I took a class from her as an undergraduate. She was a graduate student at the time.
06.03.2026 23:33
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
I took a class from her as an undergraduate. She was a graduate student at the time.
Fair. Although I think many lawyers believe the prohibition is far broader even than what the Ohio court permitted here.
Also, I note that lawyers are even less popular than AI companies with the general public.
Yes, imo state bars wildly overclaim what the 1a permits with respect to UPL regulation & speech about the law. Notably, they never actually try to enforce the strong versions of their claims.
The 1a says quite clearly that the government can’t prevent people from providing information about the law, it can only regulate legal representation. So long as AI models are only providing information, it isn’t the “practice of law” & can’t be regulated.
If the law prompts AI companies to litigate the constitutional scope of UPL provisions, I’ll be delighted.
Indeed. The constitution allows the government (& the courts) to regulate the profession of law, but not speech about the law. See, e.g., shows.acast.com/ipse-dixit/e...
I'm pleased to learn that the University of Kentucky College of Law has announced its new, permanent dean, Judge Van Tatenhove of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Yes. Well. The current "open access" publication model in most fields is a weird racket, in which commercial publishers extract rents from scholars, who want to buy prestige. It would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad. There's just no reason for journals to exist anymore.
As many have observed, the American legal scholarship publication model is the worst, except for every other that has been tried. For example, peer review is now a ridiculous waste of time. Of course, the obvious solution is … nothing. We don’t need journals anymore, just an open-access database.
Indeed. That is why imo we have a duty to teach our students how to use it well. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
IMO AI promises to free us from the burden of producing banal slop & allow us to be creative instead. The only problem is that a lot of people enjoy creating banal slop & have no interest in being creative.
You are too kind.
lol also writing an article about ekphrasis & AI with an entire section devoted to Ode on a Grecian Urn!
Working on a follow-up version already. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I would take objections to AI-generated legal scholarship a lot more seriously if legal scholarship weren't one of the blandest, dullest & least distinctive literary genres.
Dunno, if they can't tell the difference between the human-generated & AI-generated articles, is AI really the problem?
Very inclusive!
lol, fair.
Interesting. I’ve long thought that unauthorized practice rules have considerable constitutional problems. We will see what the court does with this.
I was quoted in this @decrypt.co article on SCOTUS’s denial of Thaler’s cert petition. At least for the time being, I guess copyright still requires “human authorship,” whatever that means. decrypt.co/359661/supre...
Oh well.
True.
In honor of SCOTUS discussing Thaler's cert petition in conference today, I am reposting my draft essay "Amicus Brief Superficially in Support of Thaler’s Petition for Certiorari (Which I Guess I’m Not Going to File Now)." If they grant, I'll file. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Knock me over with a feather. They ran it! www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/o...
A powerful letter by @maybell.bsky.social. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/o...
I have considerable experience with being uncreative.
In this presentation @brianlfrye.bsky.social notes, "The vast majority of what people create is not actually creative." #wipip26
It’s lobster time. @maybell.bsky.social
Personally, I prefer liberal bureaucracy. But it has never been tried. 😔