David Lat

An AI Screw-Up By... Sullivan & Cromwell? There are multiple ironies involved in this unfortunate incident. LINK: bit.ly/4sS8jhD

@teafortillerman @atlanticesque Actually, a lot has changed since I wrote that! I'd say, at least in my opinion, that it's no longer true (or at least not universally).

@atlanticesque @DavidLat Lotta variance on that front

I didn't appreciate this until I read some Supreme Court of Canada opinions, then looked into other nations' high courts We Americans take for granted how smart, fair, and eloquent our judges are and how developed and good our law is, on the whole. It's so much worse out there.

Very interesting piece by @cryanbarber and @erinmulvaney about the (super expensive) game of musical chairs now playing out in the #SCOTUS and appellate litigation space.

@KnowMySongWell @smmarotta @KannonShanmugam @johnpelwood Oh definitely—great observation! There might be a conflicts issue, for example.

@smmarotta @DavidLat @KannonShanmugam @johnpelwood Could anything about this help explain (or in some way be related to) why Prelogar took oral argument in the case KS briefed?

Second big appellate move in one week! Shades of the week that Lisa Blatt, @KannonShanmugam, and @johnpelwood moved in quick succession.

When Justices Stop Being Polite—And Start Getting Real And what swimwear brands are the #SCOTUS justices sporting underneath their robes? LINK: bit.ly/42lKGmW

@LTG_Veers @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder And of course add @JonesDay to the list of Biglaw firms that are still committed to litigation (see below from @Rock5491). x.com/Rock5491/statu…

@LTG_Veers @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder You already are seeing this in the rise of (1) lit-only firms that are decent-sized (like Quinn and Boies and Susman—too big to be true boutiques) and (2) a proliferation of true boutiques.

1/ This move makes sense: @GibsonDunn is one of a shrinking group of Biglaw firms that still cares about litigation (as GDC partner @OrinSnyder told me in our podcast interview).

@nyttypos We’ll see—Jeff returned five years ago, and a lot has changed since then….

@DavidLat I figure if they went to the trouble of building a Supreme Court practice, as other large New York firms not previously known for it have in recent years, they probably want to continue to have one.

@WilliamBaude @OrinKerr Congratulations to you both!

I am honored to be elected, along with my dear colleague Alison LaCroix, to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

@Rock5491 @awesomesaucebo7 @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder Nothing to “break” to me! As a former litigator, I’m happy to see litigation staying strong at Jones Day. I just think the industry trend is the other way (and again, as an ex-litigator, I’d be happy to see it start going the other way).

@DavidLat @awesomesaucebo7 @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder I hate to break it to you, but Jones Day probably has the largest and most successful litigation practice in the world, and this has been the case for several decades.

@bolkonsky35 @smmarotta @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder Exactly! Which is why I once wrote this:

@DavidLat @smmarotta @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder Nobody wants to be in court

@bolkonsky35 @smmarotta @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder That has been the case (for about 12 months), but the big secular trend is the other way. Revenue matters more than headcount. Decades ago, litigation made up a majority of revenue or more at most firms; now, the typical Biglaw firm is 60/40 transactional.

@DavidLat @smmarotta @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder This trend has reversed. Litigation hiring has picked up relative to transactional

@awesomesaucebo7 @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder The four firms that decided to fight the EOs are good examples: Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey (litigation only), and WilmerHale. And of course you have other lit-only firms, like Quinn Emanuel and Boies Schiller.

@DavidLat @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder What other big law firms would you say still care about litigation?

@LTG_Veers @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder For boutiques, definitely!

@DavidLat @gibsondunn @OrinSnyder Wait...why does nobody care about litigation? I thought it was the future?

This decision highlights that the conservative justices are not uniformly in support of broad preemption, particularly where there is no basis for preemption in statute. This may be relevant in next term's big climate case (Suncor v. Boulder). /1

In today's immigration case at the Supreme Court, a lawyer jokes that he (unlike Lisa Blatt Monday) is "not going to be the lawyer who stands here and tells you what the court will or won't do in an April argument." Justice Kagan: "You should have been here yesterday." (She meant two days ago.) Chief Justice Roberts: "Just to be clear, we will take appropriate action without regard to the calendar." Here's the reference:

What happened at @UCLA_law undermines a university’s basic function. Students have every right to object, question, and peacefully protest invited speakers. But sustained disruption preventing others from hearing a speaker has no place at a university committed to free inquiry. We’ll be watching UCLA’s response.

On April 9, an AmLaw 10 firm filed a motion in a $8.7B bankruptcy case. It contained an AI hallucination: a fabricated quote from a Second Circuit case. The firm self-reported it 9 days later. BriefCatch's RealityCheck™ would have caught it in 30 seconds. @JosephPatrice @atlblog @bobambrogi @midpageAI #legaltech 🧵