Summer is approaching, and for those in law school, this means internships, clerkships, pivotal research projects for law review or moot court, and bar review.  Indeed, at every turn, law students face the challenge of ensuring their work-product rises to the top in a competitive legal landscape. So today, we look at use cases for Trellis to help you prepare for your best summer yet as a budding legal professional.

One of the primary benefits of Trellis’ legal analytics platform is the depth and breadth of data available. Users can access detailed profiles of judges that include their ruling histories, motion granting rates, and even the average length of their cases. This information is crucial for those preparing for internships, clerkships, or actively engaged in case preparation, as it provides a strategic overview of what to expect in court.

With vast amounts of data related to cases, judges’ rulings, tendencies, and timelines, you will have unprecedented insights into courtroom behaviors and decisions. Thus, utilizing the platform can transform your legal research, preparation, and career development.

Tailored Case Strategy Development

Interning law students and clerks often need more real-world experience to prepare legal strategies and briefs. Analytics platforms can alleviate this pain point by offering insights derived from historical data, such as how a judge typically handles particular types of motions or legal issues. Imagine crafting more informed, precise, and potentially successful legal arguments. A bonus with Trellis is the plethora of actual litigation documents and tentative rulings. This means that you have more than judicial analytics at your fingertips. You have a fantastic brief bank to assist you in your motion-drafting journey.

Judge analytics platforms are powerful academic resources for law review and moot court competition candidates. They allow students to conduct empirical research or analyze trends across various jurisdictions and legal topics, enhancing law note proposals and competition briefs and providing a richer educational experience. Additionally, these tools will help you understand the practical applications of legal theories you’ve learned in class, bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical, real-world application.

Career Development and Networking

Understanding a judge’s legal philosophy and decision-making process can be invaluable for law clerks and interns aiming to advance their careers. Legal professionals can stand out in competitive environments by demonstrating awareness and adaptability to a judge’s preferences and tendencies. Moreover, this knowledge facilitates better networking with peers and professionals who share similar judicial interactions, fostering connections that could lead to career opportunities.

Showing Up Well Equipped to Win

For law students, clerks, law review, or moot court candidates, judge analytics platforms are more than just a research tool; they are a bridge to deeper understanding, better preparation, and more robust professional development. By leveraging the detailed insights these platforms provide, you can navigate the complexities of the legal world with greater confidence and precision.

Today, investing time in learning and utilizing legal analytics platforms is essential for those in the legal field. Analyzing and predicting judicial behavior offers a competitive edge in academia, internships, and beyond. Embrace these tools, and you are not just preparing for a case; you are preparing for a successful career in law.

Looking to Level-up for Law School and Beyond?

Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel. Effortlessly track lawsuits across states and stay updated with ongoing litigation documents. Request a demo today and elevate your legal practice with our intuitive analytics and API.

In a March 18th press release, the SEC announced an agreement by two firms to settle charges and pay $400,000 in total civil penalties. The two investment advisers, Delphia (USA) Inc. and Global Predictions Inc., were found to have made false and misleading statements about their purported use of artificial intelligence (AI). The Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement announced a crackdown on those engaging in what he termed “AI washing”.  The legal community took notice. So today, we dive into AI washing as it pertains to the legal tech industry.  

By now, many in the legal community are familiar with law firm tech enhancements such as APIs for internal firm data bases, case management platforms, and CRMs. In recent years, however, the infusion of artificial intelligence (AI) into legal technology has promised to redefine the landscape of legal practice. Increasingly, this burgeoning innovation has been accompanied by a significant concern: AI washing—the practice where firms exaggerate the capabilities or even the presence of AI in their products. This misrepresentation can lead to disillusionment, undermine trust, and result in a chasm between expectations and reality. Let’s dissect the intricacies of AI washing, illuminating its implications and exploring tangible solutions within the legal tech industry.

Understanding the Facade of AI Washing

AI washing occurs when companies assert that their solutions employ advanced AI technologies without substantial evidence or when the technology is merely rudimentary or non-existent. In the legal sector, where precision and reliability are paramount, the repercussions of inflated AI claims can be particularly acute. Clients may anticipate levels of efficiency and insight that are currently unattainable, leading to dissatisfaction and potential reputational damage for the firms involved.

Perhaps it is the lure of overstated AI capabilities. It’s possible that firms succumb to the draw of AI labeling to gain competitive edge and appeal to technologically savvy clients. This can result, however, in a market where the term “AI” is used liberally and inaccurately, causing confusion and misapprehension about the true nature of the technology. The propensity to overpromise the functionality of AI tools stems from a desire, perhaps, to capitalize on the AI trend rather than deliver substantiated, effective AI solutions.

For example, according to the SEC order in the Delphia case, “Delphia claimed that it ‘put[s] collective data to work to make our artificial intelligence smarter so it can predict which companies and trends are about to make it big and invest in them before everyone else.’ The order [found] that these statements were false and misleading because Delphia did not in fact have the AI and machine learning capabilities that it claimed. The firm was also charged with violating the Marketing Rule, which, among other things, prohibits a registered investment adviser from disseminating any advertisement that includes any untrue statement of material fact.”

What Are the Impacts and Risks of Misguided AI Perceptions?

The consequences of AI washing are not limited to disappointed clientele. It also hampers the adoption of genuine AI by fostering skepticism. Legal professionals may become wary of integrating AI into their workflows, impeding the potential for innovation and advancement in legal processes.

How can companies navigate to find the truth about AI in legal tech? To combat AI washing, transparency is key. Legal tech firms must provide clear, comprehensible information about what their AI can and cannot do. This includes honest portrayals of the AI’s role in the product and its stage of development. Establishing industry standards and benchmarks for what constitutes AI in legal tech is also crucial, promoting an environment of accountability and trust.

Education as a Pillar for AI Adoption

Equally important is the education of legal professionals regarding AI capabilities. With a deeper understanding of AI’s realistic applications, legal practitioners can make more informed decisions and set appropriate expectations when selecting technology solutions. Professional education can serve as a robust foundation for discerning the true value AI brings to legal services.

The path toward authentic AI integration in legal tech requires a concerted effort to eradicate AI washing. Fostering a culture of honesty, substantiated claims, and education can bridge the gap between AI’s perceived and actual abilities. As the legal tech industry matures, the focus must shift from the ostentatious display of AI to its practical, ethical, and responsible implementation. Only then can we unlock the full potential of AI to enhance the legal profession’s efficiency, accuracy, and service quality.

Interested in how to enhance your legal practice with AI?

Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel. Effortlessly track lawsuits across states and stay updated with ongoing litigation documents. Request a demo today and elevate your legal practice with our intuitive analytics and API.

Sources:

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2024-36

https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2024/03/15/not-generative-ai-investors-customers-call-out-legal-techs-ai-washing

Today’s document deep dive focus is on the recent California Court of Appeals decision to remand Wozniak v. YouTube, LLC to the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and the Hon. Peter H. Kirwan. The lawsuit, filed in August 2018, involves YouTube and Google, and centers on a cryptocurrency scam that not only highlights the vulnerabilities of digital platforms but also tests the legal boundaries of content responsibility under the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Let’s get into the details.

Cryptocurrency Scam on YouTube Leads to Legal Battle

It was quite the wild cryptocurrency scam involving prominent YouTube channels hijacked to broadcast fraudulent videos back in 2018. These videos deceitfully promised viewers double the amount of cryptocurrency they sent to a specific account. Regrettably, those who participated were duped, receiving nothing in return. This scam notably affected the YouTube channel of tech luminary Steve Wozniak, leading him and 17 other victims to initiate legal proceedings against YouTube and its parent company, Google. The plaintiffs accuse the tech giants of knowingly facilitating and capitalizing on this scam over several years.

In response to the lawsuit, the defendants invoked the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (specifically, section 230), which largely shields online platforms from liability for content posted by third parties. The lower trial court’s ruling favored the defendants, who asserted that the claims were predominantly attempts to hold them accountable for third-party content, thus granting them immunity under section 230.

Appeal and Legal Nuances in Tech Platform Liability

Plaintiffs challenged this decision on appeal, arguing that their lawsuit does not seek to treat the defendants as publishers of the fraudulent content, but rather as accomplices in criminal activity. They alleged that YouTube and Google’s actions—such as verifying the hijacked channels—materially contributed to the perpetration of the scam. The appellate court recognized that one of the claims could potentially bypass section 230 protections. This claim suggests that the defendants themselves created content or actions that directly facilitated the scam, a crucial distinction that could influence the applicability of section 230 immunity.

Although most of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed under section 230, the court of appeals acknowledged that the specific allegations regarding verification badges might not fall under this immunity. Consequently, the appellate court deemed the trial court’s refusal to allow amendments to these claims as an overreach. The decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to explore these particular aspects more thoroughly. This ongoing legal conflict underscores complex interplay between tech platform responsibilities and user protection in the digital age.

This legal scrutiny into YouTube’s role in a cryptocurrency scam brings to the forefront the challenges tech companies face in moderating content while maintaining user trust. As courts deliberate on the limits of Section 230 immunity, this case may set a precedent for how digital platforms are held liable for user-generated content. It also underscores the potential legal repercussions for platforms that fail to adequately prevent misuse, highlighting the ongoing balance between innovation and the imperative for robust, proactive measures against online fraud.

Interested in tracking this and other social media lawsuits?

Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel. Effortlessly track lawsuits across states and stay updated with ongoing litigation documents. Request a demo today and elevate your legal practice with our intuitive analytics and API.

Sources:

Wozniak v. YouTube, LLC 3/15/24 CA6

Click to access H050042.PDF

https://trellis.law/case/20cv370338/wozniak-et-al-v-youtube-llc-et-al

https://trellis.law/judge-dashboard/1454/bio

https://trellis.law/doc/85567460/amended-complaint-filed-no-fee-second-amended-complaint

Music: Cast No Shadow by Anka Mason

Blog Narration: Anka Mason