Jessica Gunder

Happy to announce that I’ve been promoted to Clinical Associate Professor @uidaholaw! I am grateful to my supportive colleagues and excited to continue working with our incredible students!

(3) Rule 18.3’s incompatibility with how generative AI technology is used; and (4) how the requirements imposed by Rule 18.3 violate attorney-client confidentiality requirements and work product protections. Comments & suggestions highly welcome.

This book review considers the Bluebook’s new generative AI rule, concluding that the Bluebook’s requirements are inappropriate. It focuses upon: (1) errors within Rule 18.3 itself, (2) the unreasonable burden Rule 18.3 imposes;

I just submitted my latest: Yikes! The Bluebook’s Generative AI Rule is Flawed on @scholasticaLR. It is available on SSRN here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Grateful to @StacyAnnElvy and @IReadJotwell for this review of my latest article -- cyber.jotwell.com/federal-civil-…

Land dolphins in their natural habitat.. 😊 twitter.com/buitengebieden…

Go into administrative law they said. The doctrine is sleepy they said. You won’t have to spend every summer updating all your course materials they said.

My article contends that R11 is not well-suited for sanctioning the negligent use of AI, however, it cautions against using standing orders to regulate litigant use of this technology. Feedback is still welcome! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

The Fifth Circuit decided this week not to adopt a specific rule governing the use of generative AI: law360.com/appellate/arti… -- a decision that aligns with my forthcoming @StanfordTechLR article.

I'm looking forward to reading @KatAMacfarlane's latest article - -

@KatAMacfarlane Thanks, Kat! I feel fortunate to have had an excellent research assistant for this project (many jurisdictions changed their rollout plans repeatedly, and they weren't always particularly good at updating their materials!).

I’ve added @JessicaRGunder’s Last in Line: Vaccine Scarcity & the ADA to my disability law syllabus. The appendix contains every state’s 2020-21 COVID vaccine prioritization schedule—invaluable research for the future. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

My 1Ls just stopped by with an amazing gift!

@ClareTyler20 Thanks! The draft is on SSRN - papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…. I don't see the final version on Tulane's site yet, but expect it will be available here soon: tulanelawreview.org

Wonderful to see, "Why Can't I Have a Robot Lawyer? Limits on the Right to Appear Pro Se," in print!  Thanks to the @TulaneLawReview students for their work on this project!

@EvidenceProf @StanfordTechLR Thanks, @EvidenceProf!

@JessicaRGunder @StanfordTechLR Congrats!

"Rule 11 Is No Match for Generative AI" - my article examining how Rule 11 is poorly situated to address the negligent use of generative AI - is forthcoming in the @StanfordTechLR. Comments and feedback are welcome! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

@KatAMacfarlane Thanks, @KatAMacfarlane! I'm looking forward to working with the journal's wonderful editors!

Way to go!!!!

We are accepting applications for a faculty member who will serve as Associate Director of Academic Success and also teach in our wonderful legal writing program: apply.interfolio.com/142999 If you have any questions, please let me know as I’m chairing this search.

@KatAMacfarlane Thanks, @KatAMacfarlane!

I love Jessica’s work in this space. Get it while it’s hot, law reviews!

@brianlfrye Thanks! And agreed - if courts do impose a rule regarding AI, it should not require disclosure, but should only to inform litigants of risk and R11 obligations.

@JessicaRGunder Yes, I know, I read it. I’m suggesting an additional negative impact. IMO it could be avoided by judges cautioning litigants about the risk of AI use, without mandating disclosure. After all, it doesn’t matter that they use AI, so long as they’re careful.

Alright! If any law reviews are looking for one last article, I just submitted my latest: Rule 11 Is No Match for Generative AI. It is available on SSRN here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

@brianlfrye The article discusses several negative impacts of orders, including discouraging attorneys from trying new technology (plus drafting errors, anti-technology bias, and problems due to patchwork effect of standing orders).

@brianlfrye Agreed re: variation and causing an inherent disincentive. The conduct is akin to negligence, so unlikely to be sanctioned (will withdraw in safe harbor, or avoid sanctions due to heightened standard applied to sua sponte proceedings).