article thumbnail

The Five Most Momentous Legal Tech Fails

Above the Law - Technology

In 2016, legal tech entrepreneur Derek Bluford was riding high. But that all came crashing down after I reported in 2016 of Bluford’s settlement of a lawsuit charging him with impersonating a lawyer, forging legal documents and fraudulently swindling two clients. QuickLegal. Following my report, QuickLegal quickly shut down.

article thumbnail

eDiscovery Assistant, Legal Research Platform for E-Discovery, Adds AI-Generated Case Law Summaries

Above the Law - Technology

The feature uses ChatGPT to deliver one-paragraph summaries of court decisions, with the goal of enabling legal professionals to more quickly gauge the relevance and implications of a decision. “This ensures users get precise insights into relevant court decisions,” Twigger said.

professionals

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

We ask ChatGPT: Are true crime findings admissible in court?

Martindale-Avvo

I’ve had an idea to write a piece about true crime authors and their findings (are they admissible in court, what’s legal, etc.), Additionally, the information provided by true crime authors is not always admissible as evidence in court, and must be verified through proper legal channels.

Court 98
article thumbnail

On LawNext: InfoTrack’s Mission to Revolutionize Litigation Services Such as E-filing and Process Serving, with CEO Ed Watts

LawSites

You may know it more through its brands, including ServeNow for finding process servers, One Legal for California court filing, LawToolBox for court calendaring, and the Legal Talk Network group of legal podcasts. and then in 2016 to the U.S. On the latest LawNext podcast, our guest Ed Watts , CEO of InfoTrack in the U.S.,

e-filing 107
article thumbnail

Bite mark analysis has no basis in science, experts now say. Why is it still being used in court?–NBCNews

lennyesq

That includes the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which said in 2016 that “available scientific evidence strongly suggests that examiners not only cannot identify the source of bitemark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot even consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark.”

Court 63
article thumbnail

Section 230 Immunizes Bing’s Search Results–White v. Microsoft

Eric Goldman

The court agrees with Microsoft. ’…the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment finding Microsoft immune from Mr. Google, Inc., 2016); Fakhrian v. 2016 WL 1650705 (Cal. 2016); Despot v. 2016 WL 4148085 (W.D. 2016); Manchanda v. 2016 WL 6806250 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Mosha v.

article thumbnail

Section 230 Once Again Immunizes Google’s Search Results–Metroka v. PA Law Enforcement

Eric Goldman

The court easily dismisses per Section 230: ICS Provider. Numerous courts have held Google is one. ” The court summarizes: “Google has immunity from her state law claims, as it cannot be held liable for search engine results showing a third party’s statement.” This court repeatedly cites the Kabbaj case.

Law 87