Joe Greiner

@bearcat_nick UC is dominating Xavier in everything other than head to head and on court results

This quote needs put up on billboards all around town.....

@ToasterRan59580 @NotAnotherEsq @DrescherLaw Agreed, the 2-3 dispositive cases are the ones the partner would know/care about. The rest of the cites a partner is generally not reviewing and checking. Associates may be tasked with doing so, or even better if you can run it thru Westlaw or something similar to check

@NotAnotherEsq @JoeGreiner44 @DrescherLaw Majority of cites are for basic propositions. In most cases everyone knows the standard of proof, burdens, and rules of statutory interpretation. But that’s 50% of the cites. Then there are “base” cases every attorney in the field knows. So it’s 2-3 cases that really matter

I know I’m in the minority here but you’ve lost me with the “yes you should use AI to write motions but you also should read every word and double check every citation” Like how does that save any time? (It’s not that I don’t think you should check, it’s just that if you have to check, AI isn’t nearly as useful to lawyers as nonlawyers think it is)

@NotAnotherEsq @ToasterRan59580 @DrescherLaw My point is that, at least at my firm, the vast majority of the citation checks were being done by associates. Partners certainty would review and be well aware of the cases that were central to the briefing/arguments. But they generally were not checking every cite

@JoeGreiner44 @ToasterRan59580 @DrescherLaw Also how are you going to argue a motion and not know the cases cited? What if you get asked about the case? I actually can’t imagine NOT checking the cites. That’s such a huge risk and easily preventable.

@ToasterRan59580 @DrescherLaw @NotAnotherEsq Agreed, there are tools that can help with this sort of check, and I assume are more common now than when I went in house in 2020. I still doubt partners are the ones running those tools.

@JoeGreiner44 @DrescherLaw @NotAnotherEsq I also want to point out that legal tools have added cite checks lately. So you can upload your brief into your favorite legal platform and it will find those hallucinations

@ToasterRan59580 @DrescherLaw @NotAnotherEsq In my experience even high stakes briefs had plenty of that sort of copying and pasting. But even still, I never once had a partner checking citations before submitting, even on substantial cases.

@JoeGreiner44 @DrescherLaw @NotAnotherEsq I’m guessing majority of low stakes briefs have significant copy/pasted content that was cite checked once upon a time and involves very basic principles of law unlikely to be overruled since the case mention was first drafted as citation

@ToasterRan59580 @DrescherLaw @NotAnotherEsq That is only the case in extremely high value litigation. I would wager that 99% of briefs filed do not get anywhere approaching that level of review/oversight

@DrescherLaw @NotAnotherEsq I am a litigator. After a brief is done someone is checking every single cite both for format and substance. Sometimes it’s the partner, sometimes it’s an associate, but it’s literally a separate final task. Plus a few partners read it over just to add comments

RT and ❤️ for a chance to win a signed Dexter Lawrence II Bengals helmet!

@SMB_Attorney Was coming here to leave a comment like this!

And to hell with the people who do!

This is insane behavior. Lawyers, just so you know, almost no one expects this from you.

@MollyJongFast @thehowie He has decades of experience at least

The JD Vance humiliation tour continues

@JoshSmithk0au @ReichlinMelnick At the end of the day, if you think a middling student from Liberty is more qualified than a great student from, say Harvard, we simply won’t agree and you are wrong

@JoshSmithk0au @ReichlinMelnick Your tweet above literally says “being a certain race” is not merit. What constitutes merit doesn’t shift with the political priorities of the administration in any functioning organization

Extremely funny coming from this DOJ, where it's so well-known that merit is irrelevant to getting jobs that Liberty University's law school sent around a message to students telling them "GPA is not a strong factor" for a DOJ internship because what matters is Trump support.

@darrenrovell @MartySmithESPN Truly one of the GOAT engagement farmers we’ve ever seen

@MartySmithESPN Not in the top 5,000 beers in the world.

Best beer in the world. Sipping it here, completely removed from the outside world and all its noise, life's stresses on pause, devoid of distraction, watching artists paint magic on the world's greatest canvas... it tastes like April at Amen Corner.

@JoshSmithk0au @ReichlinMelnick Also, by your definition, an administration could just make it a goal to hire a more racially diverse workforce. Then, anyone hiring racially diverse employees would be meeting your definition of merit.

@JoshSmithk0au @ReichlinMelnick No, that’s wrong again. What you are describing is whether someone is willing to do the job they are hired for, which is different than their ability to perform the job. There are many people who can do a job, and do it well, even if they don’t align politically.

@JoshSmithk0au @ReichlinMelnick That is absolutely not merit, but it definitely is what MAGA thinks merit means

@ReichlinMelnick Being aligned with overall goals and working toward those goals is “merit”, though. Being a certain race is not

@Unbiased_Takes @KurtSchlichter The language you cite has also been consistently accepted as straightforward and clear since it was passed. It’s just a small set of right leaning lawyers trying to curry favor with Trump that have you believing a completely basis argument

@Unbiased_Takes @KurtSchlichter The language you are arguing about has been in place, and construed consistently, for over 150 years. It was addressed by SCOTUS over 120 years ago and construed to mean birthright citizenship. The clause has been reviewed and construed consistently, just in a way you dislike

You guys understand we’re going to lose the birthright citizenship case, right? Before you completely freak out, the traditional understanding of the 14th Amendment, which we are seeking to change, is not an insane reading of it. Nor are our arguments insane like the left has been same. That’s baloney to just shut us up. Neither side is frivolous. It’s a tough call legally and objectively speaking. But when we lose it, and I think we will, don’t freak out that this is some sort of conspiracy. It’s a hard legal decision. Sadly, we have three judges who aren’t even going to try to examine the question and will always vote for what leftists want. But the rest of the court has to make a tough legal call. I think our reading is the correct one. For various reasons, I think they’re going to rule against us. Don’t freak out when they do. It’s not an utterly irrational ruling like so many of the district court opinions we’ve seen.

@Unbiased_Takes @KurtSchlichter You are making policy arguments, not legal arguments. And not especially strong policy arguments, at that.

@JoeGreiner44 @KurtSchlichter If you allow illegal entrants’ children to become citizens, you effectively have no border. The Constitution created a sovereign nation with control over its membership, not an open system that replaces its people through legal loopholes. What are you not understanding?

@Unbiased_Takes @KurtSchlichter Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land for over 150 years now. Are you saying the US hasn’t been a sovereign nation that entire time?

@JoeGreiner44 @KurtSchlichter I know the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to grant citizenship to freed slaves. My point is the Constitution was written to create a sovereign nation. The 14th’s framers understood this especially by adding “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

@Unbiased_Takes @KurtSchlichter Considering this involves the 14th amendment, which was drafted well after all of the founding fathers were dead, you have no clue what you are talking about

@KurtSchlichter It’s an insane reading if you believe the founding fathers were trying to create a nation since the current reading effectively makes it so there is no nation. You have to have zero knowledge of civics and history to believe the current interpretation is valid at all