David Ziff
LightNews LightNews
banner
djsziff.bsky.social
David Ziff
@djsziff.bsky.social
2.6K followers 560 following 2.2K posts
Teaching Professor, University of Washington School of Law #LegalWriting
My stuff: https://linktr.ee/djsziff
Posts Replies Media Videos
djsziff.bsky.social
And the defense argument....
December 5, 2025 at 2:20 AM
djsziff.bsky.social
Not the point, I know, but is this really NYT style on a number in a headline? It's "2-Decade," not "Two-Decade"?
Kennedy’s Methodical 2-Decade Quest to Dismantle Vaccine Policy The health secretary has walled himself off from government scientists and empowered fellow activists to pursue his vaccine agenda.
December 4, 2025 at 6:29 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
A lawyer's overstating of a case's holding might be permissible because the lawyer "could, perhaps, reason their way to showing how a case's stated holding might extend to novel situations." But an A.I.'s strained summary of a holding does not do that!
#LegalWriting
2/
First, the fact that Plaintiffs, and particularly Michael Jarrus (who drafted the briefing at issue), did not “fabricate cases or cite nonexistent decisions” is of no help. When a case cite is “real,” an attorney, or for that matter a judge, might see a case they recognize and assume the quote or holding has been accurately represented.Seither & Cherry, 2025 WL 2105286, at *1. That problem is illustrated here; although Chat GPT generated “holdings” that looked like they could plausibly have appeared in the cited cases, in fact it overstated their holdings to a significant degree. And while a litigant might get away with similar overstatements because they could, perhaps, reason their way to showing how a case’s stated holding might extend to novel situations, an LLM does not reasonin the way a litigant must. To put it in a slightly different way, LLMs do not perform the metacognitive processes that are necessary to comply with Rule 11. LLMs are tools that “emulate the communicative function of language, not the separate and distinct cognitive process of thinking and reasoning.” Benjamin Riley, Large language mistake, The Verge https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/827820/large-language-models-ai-intelligence-neuroscience-problems [https://perma.cc/7EHD-PLLZ]. When an LLM overstates a holding of a case, it is not because it made a mistake whenlogically working through how that case might represent a “nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;” it is just piecing together a plausible-looking sentence – one whose content may or may not be true.
December 3, 2025 at 10:20 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
And don't trust Google AI results. (The links don't actually reflect the "rule" Google provides here.)
Footnote Numbers The superscript footnote number should generally be placed at the end of the clause or sentence it relates to, following all other punctuation marks, including periods, commas, and quotation marks. Correct: Roberts (137) mentions "the divine right of kings""; the phrase did not become current in English until the late seventeenth century. Incorrect: Roberts (137) mentions "the divine right of kings";¹ the phrase did not become current in English until the late seventeenth century. Combined Example When all three elements are present, the order is quotation mark, semicolon, then footnote number: "This is only a test"2; you can add further commentary in the second clause.
November 30, 2025 at 6:56 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
So, that said, let's look at the A+ answer, not as a professor grading an in-class timed exam, but as a legal writing assignment.

1. Ugh, that first sentence. The liability "hinges" on something? Don't tell me what liability hinges on. Just give me the answer! This isn't a mystery novel!
6/
5. Betty's liability hinges on whether her motorized scooter was a "vehicle" under Section 1 of the Park Act. The Act does not define vehicle, but Jones and Thomson provide guidance. The facts here are somewhere between those two cases. Unlike Jones's roller skates, Betty's scooter has a one-cylinder gas engine: It is "a motorized mode of transportation, not a human-powered one" under Jones. On the other hand, it is a very modest means of transportation that is far from the size and complexity of a car or truck under Thomson. This seems to be one of the "close cases" mentioned in Thomson, in part because Jones's focus on the powerplant points in one direction and Thomson's focus on size and complexity points in another direction. Scooters are powered but small and simple. It's unclear which matters more, and Betty's liability under Section 1 depends on it.
November 22, 2025 at 6:36 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
November 19, 2025 at 10:58 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
From the great Matthew Butterick's newsletter.
Fonts: wehtt.am/fonts/
Newsletter: mbxs.matthewbutterick.com
#Fonts
#LegalWriting
NYC voters elect fonts, mayor I’ve covered typography in the 2020 and 2024 US presidential elections. In these confusing times, my hope for 2028 is simple: that one candidate rises to the high typographic standards of NYC mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani’s main campaign font was Union Gothic, designed by Matthew Hinders-Anderson, who amazingly makes his whole type library free for non-commercial use. Matthew’s fonts are rad. Let’s hope more candidates discover them.
November 17, 2025 at 1:36 AM
djsziff.bsky.social
Okay I need one each of the following tapes...
Randall ordering movies in clerks.
November 16, 2025 at 4:14 AM
djsziff.bsky.social
Tough news from the GM meetings for Seattle fans. Payroll getting cut and a brutal travel schedule next season.
#mlb #mariners
November 16, 2025 at 12:25 AM
djsziff.bsky.social
Lexis is adding "Etc" to long party names now in the formal caption?!?!
#LegalResearch
#LegalCitation
#Bluebook
Lexis case caption: Caruso v. Local Union No. 690 of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Etc Copy CitationAsk Protégé™Law School Case Brief Supreme Court of Washington January 8, 1987, Filed ; January 8, 1987, Filed No. 51554-9
November 13, 2025 at 9:40 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
Hilarious framing of the two options in Seattle politics.
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...
After all, we haven’t been able to choose decisively between the competing visions on offer for more than a decade now. Do we want to be hard or soft on crime? Do we want the city to intervene aggressively in street homelessness, or take more of a permissive, laissez faire approach? How about public use of drugs — should we crack down for the good of our public spaces, or let it slide, treating it as more of a health concern for the afflicted? We’re conflicted.
November 9, 2025 at 12:54 AM
djsziff.bsky.social
From the Republican leadership in King County: Trump "has the right to test the boundaries of executive branch power."
www.seattletimes.com/opinion/king...
While Trump’s actions are clearly supported by Title 10, sec 12406, (“authority to call the National Guard into federal service in response to a foreign invasion, a rebellion against the government, or when regular forces are unable to execute the laws of the United States”), ongoing court procedures have delayed deployment of troops to places such as Portland. The president has the right to test the boundaries of executive branch power pertaining to the safety of Americans. He shares the exasperation felt by the voters who elected him, promising to clean up cities that have languished for decades under Democrats.
November 7, 2025 at 6:56 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
I saw someone asking for recipes, but they were asking for *healthy* recipes, and this ain't that. Anyway, this khachapuri is the best thing I make and it's really really good.
Dough: 2c Flour 1 tsp instant yeast 1/2 tsp salt 1 cup buttermilk Mix together and leave to rise for a couple of hours Filling: About 14oz total cheese, all grated 40% Mozz 60% Feta/Other Can be anything you want! One egg Mash together cheese/egg mixture. Assembling and Cooking: 1. This makes two breads, so divide the dough and the cheese in half. 2. Flour a board. Lightly flour dough (as needed to work). Flatten out dough into large flat circle. (Make the edges thinner since you'll be doubling them up. 3. Place a ball of egg/cheese in the center and "pinch" up the edges of the dough to create a huge dumpling. 4. Flip upside-down. Re-flour. And roll out again to create a flat circle disk. (The cheese will flatten out inside with the dough.) 5. Transfer to pre-heated (on medium) non-stick pan. No oil/butter needed. Punch some holes in the top to allow air to escape. Cook covered for five minutes on each side.
November 4, 2025 at 3:17 AM
djsziff.bsky.social
Shout out to the GCB.
My old GCB card from 1999 2000.
November 1, 2025 at 4:27 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
The fancy word is "dépeçage."
From the Washington Supreme Court, Justice Gordon McCloud's dissent in Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC.
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...
#LegalWriting
#LegalScholarship
I do not dispute the majority’s explanation that “[s]cholars” have coined a fancy word to promote the process sometimes, but not always, of taking one element from one state’s definition of a claim, taking another element from another state’s definition of a claim, and calling it statutory interpretation. Majority at 20. But we’re not dealing with a law review article here. We’re dealing with difficult legislative judgments, by legislators with perhaps differing policy priorities, expressed in statutes written by perhaps imperfect human beings. And we’re trying to apply those legislative decisions to a terrible mass tort for which a variety of actors likely bear blame. I don’t think that the language that the Washington Legislature chose to put into the WPLA on repose can support the majority’s decision, despite the fancy word that might support such picking and choosing elements from different states’ laws in other situations.
October 31, 2025 at 7:09 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
More (cleaned up) citation drama. This time from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/2...
#LegalWriting
I continue on, beyond what is needed for the court to decide this case, to explain my persistent use of the legal-citation parenthetical (cleaned up) despite the contrary guidance of the latest edition of the Bluebook. See The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation R. B5.3, at 9 (Columbia L. Rev. Ass’n et al. eds., 22d ed. 2025) [hereinafter “Bluebook”]. Some may question—perhaps rightly— the importance of such a technicality. But I find the organic adoption of (cleaned up) to be a remarkable innovation in legal citation that improves the readability of judicial opinions and written advocacy. And (cleaned up) more accurately describes the practice that it notes than the Bluebook’s alternative: (citation modified). In short, (cleaned up) is worth saving. And I hope that the bench and the bar will not be bullied by the Bluebook into letting it die.
October 30, 2025 at 1:51 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
Lawyers! Law professors! Law students! Judges!

Do you hate AI-generated slop? Now you can tell the world while also supporting a living, breathing artist!

alternatehistories.com/blogs/news/s...

Download a free Stop the Slop image or (even better) buy a high quality print!

#LegalWriting
A Stop the Slop poster.
October 28, 2025 at 8:11 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
Appellate oral argument tomorrow morning in the Washington Supreme Court on states' power to require disclosures for online political ads. Tech meets campaign finance regulation!
Briefing here: www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_tr...
Watch here: tvw.org/video/washin...
Tuesday at 9:00am (Seattle time)
STATE OF WASHINGTON v. META PLATFORMS, INC., formerly doing business as FACEBOOK, INC., COUNSEL Cristina Marie Hwang Sepe COUNSEL Robert M. McKenna SYNOPSIS Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act requires digital communications platforms to disclose certain information about political advertisements they host online. The State brought an action against Meta Platforms, Inc. for failing to disclose all required information to three individuals who submitted requests. The trial court imposed a fine of $35,182,159.59, including legal costs. On appeal, Meta argued that the disclosure law violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They also argued that the penalty was incorrectly calculated and that it violates the federal Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines. The Court of Appeals disagreed and upheld the penalty. Does the disclosure law violate the federal First Amendment? Is the penalty constitutional and correctly calculated?
October 27, 2025 at 7:44 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
No way
www.theguardian.com/books/2025/o...
Little Miss Marple: Muddle at the Vicarage Book cover Mr Poirot: Mischief on the Nile book cover
October 24, 2025 at 5:05 AM
djsziff.bsky.social
October 22, 2025 at 11:10 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
Does a citation parenthetical by any other name smell as sweet? The new edition of The Bluebook allows lawyers to "clean up" their quotations with a parenthetical indication, but not (cleaned up). A confusing middle ground nobody asked for!
wabarnews.org/2025/10/15/w...
#LegalWriting
#Citation
You Can’t “Clean Up” Your Citations, But You Can “Modify” Them OK, now we get a bit of drama. A number of years back, Washington, D.C., lawyer Jack Metzler proposed a new parenthetical citation: (cleaned up).8 This proposed parenthetical allows lawyers to “clean up” a quotation when quoting a source that itself quotes and alters another source. For example, pretend Case 1 (2005) says: Cats, dogs, fish, and birds are great. Then, later, Case 2 (2015) quotes Case 1 with modifications, like this: Courts have explained that “[c]ats, dogs, [and] fish . . . are great.” Case 1 (2005). Now it’s 2025 and you want to quote Case 2 for the proposition that cats, dogs, and fish are great. You don’t care about Case 1. You don’t care about birds. You just want to quote from and rely on Case 2. Under traditional Bluebook rules, you would need a (quoting Case 1) parenthetical and all those alterations. But you don’t care about Case 1. And you don’t care about how Case 2 modified the Case 1 language to make its point. That’s all too messy. You just want to quote Case 2 for what Case 2 actually says. With the (cleaned up) parenthetical, you could do this: “Courts have explained that cats, dogs, and fish are great.” Case 2 (2015) (cleaned up). Notice that you are quoting Case 2 for precisely what Case 2 said. You are not indicating how Case 2 altered the language from Case 1, and for good reason: You don’t care about Case 1. The (cleaned up) parenthetical allows you to quote the source you want to quote. This citation innovation has gained a wide following. Many courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have used the parenthetical.9 But previous versions of The Bluebook never adopted the practice. The 22nd edition changes all that—sort of. Rule B5.3 allows lawyers to modify quotations as described above. But the updated rule does not permit the (cleaned up) parenthetical. Instead, The Bluebook requires a (citation modified) parenthetical. A “tip” for Rule B5.3 specifically advises lawyers to avoid (cleaned up). What gives? According to The Bluebook itself, (cleaned up) should be avoided because it “lack[s] a definite meaning in practice.”10 That justification, however, is not the entire story. According to a recent essay by a law student who was involved with the 22nd edition’s updates, the reason was more personal.11 One of The Bluebook’s student editors refused to include (cleaned up) because of a “sour interaction with Jack Metzler,” the lawyer who invented the parenthetical, and they “did not want it to seem like individual lawyers could dictate the terminology of citations to The Bluebook.” Accordingly, the editors were “willing to move forward with a similar parenthetical, but only if [the rules] used a different term.”12 Seriously. Review: Cleaning up quotations is nice, but this is too petty.
October 20, 2025 at 4:27 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
Gordon Gekko saying "Cringe is good"
October 18, 2025 at 4:16 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
I recommend that lawyers and judges *ignore* The Bluebook's new rule on AI and search results. (They don't need to follow it anyway!)

"What a mess. Practicing lawyers and judges should *not* use these rules to cite their search processes."

wabarnews.org/2025/10/15/w...
#AI #LegalWriting #LawSky
You Now Can (Should?) Cite Search and AI-Generated Results No 2025 update would be complete without something AI-related. The Bluebook is no exception. Rule 18.3 provides citation rules for outputs from large language models, search engine results, and generative AI. The citation must generally include: (1) the author of the prompt, (2) the model or service used, and (3) the exact text of the prompt submission or search query. Perhaps you can see the problems. First, requiring the full text of a search query or AI prompt will make these citations extremely long. Queries are not always short. And AI prompts often include a series of back-and-forth questions and answers to produce a specific result. These citations are going to be monstrous. More importantly, to the extent the citation requires inclusion of your own search queries and prompt questions, The Bluebook asks you to divulge the internal thinking and questioning processes that led you to a result. In other words, the citation will include attorney work product. Yikes! But there is good news. First, The Bluebook doesn’t say that anyone must provide a citation for search results or AI content. Rather, the updated rules provide guidance for what to do when an author wants to cite this kind of information. As a lawyer, you could simply choose not to cite these things. Would you ever support an argument in a brief with a citation to the Lexis search query that produced the results that supported the argument? Of course not. And The Bluebook can’t make you. Which leads me to my second bit of good news: These clunky search-related and AI-related rules are all located in The Bluebook’s Whitepages, which are specifically designed for law review students and academic authors. Those rules generally do not apply to practicing lawyers and judges. The simpler Bluepages, which are designed for legal practitioners, do not include these new rules. And while a lawyer may use the Whitepages rules to supplement the Blue- pages, you certainly don’t have to. Review: What a mess. Practicing lawyers and judges should not use these rules to cite their search processes.
October 17, 2025 at 4:23 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
The big takeaways from my review of the new Bluebook for @wastatebar.bsky.social: Some of the changes are sensible, some are nonsensical, and it doesn't matter much because you can keep on ignoring it for the most part.
wabarnews.org/2025/10/15/w...
#LegalWriting
#Bluebook
#Citation
#LawSky
IN CONCLUSION So there you have it: a welcome update, thanks to Professor Chang; long overdue guidance on Tribal law; a messy personal vendetta regarding (cleaned up); an unnecessary new signal; and a rule about search engines and AI that requires you to divulge your internal thought processes. On the whole, I’d say the 22nd edition is a bit of a flop. But have no fear. You can probably just keep on using that outdated format you’ve been using for decades.
October 17, 2025 at 4:20 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
This author suggested changing the Bluebook rule for films. (Use the director, not producer). Instead, the new version now has different rules for "commercial" and "noncommercial" films, which leads to this problem.
cc: @brianlfrye.bsky.social
#Bluebook
#LegalCitation
#LegalWriting
I devoted hours of research to figuring out the answer to the factual question of whether Un Chien Andalou should be considered a commercial or a noncommercial film according to the Bluebook’s criteria, and arrived at the opposite conclusion from the editors. Surely, the editors do not expect authors to do the same for every citation of a film in a law review article, and resolving such contestations is of no importance whatever. But this is the inevitable result of their perplexing reform.
October 16, 2025 at 9:00 PM