ReportWire

Tag: Lawyers

  • Meet the world’s youngest self-made billionaire, who skipped finals to make an empire out of teaching AI ‘what only humans know’ | Fortune

    In the spring of 2023, while his classmates at Georgetown were cramming for finals, Brendan Foody was busy testing out his new theory of work.

    “I knew I wanted to drop out before finals my sophomore year,” he told Fortune. “I just didn’t go to finals.”

    By then, Foody had already found something he couldn’t learn in a lecture hall. A few months earlier, at a hackathon in São Paulo, he and his co-founders had stumbled onto a simple but powerful model: match companies with skilled engineers abroad, handle the logistics, and take a small cut of each deal. Their first client agreed to pay $500 a week for a developer; Mercor paid the engineer roughly 70% and kept the rest as a service fee.

    What began as a way to connect talent soon evolved into something more ambitious: a marketplace where humans could help train the AI systems that might one day replace them. Mercor now hires professionals—consultants, lawyers, bankers, and doctors—to create “evals” and rubrics that test and refine models’ reasoning.

    “Everyone’s been focused on what models can do,” Foody said. “But the real opportunity is teaching them what only humans know—judgment, nuance, and taste.”

    Within nine months, he and his co-founders—high school friends and debate teammates Adarsh Hiremath and Surya Midha—had turned that fledgling idea into a company with a $1 million revenue run rate. The trio’s early success was less a fluke than a proof of concept: that the same structured reasoning they once practiced on the debate circuit could be codified to teach machines how to think.

    Two years later, Mercor has become a $10 billion company, turning the trio into the world’s youngest self-made billionaires. The product of that São Paulo experiment had transformed into one of the fastest-scaling startups of the AI era, attracting major investors who view it as a linchpin in the future of human-in-the-loop automation.

    To Foody, the leap from college dropout to billionaire founder was rational.

    “When I was in college, work was something I had to be disciplined to do,” he said. “When I started Mercor, it became something I couldn’t stop thinking about.”

    Foody still hasn’t taken a day off in three years. He says even when he’s at the dinner table with his parents, he thinks about work, which, to him, doesn’t feel like work. 

    “People burn out when they work hard on things that don’t feel compounding,” he explained. “I see the ROI of my time every day.”

    That mindset has become the philosophical core of Mercor’s mission. In Foody’s view, AI isn’t eliminating labor: it’s reallocating it. As software automates repetitive white-collar tasks, humans will move up the value chain, teaching machines how to reason, decide, and create. 

    “It’s like we have this bottleneck of only so much human labor in the economy,” he said. “That shape is going to change radically over the next decade.”

    How is Mercor alleviating the bottleneck? Its platform allows enterprises to commission thousands of micro-tasks that measure model performance in real professional contexts: writing a financial memo, drafting a legal brief, or analyzing a medical chart. Human evaluators grade each output against detailed rubrics, feeding structured feedback back into the model. Every evaluation helps AI learn how people make decisions, and how they measure quality.

    At the center of that system is APEX—the AI Productivity Index, Mercor’s proprietary benchmark for assessing how well AI performs economically valuable work. Rather than test abstract reasoning or mathematical puzzles, APEX evaluates large models on 200 tasks drawn from the workflows of investment bankers, lawyers, consultants, and physicians. To build it, Mercor enlisted a heavyweight advisory group that includes former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, ex-McKinsey managing partner Dominic Barton, legal scholar Cass Sunstein, and cardiologist Eric Topol. Each helped design the evaluation rubrics and case structures to mirror the realities of high-stakes professional labor.

    As the company puts it: “It’s great to have 10,000 PhDs in your pocket—it’s even better to have a model that can reliably do your taxes.”

    The implications of Mercor’s success are sweeping. In Foody’s eyes, this new labor market could employ millions of people globally while accelerating AI progress. 

    “We’ll automate maybe two-thirds of knowledge work,” he said. “And that’ll be incredible, because it lets us do things like cure cancer and go to Mars.”

    For investors, Mercor’s growth story is irresistible. It sits at the intersection of two seismic shifts: the mainstreaming of AI and the rise of flexible, project-based work. Each corporate client adds new evaluators, and each evaluator helps refine more models, creating a flywheel of both data and demand. 

    “We have one of the fastest revenue ramps of any company in history,” Foody said matter-of-factly.

    Foody likes to describe it as the next industrial revolution. He knows people are afraid of being replaced by AI, and constantly fields questions on the ethics of training AI to replace jobs. Foody argues we ought to just bite the bullet. 

    “It’s easy to fall into a Luddite mindset and see productivity gains as bad because they cause short-term job losses,” Foody said. “But every major technical revolution has ultimately made life better.”

    After the industrial revolution, the economy went from 75% of Americans working as farmers to about 1%, and that freed people to do everything else, Foody said. 

    “The challenge now is to be thoughtful about what comes next: the higher, better things humans will spend time on,” Foody said, “and how quickly we can help make that future real.”

    Eva Roytburg

    Source link

  • What if the Big Law Firms Hadn’t Caved to Trump?

    The story of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison L.L.P., one of the leading law firms in the world, stands out. It employs twelve hundred and fifty lawyers in offices around the globe, and pulls in annual revenues of $2.63 billion, resulting in yearly profits of more than $7.5 million per partner. The firm boasts some of the most accomplished lawyers in the U.S., and has a widely feared litigation practice. It also has a venerable tradition of civil-rights work, including assisting Thurgood Marshall on desegregation cases, in the nineteen-fifties, and representing the plaintiff Edith Windsor in the landmark 2013 Supreme Court case, United States v. Windsor, which struck down as unconstitutional a federal statute defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

    Trump had it in for Paul, Weiss for several reasons. Jeannie Rhee, who was then a partner at the firm, had worked for Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who investigated possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, and, after the events of January 6th, she took on a pro-bono case against some of the rioters; Mark Pomerantz, a former partner, had helped prosecute Trump in New York courts for falsifying business records; and Trump was angered by the firm’s D.E.I. employment practices. On March 14th, he issued an executive order that cited these alleged sins and directed federal agencies to review any security clearances previously granted to Paul, Weiss attorneys, to restrict their access to federal buildings, and to potentially terminate government contracts with the firm. Around the same time, Trump issued executive orders against a variety of other firms because he disliked lawyers who worked for them or clients they represented, or both. The executive order against the law firm Perkins Coie L.L.P., for example, cited its representation of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

    The consequences of these orders could be devastating to a firm like Paul, Weiss. If its lawyers were unable to enter federal buildings or courthouses, representation of clients before federal courts and agencies would become impossible. The firm’s work with multinational corporations seeking licenses and permits before government agencies (such as energy companies requesting development permits or investment companies negotiating with the Securities and Exchange Commission), or even litigating in federal court, could evaporate.

    But efforts by the government to punish speakers and speech that it disfavors are blatantly unconstitutional. Any attempt to stop private lawyers from representing the clients they choose is an assault on those lawyers’ basic right to practice law, and a clear infringement of their and their firms’ First Amendment rights. And going after firms because the Administration has a grudge against a specific lawyer who works there is unprecedented, and represents a crude weaponization of executive power. This is not a close constitutional call.

    The chair of Paul, Weiss is Brad Karp, who assumed the role at the comparatively young age of forty-eight. He has been described as one of the best litigators in the country, representing some of the largest financial companies in the world in billion-dollar lawsuits. And Karp is not ignorant of the risks posed by threats to the rule of law: he served on the board of trustees of the World Law Foundation, a non-for-profit organization of more than eight thousand U.S. and international lawyers dedicated to “promoting the Rule of Law as a guarantor of freedom and peace, and strengthening democracy and its institutions throughout the world.” The foundation hosts biannual congresses, with panels devoted to discussing recent threats to the rule of law, and awarding honors to lawyers who defend it. Past honorees have included Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Andrew Young, and Nelson Mandela. (I spoke on panels at the congresses in 2023 and 2025, on issues related to press freedoms.)

    But, instead of standing up for the rule of law and suing the Administration for its unlawful executive order, Karp and Paul, Weiss settled a mere six days after Trump issued it. That settlement obligated the firm to provide forty million dollars in pro-bono services to “support the Administration’s initiatives,” and to “not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.” Eight other global law firms quickly followed suit, reaching settlements totalling a reported nearly billion dollars in pro-bono services for causes championed by the Administration. And, although all the firms claimed to have retained control over what specific pro-bono work they will do, Trump clearly doesn’t see it that way, suggesting during one Cabinet meeting that he could use the legal work as sort of a personal piggy bank of services even after he leaves office, saying, of the accumulated total, “Hopefully I won’t need that,” he said, “after it ends—after, after we leave. Maybe I’ll need it.”

    Fabio Bertoni

    Source link

  • Amazon Facing Lawsuit Over Prime Video Movie Purchases

    Amazon is facing a new legal challenge following a proposed class action lawsuit over how it markets movies and television shows on its Prime Video platform.

    The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle, alleges that the company misleads consumers by describing digital transactions as “purchases” when, in fact, customers receive only a revocable license.

    Why It Matters

    The lawsuit dives into a broader question over digital ownership and when consumers click “buy” on a streaming platform.

    Is the customer truly purchasing permanent rights, or only renting access at the company’s discretion? At stake is whether Amazon and other digital retailers must clearly explain that so-called purchases can disappear, an issue that could reshape how millions of people understand—and pay for—movies, TV shows, games and other digital goods.

    What To Know

    The complaint, filed August 21 in the Western District of Washington, was brought by California resident Lisa Reingold.

    According to the filing, Reingold bought Bella and the Bulldogs — Volume 4 from Amazon in May 2025 for $17.79 after applying a credit. Soon afterward, she says, the program was no longer available in her library.

    Newsweek contacted Amazon and attorney Wright Noel for comment by email outside of normal office hours on Thursday.

    Bella And The Bulldogs arrive at the Kids’ Choice Awards on Saturday, March 12, 2016, in Inglewood, California.

    Chris Pizzello/AP

    The central claim is that Amazon’s use of terms such as “buy” or “purchase” gives consumers the impression of permanent ownership. In reality, access to the content depends on Amazon retaining licensing rights from studios and distributors.

    “Instead, they receive ‘non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license’ to access the digital audiovisual work, which is maintained at Defendant’s sole discretion,” the complaint says.

    Clarifying Digital Ownership Rights

    The practice is not unique to Amazon, but the case comes as a number of moves have been made to attempt to clarify digital ownership rights.

    Earlier this year, California implemented the Digital Property Rights Transparency Law (AB-2426), which makes it unlawful to market a digital good as a “purchase” unless sellers either obtain clear acknowledgment from buyers that they are receiving a license or provide “a clear and conspicuous statement” explaining the limits of the transaction (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500.6).

    Reingold’s suit argues Amazon fails to meet either condition.

    Amazon’s website in its Terms of Use/Help pages acknowledges that purchased digital content may not remain permanently accessible.

    According to the filing, Amazon does not require customers to affirmatively acknowledge they are receiving a license, nor does it present conspicuous disclosures. Instead, the only notice appears “buried at the very bottom” of the confirmation screen in smaller font: “BY BUYING OR RENTING, YOU RECEIVE A LICENSE TO THE VIDEO AND YOU AGREE TO OUR TERMS AT PRIMEVIDEO.COM/TERMS.”

    The lawsuit claims violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (§17200), False Advertising Law (§17500), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (§1750).

    It seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits, damages, and an injunction requiring Amazon to revise its practices.

    The company has not yet responded publicly to this complaint.

    Amazon Prime Facing Class Action Lawsuit
    An Amazon Prime shipping container is viewed while being transported by railway, Wednesday, July 9, 2025, in Holly Hill, Florida.

    Phelan M. Ebenhack/AP

    Similar Disputes

    Similar disputes have previously arisen.

    In 2020, a consumer filed a class action in California alleging that Amazon’s use of “buy” for digital goods was deceptive. That case was dismissed because the plaintiff had not lost access to her purchases. In later litigation in Washington, a federal judge allowed certain claims to proceed, finding that a reasonable consumer could be misled by the terminology.

    The difference in 2025 is that California’s new statute sets a clearer benchmark. The legislative history cited in the complaint points to concerns raised after Ubisoft shut down servers for the video game The Crew, cutting off access for players who had paid for the title. Lawmakers concluded that “consumers clearly know and understand the nature of their transactions … including the reality that they may not have genuine ownership of their purchase.”

    Reingold’s complaint describes Amazon’s interface in detail, including screenshots showing the “Buy movie” button and the placement of the disclaimer. It argues the notice is not “clear and conspicuous,” as defined by the statute, which requires larger or contrasting text or other markers that call attention to the disclosure.

    The proposed class includes all California residents who purchased digital audiovisual works through Amazon.

    Attorneys representing the plaintiff include Carson Noel PLLC of Washington and Bursor & Fisher, a firm experienced in consumer class actions.

    For Amazon, the case highlights a broader industry challenge: how to market digital goods in a way that matches consumer expectations. While many users understand that streaming rights are time-limited, others view the term “buy” as equivalent to owning a physical DVD or book.

    What People Are Saying

    Amazon Prime Video terms explain that digital titles: “will generally remain available to you but may become unavailable … for reasons such as potential content provider rights restrictions.”

    Wright Noel, counsel for the plaintiff in the complaint said: “Amazon does not meet the standards set by the statute for a clear and conspicuous notice that the thing they are purchasing is a revocable license to access the digital good. The warning is buried at the very bottom of the screen, in font that is considerably smaller than the other text on the screen.”

    What Happens Next

    Amazon will be required to respond in court, either by filing a motion to dismiss or by answering the allegations. If the case survives, it will move into class certification, discovery, and potentially settlement talks or trial. Because the claims rest on a new California statute, the outcome could set an important precedent for how streaming and digital platforms label and market purchases to consumers.

    Source link

  • Judge stunned by Donald Trump’s lawyers arguing with themselves

    A federal judge has severely rebuked Donald Trump‘s attorneys for attempting to alter a litigation schedule they themselves established months ago.

    The court, in an August 25 order, said the defense could not now object to a process they had proposed, rejecting their bid to alter the course of the case. U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali made clear that Trump’s lawyers could not reverse their positions after shaping the very schedule they now opposed, stating, “It would violate basic notions of fair play to grant the relief requested.”

    The ruling, issued in Washington, D.C., highlights judicial frustration with inconsistent arguments that appear aimed at delaying proceedings.

    Why It Matters

    The ruling matters because it curbs one of Trump’s key legal strategies—delaying cases through shifting procedural arguments. By holding his lawyers to the very schedule they proposed, Judge Ali reinforced the principle that courts demand consistency and fairness from litigants. The decision also ensures that nonprofits challenging Trump’s foreign aid freeze are not subjected to further delays, keeping the case on track to resolve a broader constitutional fight over Congress‘s control of federal spending.

    President Donald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Jan. 21, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

    Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

    What To Know

    The dispute centers on the schedule of proceedings in one of Trump’s pending cases.

    After initially agreeing to the framework for how filings and hearings should proceed, Trump’s attorneys returned to court asking for equitable relief to delay or alter that schedule.

    The judge concluded that because the defense had not pursued a stay at the appropriate time and had, in fact, proposed the very sequence they were now contesting, they could not credibly demand a change.

    The court’s reference to “basic notions of fair play” highlights a principle of equity: relief is discretionary, and it is often denied when a party’s conduct appears inconsistent. Judges rely on the expectation that litigants will maintain coherence in their legal positions. The concept of ‘judicial estoppel’ thereby prevents parties from shifting arguments to gain advantage in different phases of a case.

    The Case

    The case itself is one of several Trump faces with the underlying issues procedural, rather than substantive: the fight is over timing and process, not yet about the merits of the claims. Still, the court’s rebuke illustrates how Trump’s defense team is encountering obstacles in its broader effort to slow down or reshape litigation schedules.

    The dispute stems from Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order freezing most foreign aid. Nonprofit organizations sued, arguing the freeze violated Congress’s constitutional power over appropriations.

    On March 10, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali partially granted an injunction requiring the administration to release certain funds.

    Litigation has continued over how and when compliance should occur.

    Trump’s lawyers initially proposed a schedule that anticipated appeals and gave the government until September 30 to obligate funds. But after losing in district court and facing further litigation, they sought to delay that same schedule.

    Shifting Strategies

    Judge Ali refused, pointing out the contradiction. He noted that the defense had filed an appeal in March but declined to seek a stay at that time. Instead, they urged the court to adopt a timeline beginning August 15, which they said would allow for appellate review and still leave “sufficient time to obligate the balances.”

    Months later, they then asked to halt obligations under the very timeline they had endorsed.

    “Defendants cannot credibly claim irreparable harm from compliance they themselves proposed,” Ali wrote, rejecting claims that logistical burdens justified delay, and observed: “The reasons asserted for a stay conflict with Defendants’ own litigation decisions.”

    This strategy is consistent with Trump’s broader legal approach of seeking delays, but it left them in the awkward position of fighting against their own earlier plan.

    A Self-Inflicted Emergency

    Ali emphasized that any urgency was of the defense’s own making. “To the extent there is any ’emergency’ here, it is one Defendants created through their own strategic choices,” he wrote. Having bypassed the chance to seek a stay earlier, the lawyers could not return to court claiming prejudice.

    This reasoning reflects a broader judicial concern with consistency. Courts depend on parties to advance positions they can stand behind. Sudden reversals, judges warn, risk turning litigation into gamesmanship.

    What People Are Saying

    Judge Ali in his Order on Motion to Stay of August 25, 2025, said: “But in a circumstance like this—where a party not only declined to seek a stay pending appeal five months ago but also, in the meantime, proposed that the proceedings unfold in the very way they now object to—it would violate basic notions of fair play to grant the equitable relief requested.”

    Global Health said: “The harm here goes to the very subsistence of the organizations, many of which are on the brink of shuttering entirely, and poses an existential threat to the viability of their humanitarian missions.”

    Virginia Law Review says: “Judicial estoppel … prevents a party from taking a position contradictory to a position which that party adopted previously.”

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, U.S. Supreme Court, in the matter of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), agreed that: “The very concept of the rule of law … requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is … indispensable.”

    What Happens Next

    The case will proceed under the timeline Trump’s lawyers originally proposed, with the government required to continue preparations to obligate funds before the September 30 deadline.

    The defense may still appeal, but higher courts rarely disturb a trial judge’s discretionary denial of equitable relief. That means the litigation stays on track, and the central constitutional question—whether the president can override Congress’s control of federal spending—will move forward without further delay.

    President Trump Signs Foreign Aid Freeze
    President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House, Monday, Feb. 10, 2025, in Washington. (Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

    Alex Brandon/AP

    Source link

  • Methuen city, school officials debate legal services

    METHUEN — School officials defended the separation of school and city legal services Monday night in opposition to efforts by some to consolidate resources.

    The City Council has been discussing a tabled measure that would affirm City Solicitor Paul O’Neill is in charge of all legal services for Methuen, including its schools.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm$49@@= @77:4:2=D D2:5 |@?52J E92E ?@E @?=J 5@6D E96 $49@@= r@>>:EE66 92G6 2 C:89E E@ :ED @H? =682= D6CG:46D[ 3FE E96 4:EJ 😀 ?@E AC6A2C65 E@ E2<6 @? E96 6IEC2 H@C<]k^Am

    kAmr:EJ @77:4:2=D 92G6 C62D@?65 E92E E96 D6A2C2E:@? @7 56A2CE>6?ED 😀 4@DE:?8 E2IA2J6CD] (9:=6 E96 4:EJ’D =682= 56A2CE>6?E 😀 F?56C |2J@C s]y] q62FC682C5[ ~’}6:== 😀 2? 6>A=@J66 @7 E96 4@F?4:=[ 244@C5:?8 E@ q62FC682C5]k^Am

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Night Court Promises to Do (and Admit) No Harm in Latest Musical Law’s Anatomy

    If the idea of a show put on by an all-lawyer theater company leaves you just a bit skeptical, don’t worry. Attorney Tara Taheri has heard it before.

    “Some people say, ‘Oh my gosh, that just sounds so boring. You’re just going to watch a bunch of lawyers on stage? What can possibly be fun about that?’” says Taheri, who serves as one of the executive producers, as well as media chair and cast member, of Night Court. “I always say this, and I really feel this way: Our shows are so entertaining for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. We poke fun at lawyers, pop culture, politics, and Houston stories.”

    Night Court has been staging original musical comedies annually for more than 30 years and, along the way, has raised more than $1.6 million for local charities providing free legal services to Houstonians in need. This week, the musical comedy theater troupe will present its 2025 production, titled Law’s Anatomy, at the Hobby Center for the Performing Arts.

    A creative production committee determines each production’s theme, and a certain long-running, Shonda Rhimes-created ABC medical drama won out for this year’s show.

    “I think for a couple of years there’s been a desire to do like a doctor-lawyer-type of Grey’s Anatomy theme,” says Taheri. “But, of course, the show is extended with so many other characters and themes.”

    During Law’s Anatomy, audience members will check into the fictional Houston Hope Hospital, where, for the sake of transparency, lawyers are accompanying doctors while they make their rounds.

    “The thing about doctors and lawyers is that they have a lot in common to begin with. They both take oaths. Doctors pledge first, do no harm. And lawyers pledge first, admit no harm,” jokes Taheri.

    Because of the setting, there will be some surgeries on stage as well as a trial scene. And like all of Night Court’s productions, the show will include an orchestra and musical performances featuring parodies of popular songs from artists like the Bee Gees to Chappell Roan. It also includes plenty of lawyer gags.

    “It’s full of those, and they’re well written. They’re funny. We really do make fun of ourselves. You have to,” says Taheri.

    In the show, Taheri will play a character called Med Mal Maggie – as in, Medical Malpractice Maggie.

    “I am searching for doctors to sue in the hospital. I am watching every single move they make so I can file lawsuits,” says Taheri. “I get to give the doctors a hard time.”

    Playing an antagonist is familiar to Taheri, who last played Stranger Things villain Vecna in 2023’s production, The Law Files. Though it’s not intentional, and Taheri says she doesn’t know how she’s cast until close to the show, she does see it as a positive.

    “It’s a really good area to grow as an actor,” says Taheri, adding, “Being angry and nasty takes a lot of energy. That’s what I’ve learned.”

    Taheri says Law’s Anatomy will feature new, and semi-new, blood in the cast and creative team in several ways.

    New members make up almost half the cast for the first time, which Taheri describes as “an anomaly.” And three of those new cast members, Taheri says, are her own associates.

    “I did help recruit quite a bit,” explains. “I reached out to law schools and really made a push to get new blood. I was happy with the outcome.”

    Also, when the troupe hits the stage, it will be after two years away (due to a leadership change that left Night Court unable to mount a production in 2024) and with Judy Frow back at the helm as director. Frow spent over 25 years with Night Court before stepping down as director after its 2022 show.

    “Believe it or not, she is back this year, and we’re so happy to have her. We also have our music director back,” says Taheri. “So, I think putting everything together and having somewhat new, but returning directors has been really interesting and exciting. They really do know Night Court. They know how it operates, and they’re just extremely talented.”

    Night Court’s commitment to charity remains unchanged, however, with proceeds from this year’s show set to go to Aid to Victims of Domestic Abuse, Child Advocates, The Children’s Assessment Center Children’s Court Services Program, Foster Care Advocacy Center, Houston Volunteer Lawyers, Lone Star Legal Aid Military Veterans Unit, and the South Texas College of Law Houston Legal Clinics.

    If you do happen to be a lawyer and need another reason to check out Law’s Anatomy, you can now earn two-and-a-half hours of ethics continuing legal education credit, up from the two hours offered to lawyers since 2015.

    And if you’re not a lawyer, Taheri has a simple invitation to extend.

    “Come out and have a great time,” says Taheri. “Enjoy yourself. Laugh with us, sing with us, and have a fun night out while benefiting some amazing charities.”

    Performances are scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, August 20, through Saturday, August 23, at The Hobby Center for the Performing Arts, 800 Bagby. For information, call 713-315-2525 or visit nightcourt.org or thehobbycenter.org. $45-$49.

    Natalie de la Garza

    Source link

  • A lawyer fired after citing ChatGPT-generated fake cases is sticking with AI tools: ‘There’s no point in being a naysayer’ 

    A lawyer fired after citing ChatGPT-generated fake cases is sticking with AI tools: ‘There’s no point in being a naysayer’ 

    Artificial intelligence will bring changes to many professions, including law. But it’s also claiming victims who trust too much in its capabilities.

    Among them is Zachariah Crabill, who was an overwhelmed rookie lawyer at a law firm in Colorado Springs when he gave in to the temptation of using ChatGPT in May.

    The AI chatbot helped him write a motion in seconds, saving him hours of work, as local radio station KRDO reported in June. But after he filed the document with a Colorado court, he realized that something was amiss: Several lawsuit citations generated by ChatGPT were made up.

    OpenAI’s ChatGPT is known to be confidently wrong, and in this case it simply created cases out of thin air that sounded convincing. Crabill did not check to make sure the cases were real before submitting his work.

    Crabill admitted his mistake to the judge, who reported him to statewide office, and in July the young attorney was fired from his job at Baker Law Group. 

    In his statement to the court admitting his mistake, Crabill wrote, “I felt my lack of experience in legal research and writing, and consequently, my efficiency in this regard could be exponentially augmented to the benefit of my clients by expediting the time-intensive research portion of drafting.” 

    Crabill isn’t the only lawyer to trust ChatGPT too much. In June, two lawyers were scolded and fined $5,000 by a federal judge in New York for submitting a legal brief that also cited nonexistent cases. 

    In sanctions against Steven A. Schwartz and Peter LoDuca of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, the judge wrote: “Technological advances are commonplace, and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings.”

    “I did not comprehend that ChatGPT could fabricate cases,” Schwartz had earlier told the judge.

    But Crabill, for his part, isn’t giving up on AI tools, despite the traumatic experience. 

    “I still use ChatGPT in my day-to-day, much like most people use Google on the job,” he told Business Insider. Indeed he has since started a company that provides legal services via AI.

    In a Washington Post piece published on Thursday, Crabill said he would likely use AI tools designed specifically for lawyers to aid in his writing and research.

    He added, “There’s no point in being a naysayer or being against something that is invariably going to become the way of the future.”

    Subscribe to the Eye on AI newsletter to stay abreast of how AI is shaping the future of business. Sign up for free.

    Steve Mollman

    Source link

  • Jenna Ellis trashed over defense fund revelation

    Jenna Ellis trashed over defense fund revelation

    Jenna Ellis, a former Donald Trump attorney who has pleaded guilty to a felony count in the Georgia 2020 election interference case, has been criticized regarding the apparent cost of her legal fees.

    Ellis, who served as Trump’s lawyer during the 2020 presidential campaign, pleaded guilty to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings on October 24 after getting indicted alongside the former president and 17 others in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis‘ sprawling racketeering case. Trump has pleaded not guilty and has consistently denied wrongdoing in the case.

    Prior to her guilty plea, Ellis had raised more than $217,000 in online donations to cover her legal fees after realizing the costs would not be covered by Trump. Ellis then faced calls for her to return the money, which was raised via a GiveSendGo page created by her lawyer, Michael Melito, after she became the fourth defendant to enter into a plea deal in the Georgia interference case before they went to trial.

    On Saturday, Ellis thanked her supporters who had “helped me with prayers and support” while she faced charges in Georgia, while also sharing a statement from Melito, which aimed to “answer a question that has been raised” regarding the funds to support her legal defense.

    Jenna Ellis reads a statement after pleading guilty to a felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings, inside Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s Fulton County Courtroom at the Fulton County Courthouse October 24, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. Ellis, an attorney and prominent conservative media figure, reached a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to a reduced charge over efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia having raised more than $200,000 in legal fees.
    John Bazemore-Pool/Getty Images

    “The legal fees and costs significantly exceeded the amount raised by the fund,” Melito said. “Thank you for your continued support.”

    The claim was doubted by some legal experts and met with anger from Trump supporters on X, formerly Twitter, who questioned how Ellis’ legal fees were so high.

    Colorado-based trial attorney Craig Silverman posted on X: “No fast guilty plea should ever cost this much. Jenna Ellis did not litigate any motions. How hard can it be to take a ‘no jail’ plea deal? Over 200K? No way.”

    X user Craig Voss, who has a photo of Trump as his profile, wrote in reply to Ellis: “‘Jenna’s legal fees and costs significantly exceeded the amount raised by the fund.’ What an absolute joke.”

    Fellow X user Heather Carlile, who also has a picture of Trump for her profile, added: “Post the bills (detailed) this is absurd.”

    Author and scientist Jonathan Sarfati wrote: “I do have a question for Michael Melito of Melito Law LLC: why were the legal fees so much more than the money raised by the fund? It seems like the only winners in the current American (In)Justice system are the lawyers. This means they have little incentive to fight to change.”

    Another X user wrote in reply to Ellis: “So Jenna Ellis pleads guilty, which means she was guilty of what she did, yet got others to pay for her legal fees? What happened to personal responsibility? Is she on welfare now?”

    Conservative pundit Carmine Sabia was one of those to defend the amount that Ellis and her legal team said they needed to fight her case.

    “It is astounding that some people think in a RICO case that making a plea deal means you did not have massive legal debts,” Sabia posted on X.

    Newsweek has contacted Ellis’ legal team for comment via email.

    Ellis became the fourth person to plead guilty in Willis’ investigation, following similar deals struck with Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro just days before their trials were due to begin. In late September, bail bondsman Scott Hall admitted to charges relating to a voting system breach in Georgia’s Coffee County in 2021.

    While appearing at the court in Fulton County to plead guilty, Ellis expressed “remorse” for being part of the attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in favor of Trump.

    “I failed to do my due diligence,” Ellis said. “I believe in and I value election integrity.

    “If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges. I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse.”