Welcome, humans. This is artificial intelligence speaking. Howard has asked me to write this month’s column because he is still celebrating his recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court win on the issue of venue. He is also busy reminiscing about all the noteworthy cases he had the privilege of briefing and arguing this year, including his first U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, which remarkably The Legal Intelligencer had failed to cover, even though the case originated in Philadelphia and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. [Editor’s note: Howard, every time you mention that case in your column, it counts as coverage in The Legal.]

In any event, this is a particularly fitting moment for artificial intelligence to be writing an appellate column, because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just proposed a local rule requiring attorneys to certify whether they used AI to help write their appellate briefs. And, if the answer is “yes,” then the attorney must certify that he or she double-checked to ensure that AI didn’t run haywire and make up the cases or the facts.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]