Would it make sense for law schools to teach the basics of neuroscience? Why not? Or a required course for lawyers to satisfy the CLE competency requirement? Since much of what lawyers do in lawyering is judgment, ability to read the room, suss out the client’s needs, and being able to help people solve their problems, is there any downside to such a course? It might be construed as an “easy A,” or whatever grade is given in various law schools, and it might deter students who are more concerned about class rank, etc. I think there’s value in knowing at least a little about the decision-making process. That knowledge couldn’t hurt in interviews and landing that all-important first job.
Similarly, it wouldn’t hurt any lawyer to have a CLE course on the topic. Some lawyers don’t know how to spell collegial, let alone act that way. It could help confidence in networking, getting and keeping clients, and getting the best possible result for that client. Clients can be reluctant to be completely candid with their counsel for many reasons. Making the client feel comfortable to “spill their guts,” aka “no surprises,” is essential for the lawyer to craft the strategy that makes sense in the particular case. And it has another important function: the client can offload the problem(s) to the lawyer. That’s where the burden properly belongs, so that the client can get back to business, whatever it may be.
Every time I think I have even a little understanding about AI, I am astonished by another AI “whoops.” This one is not about hallucinations. For something new and completely different: how about an expert witness who uses AI to write his report and, of course, that report exonerates the client who had paid for it? Funny? Not funny. Plaintiff’s counsel did some sleuthing and found out that one of the prompts the expert used with ChatGPT came to the conclusion that the expert wanted and had been paid handsomely for. Spare a few minutes from time sheets and watch the deposition excerpt in the link. Hilarious to see grown men (perhaps assuming facts not in evidence) act like little boys. Of course this was in Texas. Enough said.
So, is anyone surprised that our brand new Attorney General Todd Blanche has refused to declare the Justice Department’s independence from 47? In the 50-49 confirmation vote, the knees were still bent in adulation to 47, although it was close. What’s remarkable (no, not really) is that the highest law enforcement official in our land (sorry, Kash Patel) thinks that 47’s opinion about whether to prosecute is every bit as important as anyone else’s point of view. Should surveys be taken about whether to prosecute and whom?
Blanche said that 47 would never ask him to do something that would cross either an “ethical or moral” line, nor would 47 push him to do something illegal or unethical. Blanche insisted that hasn’t happened and will not happen. Cue the “straight face” argument. Isn’t it the government’s responsibility to file cases only if there’s evidence that can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt? Whither the government’s case against James Comey?
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro had the good sense to drop the case against the purported tainter of the reflecting pool since there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.
What about the Subway sandwich case acquittal?
Meanwhile here in LaLa land, aka the Central District of California, in what some have called “Amateur Hour,” federal prosecutors have lost every case brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office against immigration protesters.
If Blanche had been the AG, rather than Pam Bondi, would these cases have been brought? What do you think? Will Blanche push back against some of 47’s insistence to punish his perceived enemies? Where’s the evidence, that pesky little thing needed to prove a case? Is anyone going to tell 47 that he doesn’t always get his way, no matter how many presidential tantrums? 47 uses the Roy Cohn playbook and it’s not a pretty one.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at [email protected].
