Anna Gressel

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳𝘀 Under California appellate rules, briefs must state each point under a separate heading or subheading.  Appellants and respondents alike should heed this requirement, as both persuasion and preservation may depend on it.  Some practice tips to consider: ✅ Many appellate courts will deem an argument forfeited if buried under an unrelated heading, or made only in a footnote. ✅ Headings should be substantive, but not so lengthy that they cease to serve as "headlines" and start to resemble text. ✅ Organizing headings for each distinct contention brings discipline to the drafting process, making the brief more coherent and digestible.  Generating a new Table of Contents for each draft is an excellent editing tool, helping you see whether points flow logically and persuasively. ✅ If the Table of Contents has "gaps" that would confuse a stranger, revise.  Justices often read the TOC to gain a substantive overview of the brief before diving in.   ► 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲:  Ensure that your brief headings are crisp and clear, and that they smoothly outline all your core contentions on appeal. #appeals Laurie Hepler

9

This is such a great read for those who are thinking of changing your career path. For me, I loved the practice of law; I was tired of the business part of it (making clients, keeping books, being ops, etc.). I was addicted to the money and the ‘WINS’. I was burned out; riding super high or low on any given moment. My break up with the practice of law took 5 solid years. Now I get to use my legal skills and leave the rest behind. #career #careerchoices #choices #breakup

7

1 Comment

Yesterday, the American Bar Association (ABA) took a significant step forward in addressing the role of artificial intelligence in the legal profession. On July 29, 2024, the ABA released Formal Opinion 512, providing thoughtful and comprehensive ethics guidance on the use of “Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools” in legal practice. This important opinion represents a pivotal moment in the U.S. legal landscape, signaling a growing recognition of generative AI as a valuable and beneficial technology for the practice of law. A Shift in Perspective The ABA’s new guidance marks an important shift in how the legal profession views generative AI. While not explicitly mandating its use, the opinion certainly suggests that understanding and potentially utilizing generative AI tools is becoming increasingly important for competent legal practice. This perspective aligns with the evolving nature of legal technology competence, drawing parallels to how use of email, computerized legal research, and eDiscovery have become standard skills in the lawyer’s arsenal of tool use. Recognizing the Benefits Formal Opinion 512 acknowledges the potential of generative AI to enhance both the efficiency and quality of legal services. By highlighting these benefits, the ABA is effectively encouraging lawyers to explore and consider how these tools might improve their practice and better serve their clients. This recognition is a clear indication that the legal profession is moving towards embracing innovative technologies rather than viewing them primarily with skepticism. Balancing Innovation and Ethics While the opinion is forward-thinking in its approach to generative AI, it appropriately emphasizes the importance of responsible use. The guidance carefully outlines how existing ethical rules apply to this new technology, ensuring that the core values of the legal profession are maintained even as new tools are adopted. This balanced approach demonstrates the ABA’s commitment to fostering innovation while upholding the highest standards of professional conduct. I outline some of the specific ethical considerations, and put this in a broader context, in my blog post on this new Opinion, here: https://lnkd.in/g8GWaFKK

154

27 Comments

To Qualcomm General Counsel Ann Cathcart Chaplin, the relationship between inside and outside counsel “really matters.” Here’s her advice to outside counsel on fostering trust and long-term relationships, from someone who’s been on both sides: - Give your client time to provide feedback. They are just as busy as you! - Tell your clients what you need. No matter how much your client tries, there will always be company information they haven’t fully conveyed. - Use the lines, “Are there things you want me to know in advance?” “What’s the most efficient way for me to get the information I need?” - Seek to understand your clients’ broader business in addition to the case. Sometimes winning the case isn’t the most important thing to their ecosystem. - Understand that as much as you care, in-house lawyers will inevitably feel more responsible for a case than you. Advance preparation and communication will help with handing over control. - Ask for feedback. Finishing a project is a great excuse to ask how you can be more helpful or what you can do differently. Tune in to our latest episode for more wisdom like this. Full video: https://lnkd.in/eVuYuQCT Apple Podcasts:  https://lnkd.in/dRMN96AZ YouTube Music: https://lnkd.in/ddDnB4rd Spotify: https://lnkd.in/dUk-kJNB Clause 8 email updates and episode archive: www.Clause8Podcast.com #intellectualproperty #patentattorney #IPattorney

8

ALM's recent mental health survey reveals a concerning trend: lawyers aged 34 and under are experiencing higher rates of depression, anxiety, and overwhelm. Despite efforts from firms to offer more mental health resources than in previous years, many lawyers still struggle to prioritize their well-being amidst billable hours and client demands. “Until we make a cognitive shift that mental health and wellbeing have a positive impact on the bottom line, we’re going to miss the mark.” Read more about the survey results and what firms can do to prioritize the well-being of their attorneys. #MentalHealth #LawyerWellbeing

11

The United States Court of Appeals 5th Circuit just announced it will not adopt a proposed rule specifically requiring disclosure and other requirements for attorneys who use AI as part of their practice. Upon reflection, and based upon a lot of negative feedback on the proposed rule, they recognized that existing rules already cover the same situations. Specifically, attorneys are enforceably required to stand behind the truthfulness and accuracy of court filings. However, the court admonished litigants and lawyers alike that “I used AI” will not be an acceptable excuse for violating existing rules! Here is the formal notice from the court: https://lnkd.in/gJWyEyxg For color, here also are some recent news articles on this announcement: * Reuters: https://lnkd.in/gJmjWSqv * Bloomberg Law: https://lnkd.in/gaVqCkHi And, since I have it at hand, for your convenience, here is the full statement by the court: “The court, having considered the proposed rule, the accompanying comments, and the use of artificial intelligence in the legal practice, has decided not to adopt a special rule regarding the use of artificial intelligence in drafting briefs at this time. Parties and counsel are reminded of their duties regarding their filings before the court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Parties and counsel are responsible for ensuring that their filings with the court, including briefs, shall be carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy as the rules already require. “I used AI” will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.” Personally, I think this court got it right. To the extent existing rules cover situations arising from use (or misuse) or AI, it is a good idea to apply those rules first before seeking to make more rules. In the event of demonstrable failures of existing rules, then perhaps it will be more practical to craft new rules to address the gaps that have been revealed. But it is, apparently, a very good idea to sound the alarm far and wide, loud and clear: sometimes generative AI provides incorrect or otherwise unsuitable information and it remains the duty of the attorney (among others) to carefully review and stand behind any work they pass forward. That concludes my public service announcement for today :-)

121

20 Comments

Jay Edelson’s firm continues to lead. The “new paradigm” for class action lead counsel selection discussed below is great stuff. And it could also be more broadly applied with small modifications to Rule 23 adequacy of counsel analysis as well. #classactions #consumerprotection #rule23 #frcp23

3

Your Guide to Jurisdictional Insights Across 13 Critical Areas. Simple. Comparative. Actionable. Legal research shouldn’t be a guessing game. With GRI’s Insights, it’s clear, simple, and effective. Key Features: In-Depth Analysis: Explore jurisdictional insights across 13 critical work areas, presented in an easy-to-digest FAQ format. Compare Across Jurisdictions: Effortlessly compare regulations across different regions to inform your strategies. And as always with GRI: Collaborative Edge: Share insights with a click, keeping your team in the loop. Effortless Organization: Highlight, tag, and organize your research for quick access. Precision Targeting: Find what you need with pinpoint accuracy. Empower your decision-making with GRI’s in-depth insights. See how GRI’s insights can transform your legal strategy. Visit https://lnkd.in/gZmkUPim today. #JurisdictionalInsights #LegalAnalysis #GRI

3

⭐ The new #NAWLResearch Report is here! ⭐ For the first time, instead of surveying law firms, NAWL surveyed individual in-house counsel. We wanted data comparing the pros and cons of in-house versus law firm positions. The results of this year’s survey shed light on the ongoing debate over whether in-house positions offer superior environments for women and other minorities. Discover what we learned: https://lnkd.in/geaR43rn 💬 Do our findings surprise you? #NAWL #InHouse #LawFirm #WomenLawyers

26

7 Comments

Welcome to High-Five JD Hive! 💛 We're a community co-conceiving new stories & templates for legal education and practice. Here's a bit of what we're up to. The hive is practicing joyful jurisprudence.  The hive is translating the imaginal.   The hive is repair work.  The hive is joining hands.  The hive is pedagogical play.  The hive is re-wilding what’s been contained.  The hive is trending toward kindness.  The hive is revolution of the legal ecosystem.  The hive is regenerative skill-sharing.  The hive is radical culture-work and leadership.  The hive is affirmation that everything is capable of transformation.  The hive is alt-JD school. Interested? Curious? Want to join? Official launch is 5/1/24. Stay tuned.

5

Two more great episodes from Season 10 of Trial Tested out now: S10E4: Fear and Injustice: Legal Reflections on Japanese American Internment with Chuck Rosenberg Join host Amy Gunn as she interviews Former U.S. Attorney and Acting Administrator of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg. As they delve into his study of Japanese American internment during WWII, Rosenberg discusses Executive Order 9066, ignored intelligence reports revealing no espionage threat, and landmark cases like Hirabayashi, Korematsu, and Endo. He reveals how suppression of evidence led to devastating rulings justifying internment, even as Japanese American soldiers fought abroad while their families remained detained. Reflecting on this history, Rosenberg emphasizes the ongoing need for vigilance against fear-driven injustice.   S10E5: The Art of Supreme Court Advocacy with Carter Phillips Carter Phillips, one of the most prolific U.S. Supreme Court advocates of our time, joins host Terri Mascherin to share insights into arguing before the nation’s highest court. With 90 cases argued, Phillips discusses the impact of oral arguments versus briefs on case outcomes, the art of anticipating questions, and shifts in courtroom dynamics over the past four decades. Phillips also emphasizes the importance of rigorous writing and practical experience for those pursuing a path in appellate advocacy. Listen at actl.podbean.com or on your favorite podcast app.

12

Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman reports: Kirkland & Ellis helped the Westlaw database owner prevail in a counterclaim dispute accusing the company of monopolizing legal searches. Judge Stephanos Bibas, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit jurist overseeing Delaware trial court matters as a visiting judge, ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters this past Friday. "To make it to trial, litigants must substantiate their claims," Bibas wrote in his memorandum opinion, adding the counterclaimant ROSS Intelligence Inc. "has not backed up its allegations with enough evidence." Thomson Reuters filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in May 2020 accusing ROSS of reproducing content from the Thomson Reuters-owned Westlaw database without permission. ROSS described itself as a "nascent competitor" in the legal search market. It built a legal search engine that used artificial intelligence and sold access to that AI-based platform for a "tiny fraction of what Westlaw charges," according to its counter lawsuit. 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆: https://lnkd.in/ecMY_2iF

2

It's time to move beyond outdated compensation models. The black box model, with its opacity and subjectivity, hinders firm culture and profitability. Embrace transparency and performance-based models that align with firm objectives and partner archetypes, ensuring every contributor is rewarded for their unique value. Learn more about building a stronger, more cohesive firm culture in Maggie Miller's latest article with ALM.

3

Please join us tomorrow at 12:00 Noon ET for a National Association of Women Judges webinar, "Responsible Uses of #AI in #Judicial Proceedings where I'm honored to join #NAWJ President #Judge Michelle Rick, Professor Daniel W. Linna Jr. of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, and Elizabeth Henslee of LexisNexis. Program information and free registration here: https://lnkd.in/ef4H-Wdf #GenerativeAI #law #LegalEthics

21

5 Comments

Fascinating post on the growth of legal innovation space through the lens of the increasing number of people in law firms who are ILTA members with "innovation" in their job title. In the Asia-Pacific region, such titles do create an important signalling effect not just within firms from senior management, but also to external stakeholders such as corporate GC clients and future employees (ie, law students). ALITA is here to help such individuals and firms in the APAC region to succeed! Let us know how we can help! #legalinnovation #legaltechnology #legalinnovators

1

SPAC Notebook Editor Yelena Dunaevsky writes in ABA Business Law Section that Delaware courts may see fewer SPAC lawsuits after a pivotal ruling. The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a SPAC-related case, criticizing the "perverse incentives" and "strike suits" that have become common. This decision, highlighting the absence of concealed material facts pre-merger, contrasts with the Multiplan case that had previously encouraged similar claims. For a deeper dive, read the full analysis: https://lnkd.in/e9wwuk-u #wsinthenews #SPAClawsuits #Delaware

19

Want to sound erudite? Begin your next memo or brief with: "The Federal Circuit’s decision that the PTO is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements when issuing rules pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2) conflicts with this Court’s interpretive precedents applying the anti-superfluity cannon." What's this really about? Whether you have to tell the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) your home address if you apply for a trademark as an individual and your physical office address as a business. I have bumped into this issue directly in the past year. Even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, I expect there is a low likelihood that the PTO will change its requirements even if it is required to take notice and comment before the rulemaking because the PTO need only show that its rule is not arbitrary and capricious. The PTO will argue that checking domicile helps prevent fraud and that's a good enough (non-arbitrary and non-capricious) reason. So what's the solution for those who want to protect their physical address from the PTO? A giant trademark owning entity that licenses the trademarks out to the "real" trademark owners. It will be just like MERS for mortgages. You read it here first....

3