During the recently completed Legalweek 2023, artificial intelligence dominated the conversation. Not everyone agreed on how legal professionals should—or could—use it. But no matter who you talked to, one thing was certain: The legal landscape will undergo a significant transformation due to the recent and rapid advancements in AI.
In September 1998, a landscape worker clearing brush near I-85 in Mebane, North Carolina, came upon the skeletal remains of an unidentified child under a towering Howard Johnson’s sign. Despite law enforcement efforts, the youth remained nameless for two decades. He was simply known as “the Boy Under the Billboard.”
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will conclude oral arguments for the October 2022 term. Two of the cases to be heard, one constitutional and one statutory, seem particularly important. They concern the First Amendment and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Jerry McIver, the director of cyber services and the data privacy officer for Trustpoint.One, an integrated legal solutions provider serving the Am Law 400 and the Fortune 2000.
As a criminal defense attorney with my fair share of trial experience, it’s always interesting to see how other practitioners litigate their cases. After all, the legal profession enjoys playing Monday morning quarterback with its analysis. I personally try not to cast stones; I’m far from flawless in trial. But that’s the beauty of the process: No one is perfect in that setting.
Rare is the client who looks to litigators, alternative dispute resolution specialists or even corporate counsel as the “go to” persons for providing services that will prevent disputes. Most attorneys serve their clients by representing them in disputes that are already or soon to be underway, with a focus on billable negotiation, mediation, arbitration or litigation representation. When it comes to employee and manager education, skills training and systemic dispute prevention, business leaders look not to their attorney advocates but to a potpourri of human relations consultants, trainers and behavioral science experts.
Hey, lawyers! Is everybody happy? If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands. Many of our colleagues are not exactly thrilled while practicing law. As Nanki-Poo in Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Mikado might say, the best way they could express their joys of law practice would be “modified rapture.”
I’ve always been a fan of those movies that are so bad they’re good. They come in various forms. Sometimes it’s your standard low-budget “B-movie” that owes its appeal to the fact that, despite its low budget, a great deal of effort was put into the production only to yield a subpar result. The 2003 film The Room starring Tommy Wiseau and Juliette Danielle is a great example (and a must-watch for any fan of this genre).
No matter what the U.S. Supreme Court does in the cases involving the Biden administration’s student loan relief plan, there is sure to be a major effect on many people’s lives and on the law. On Tuesday, Feb. 28, the court heard oral arguments in two cases—Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown—that raise myriad legal issues and any path taken by the court will have significant consequences. (I was among 24 legal scholars who signed an amicus brief in support of the Biden administration).
No profession is free from potential tragedy. It can come in various shapes and sizes to some degree or another, but the notion of someone dying while on a typical job is far from the realm of expectations. While these tragedies are always, well, tragic, death seems to hit on a different level when it happens in what should be a somewhat controlled environment. In that circumstance, as opposed to repercussions stemming from recklessness or a total disregard for safety, it is even more devastating when the death happens in the public eye for all the world to analyze.
