ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
I just want young attorneys to know that you actually don’t have to be screamed at. Ever. #lawtwitter
English
BKD
1.1K posts
BKD
@NotAnotherEsq
I am both smarter and dumber than you think. Never estimate me.
Reno, NV เข้าร่วม Mayıs 2023
177 กำลังติดตาม68 ผู้ติดตาม
@zackpeter @imdanabowling Curious: why is Freedman doing a PR tour claiming victory over the settlement if it’s not signed yet?
English
So grateful to Freedman for taking the time to talk with us! And so grateful I got to share that opportunity with my best friend @imdanabowling
Emily Kammerlohr@EmilyKammerlohr
@zackpeter @imdanabowling Just wanted to congratulate both of you for landing and doing such a fabulous job with the Bryan Freedman interview! Beautiful journalistic integrity with some sass and personality, you 2 are FAB!! CONGRATULATIONS 🎉🥳
English
Accurate description of settlements generally
its gaggy@hi_gaggy
Realistically we'll never know who settled or who got what in the deal. They probably both walked away feeling fucked over.
English
Bill Belichick, 74, and much-younger girlfriend Jordon Hudson, 25, make Kentucky Derby debut together trib.al/e1M9W99
English
@innercitypress Pretty interesting how with the limited character space per tweet, you can include every jab against lively and none of her legal arguments
English
OK - now Blake Lively v. Baldoni / Wayfarer final pre-trial conference, Inner City Press has covered the case from the start (Hollywood Hearsay book: amazon.com/dp/B0DWC8BH55
and will live tweet, thread below
Inner City Press@innercitypress
Sample from Audiobook: Hollywood Hearsay, Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni Part 1 - from California CRD to SDNY lawsuits to crisis consultant's Texas echo, on the defamation & anti-SLAPP cases, book: amazon.com/dp/B0DWC8BH55 Audiobook here: audible.com/pd/B0DWCQ9WMK
English
@innercitypress All this would become mute if he would just grant their renewed MJOP.
English
@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.
English
@JoeGreiner44 @ToasterRan59580 @DrescherLaw That is certainly a choice. There was just a case where a partner was sanctioned for submitting wrong citations. The cases were right but the paralegal did the citations wrong. Guess who was at fault? Not the paralegal
English
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)
English
@NotAnotherEsq @JoeGreiner44 @DrescherLaw Like the format was wrong to the cases or the pin cite was off? I can’t imagine the level of pedantry where format elicits a sanction
English
@JoeGreiner44 @ToasterRan59580 @DrescherLaw Not necessarily. If you’re familiar with the case law / legal standard then sure you don’t need to check the cites every time. But if you’re using a case to support your argument you better make sure it stands for what you say it stands for. OC will check. So too will the judge
English
@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
English
@ToasterRan59580 @DrescherLaw Yep. Whether it’s written by AI or an Associate a supervising attorney is responsible for the work so checking every cite is in fact necessary unless you enjoy being sanctioned by the judge.
English
@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
English
@mdwstfrontierAI @DrescherLaw You have it backwards. The associate isn’t checking your work. You’re checking the associate’s work. And a paralegal typically does a final pass for typos. Although a grammar and typo check is actually one of the best uses for AI
English
@NotAnotherEsq @DrescherLaw It's very different from checking an associate's work. When you ask an associate to do a final pass for typos and formatting, will they randomly change the name of a person or case? Arbitrarily modify the wording of a verbatim quote? see thread x.com/mdwstfrontierA…
Midwest Frontier AI Consulting@mdwstfrontierAI
@PhilippeLaban I had previously made this educational game version for the legal domain. Curious what your thoughts are. Very interesting paper! midwestfrontier.ai/blog/ai-writin…
English
@iDoLikeSpam @BobbyBorkIII Ive said this exact thing too. This is actually what I use ChatGPT for the most. I also say: challenge my assumptions, point out my weak arguments and flaws in my logic. It’s really good at it which is a little rude at times but makes my arguments a lot stronger
English
@BobbyBorkIII I've literally told a chatbot to "stop blowing sunshine up my ass and analyze what I gave you for flaws, omissions, and inconsistencies". Which, admittedly, it did pretty well at.
English
BKD รีทวีตแล้ว
ChatGPT goes to SCOTUS: “That’s a great question, Mr. Chief Justice, and it shows you’re not just thinking like a lawyer—you’re thinking like a true legal scholar.”
English
@SellersCounsel Wild that this seems a lot for an ATTORNEY when the real estate broker clears 3% every time and it's not even questioned.
English
I recognize I’m just one data point, but these results (so far) don’t match my experience at all.
I worked on a dozen or so deals around this size last year and pitched twice that many. Owners were frequently surprised by a $75K fee estimate and expected much less. We were almost never the lowest quote they received. On deals we closed, BigLaw fees on the buy side were sometimes as low as $125K.
Here’s my sense of the market:
1% is a good benchmark for $3–5M deals. Below that, the fee is too low to make sense for the attorney. Above that, clients get sticker shock.
Floor is around $20–30K. Below $20K, full-service legal representation is hard to find. $30K is still cheap.
The fee scales with complexity, not linearly with deal size. On $40–50M deals, a small firm will have a hard time closing clients at quotes north of $100K.
Scope and industry specialization obviously move the needle, but that’s my read on run-of-the-mill M&A legal fees.
My conclusion from this poll: there is no market and we’re all making it up as we go 😅
That said, if you’re a business buyer or seller looking for an apparently steep discount on legal services, my DMs are open. Let’s make a deal 🤷♂️
Seller’s Counsel@SellersCounsel
Alright y’all, help me out here: $237,500 legal fee on a $25 million business sale. How does that line up with market? Cc: @Attorney_CPA
English
Great example for why I think so much of the backlash against AI feels misplaced. It's not about the technology. Whether its a junior associate, a paralegal, or generative AI, the failure is the same. No attorney actually reviewed the filing.
Rob Freund@RobertFreundLaw
Court's "months-long endeavor to get to the bottom of what was ostensibly a simple question: who inserted the problematic quotations and citations?" ends with an anticlimactic answer. Turns out no AI was used. A paralegal interpreted an associate's instruction to "cite to cases within the Third Circuit" to mean "attribute these real quotations from other cases to Third Circuit cases," for reasons that aren't clear. Associate never checked the cites, neither did the partner who filed it. "After months of uncertainty, the Court has reached the conclusion that no party has used GAI; instead, a person made the lamentable decision to attribute quotations to the wrong cases." "The situation appeared to boil down to a misunderstanding between an inexperienced paralegal and an overworked associate." "Regardless, and as Mr. Mott eventually acknowledged after initially deflecting responsibility, it is his signature on the MTD Opposition, his name on the law firm's letterhead, and at the end of the day, the buck stops with him." He will pay opposing counsel's fees associated with responding to the Opp. and must take 2 CLEs about AI (even though it was not used).
English