Colin M. Downes
@colinmdownes.bsky.social
Employee benefits lawyer with typical lawyerly delusions of omni-competence.
There's not really any discussion of research ethics here. Who at ILSA decided to make the memorial judges for the Jessup into involuntary AI guinea pigs? Was there IRB approval from the institutions the scholars are affiliated with?
#GenAI as an International Lawyer: A Case Study with the Jessup International Law Moot Court
This study systematically identifies the current strengths and limitations of GenAI in legal argumentation.
Authors: Damien Charlotin, Niccolò Ridi
Read More: http://spkl.io/63324f7mPO
This study systematically identifies the current strengths and limitations of GenAI in legal argumentation.
Authors: Damien Charlotin, Niccolò Ridi
Read More: http://spkl.io/63324f7mPO
June 15, 2025 at 6:57 PM
There's not really any discussion of research ethics here. Who at ILSA decided to make the memorial judges for the Jessup into involuntary AI guinea pigs? Was there IRB approval from the institutions the scholars are affiliated with?
At this point I'm honestly shocked to get a good ERISA opinion out of this Court.
The Supreme Court coughs up just one opinion today, a unanimous ruling in an ERISA case that I frankly didn't bother to read up on! (I have a No ERISA Case Coverage policy for my own mental health.) www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
![JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001
et seq., prohibits ERISA plan fiduciaries from causing a
plan to enter into certain transactions with parties in interest. §1106. A separate part of the statute, §1108(b)(2)(A),
exempts from §1106’s prohibitions any transaction that involves “[c]ontracting or making reasonable arrangements
with a party in interest for office space, or legal, accounting,
or other services necessary for the establishment or operation of the plan, if no more than reasonable compensation
is paid therefor.” The question presented is whether, to
state a claim under §1106, a plaintiff must plead that
§1108(b)(2)(A) does not apply to an alleged transaction between a plan and a party in interest. The answer is no. The
Court holds that §1108 sets out affirmative defenses, so it
is defendant fiduciaries who bear the burden of pleading
and proving that a §1108 exemption applies to an otherwise
prohibited transaction under §1106.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreih6wpwdvov74y5v5pimxa3dhi7mqaxra6mitao7caw3n6iupuq4ci@jpeg)
April 18, 2025 at 7:29 PM
At this point I'm honestly shocked to get a good ERISA opinion out of this Court.
I'm gonna post more here I guess. X The Everything Site is a bit of a disaster. I guess I'll mostly keep this account to Professional Lawyerly Posting. Maybe I'll manage to not even cuss!
April 18, 2025 at 7:08 PM
I'm gonna post more here I guess. X The Everything Site is a bit of a disaster. I guess I'll mostly keep this account to Professional Lawyerly Posting. Maybe I'll manage to not even cuss!
I love when high flying judicial rhetoric is attached to a citation like uh this.
April 18, 2025 at 5:45 PM
I love when high flying judicial rhetoric is attached to a citation like uh this.