👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please as an addition to your excellent newsletter: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' —for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helpers' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases for you to publish in your trackers.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of right mow would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copywrite problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and his ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
We use Lawfare fairly often rather than recreating the work https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trumps-first-100-days/tracking-trump-administration-litigation
Oh I have been looking for something like this! Thank you!
Have you seen it in the form of a table? All EOs/status/impacts to- date?
I found an excel spreadsheet in the past that someone was compiling but I can't find it now (sadly). If you come across it (or I do), let's share :)
👏👏👏One suggestion, please as an addition to your excellent newsletter: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' —for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helpers' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases for you to publish in your trackers.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of right mow would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copywrite problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and his ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
👏👏👏One suggestion, please: Court case citation and links! It would be helpful for following status of cases because then a reader can then plug the citations into Google Scholar to track appeals, progress of what happens after a temporary injunction, read the case at any time, see what case and scholarly articles cite the case, etc.
Yes, it would take additional time to get such info but here's my suggestion to make it easy and free: set up a distributed / crowdsourced network to volunteer law students and lawyers that are able to do it: unfortunately, right now as a semi-retired lawyer I personally can't. But frankly, but there are many retired lawyers also, for example that might want to be part of an effort to push back legally against Trump / DOGE.
To protect the integrity of the process, though, all helping MUST sign / pledge NOT to use AI. There are now well-documented court cases where a lawyer or paralegal for the lawyer has used AI to get case citations and AI got it wrong and even made up citations!
So now, there are orders against the lawyers for improper use of AI and new state and local bar rules / task groups against unsupervised AI. AI legal research per the disciplinary / licensing organizations and courts require that a lawyer / law firm not even bother with submitting legal documents to the courts that were the product of AI unless the lawyer and paralegal has actually checked and corrected AI mistakes / flights of fancy. AI must be supervised as if it were a human paralegal and lawyer.
All in all, it would be easier for your purposes and protection --and not to inadvertently mislead anyone -- to have a written agreement with helpers that any citations and links to court orders (and even dockets) cannot be the product of AI research or unsupervised AI research.
(A suitable indemnity agreement would also be involved as would be the lawyers and law students agreement that if they use AI research for the project and it is discovered --whether or not it causes injury' for it is the integrity of your work and project and the helperss' word that is also being protected-- that the offender will be reported to their Bar associations and Supreme Courts / licensing agencies.)
But I assume it would be greatly appreciated by the linked individual or group helpers supplying the citations and even any case updating status to you to be part of any effort to keep the Public and even lawyers and paralegals* as up to date as possible.
* In fact, there are also professional paralegal groups and even law professors that that might also want to be part of a distributed network that would regularly provide you Case citations and links to dockets & cases.
The only possible other downside to the idea that I can think of would be if by the act of publishing the links any copyrights are violated. The remedy for that would be presumably free consultation right upfront during the network [of citation and link helpers] set up process with IP [Intellectual Property] lawyers, professors, bar associations, public interest law firms, etc. advising about how to avoid copy write problems.]
With such additions to your trackers you could become known as a "go to" resource for the latest on the results of legally pushing back against Trump's power and ego-boosting tyrannical Executive Orders.
Excellent recap