations interested in incorporating AI into their workflow?

Steve Harber: First, clearly identify a use case. Take into account how that task has been done historically, any associated costs, and key recurring problems with that process to develop a methodology or some controls to help gauge success. Second, run a pilot program with a few different solutions to understand how they really work. This will offer a very good sense of the resources required for a successful implementation. Third, speak with references about the necessary infrastructure and staffing. And, finally, leverage the software provider’s professional services team to help create repeatable processes.

Ari Kaplan: How do you see AI impacting the legal industry in 2018?

Steve Harber: I think you’ll see more law firms talking about bringing the technology into their M&A practices and corporations touting their successful implementations in the regulatory and compliance areas, both of which are plaguing many large companies. You’ll also see AI usage in hot areas like Brexit and , which will change the conversation from something that’s theoretical or hypothetical, i.e., “Wouldn’t it be nice to bring AI into the firm?” into reality, i.e., “Holy cow, GDPR is a big deal, and if we don’t comply with the regulations properly, we could face monetary and regulatory issues.” GDPR is going to accelerate the utilization of AI and help corporations ensure that they are ready.

Listen to the complete interview at Reinventing Professionals.

Ari Kaplan regularly interviews leaders in the legal industry and in the broader professional services community to share perspective, highlight transformative change, and introduce new technology at Reinventing Professionals.

Ari Kaplan (http://www.AriKaplanAdvisors.com) regularly interviews leaders in the legal industry and in the broader professional services community to share perspective, highlight transformative change, and introduce new technology at


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/dailynews/~3/1WIZYJVbeic/how_can_organizations_incorporate_ai_into_their_workflow

Key Democrats and some conservative groups criticize Trump’s new immigration plan

Immigration Law

immigration.jpg

Shutterstock.com.

The Trump administration proposed a new immigration plan that would protect more immigrants brought to the country illegally as children while calling for wall funding and an end to some immigration programs.

Key Democrats criticized Thursday’s proposal, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Michelle Lujan Graham, report the Washington Post, the New York Times, Reuters, USA Today and Politico.

Some conservative groups also opposed the plan, calling it amnesty.

The plan would allow a path to citizenship for anyone brought to the country illegally as a child, including those who haven’t applied for protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. As many as 1.8 million people would be protected under the proposal, which is more than twice as many currently enrolled in DACA, according to the Washington Post.

The plan would allow those under DACA to become citizens in 10 to 12 years if they have jobs and don’t commit crimes.

One of the tradeoffs is a call for a $25 billion trust fund to pay for the border wall with Mexico. The plan also calls for swifter immigration enforcement, an end to a visa lottery program for people from countries with low immigration rates to the United States, and an end to citizens being allowed to bring their parents and siblings to the United States,. Citizens would be allowed to sponsor only spouses and minor children.


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/dailynews/~3/P1qAityscSY/key_democrats_criticize_trumps_new_immigration_plan

Spanish Government Uses Hate Speech Law To Arrest Critic Of The Spanish Government

Free-speech-restrict-USE.jpgSpain’s government has gotten into the business of regulating speech with predictably awful results. An early adopter of Blues Lives Matter-esque policies, Spain went full police state, passing a law making it a crime to show “disrespect” to law enforcement officers. The predictable result? The arrest of someone for calling cops “slackers” in a Facebook post.

Spain’s government is either woefully unaware of the negative consequences of laws like this or, worse, likes the negative consequences. After all, it doesn’t hurt Spain’s government beyond a little reputational damage. It only hurts residents of Spain. When you’re already unpopular, thanks to laws like these and suppression of a Catalan independence vote, what difference does it make if you’re known better for shutting down dissent than actually protecting citizens from hateful speech?

One Catalan resident is getting the full “hate speech” rap-and-ride.

A Catalan high school teacher, Manel Riu, appeared in court on Thursday accused of hate speech for his tweets and Facebook posts criticizing Spain, government members and the Guardia Civil police. Over a hundred people escorted him to court in Tremp, west of Catalonia, where he denied any wrongdoing and asked for the case’s dismissal.

As a Catalan, Riu certainly has reason to criticize the Spanish government. During the last attempted referendum, the Spanish government sent police to seize ballots, voters’ cellphones, and ordered Google to remove a voting location app from the Play store. The evidence against Riu is composed of 119 tweets gathered by the Guardia Civil, Spain’s oldest law enforcement agency — one that blurs the line between playing soldier and playing cop far more often than its US counterparts.

One tweet apparently compared Spain to hell. The rest are presumably similarly unflattering. Hyperbolic venting by unhappy citizens is to be expected. It also should be protected. Insulating the government from unhappy citizens never works out well. But that’s how Spain is handling dissent: by sending out the most “police state” wing of its police forces to arrest people for calling Spain figuratively hell.

The crime cited here is a violation of Spain’s hate speech law. But that makes no sense. Hate speech laws are supposed to protect underprivileged groups who are often targets of derogatory comments. They’re not supposed to protect the powerful from the underprivileged. The anomalies of hate speech law enforcement are the times they’re actually used the way they should be. (Not that they’re good ideas in the first place, but for the sake of argument…) Shutting down dissenters and critics of the government is the status quo.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abovethelaw/~3/jc1rEDWPCcA/

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Defending Justice: Essays on judicial independence

Defending Justice

Defending-Justice-Landing-Graphic_New.jpg
On behalf of the ABA Standing Committee on the American Judicial System and the ABA Journal, we are pleased to initiate a collection of essays on the broad subject of “Judicial Independence” for Journal readers and the general public.

Over the next several months, we will publish thoughtful pieces written by lawyers, judges, and others that delve into various subtopics of judicial independence, including such characteristics as fairness, impartiality, access to justice, and adherence to the rule of law.

As the essays are published, we expect you may strongly support the premises of some and disagree with others. We have no doubt the full collection of these essays will cause you to marvel at the wonders of our American Judicial System, its enviable status in the world, and its willingness to honestly assess faults and deficiencies and make corrections whenever possible.

We urge you to make weekly visits to this site to view each newly published essay and consider submitting your comments in response to an essay whenever you are moved to do so.

Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr. (Ret.)
Chair, Standing Committee on the American Judicial System

Molly McDonough
Editor and Publisher, ABA Journal


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/dailynews/~3/cuXoAvCyvAI/defending_justice

Justice Department threatens subpoenas in showdown with sanctuary cities and states

Immigration Law

DOJ500jpg.jpg

Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C./Kamira (Shutterstock.com).

The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday demanded documents from 23 sanctuary jurisdictions and threatened subpoenas if they fail to comply.

The letters are intended to find out whether police officers in the jurisdictions are failing to share information with federal immigration authorities, according to a DOJ press release. The Justice Department cites a federal law requiring information sharing, and says jurisdictions that don’t comply aren’t eligible to receive Byrne Justice Assistance Grants.

Jurisdictions receiving letters include the states of Illinois, California and Oregon, as well as the cities of Chicago, New York City and Los Angeles. USA Today, the Washington Post and the New York Times have stories.

The letters asked the jurisdictions to provide “any orders, directives, instructions or guidance to your law enforcement employees.”

The DOJ could withhold the Byrne grants from jurisdictions that violate the information-sharing law, and could seek to claw back fiscal 2016 grants, according to the press release. The 23 jurisdictions received more than $39 million in Byrne grants in fiscal 2016, according to the Post.

Several mayors boycotted a White House meeting Wednesday on infrastructure to protest the Justice Department’s action.

The agency’s efforts to rein in sanctuary cities have been challenged in the courts. A federal judge in San Francisco ruled in November that a presidential order denying funds to sanctuary cities had placed new conditions on the grant of federal funds in violation of the separation of powers, the 10th Amendment’s ban on conscription of local jurisdictions, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

The judge said Attorney General Jeff Sessions wasn’t credible when he interpreted the executive order narrowly to apply only to federal grants administered by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

In September, a federal judge in Chicago said Sessions exceeded his authority when he placed two new restrictions on the Byrne grants. One required cities to give federal agents 48 hours’ notice before people suspected of immigration violations were released from jail. The second said cities had to provide local jail access to immigration agents.


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/dailynews/~3/FtTiNPusy1s/justice_department_threatens_subpoenas_in_showdown_with_sanctuary_cities_an