IKR

Absolutely they are!

Yeah, exactly.

And then if they’re using it, when they send like, facts to help draft a complaint or what have you, we would have to worry it’s hallucinated.

If I recall, though, Clio has some guarantees of confidentiality.

Well, it helps when they do it on stream… but I’m getting ahead of myself.

We ask a lot of those hyper specific questions because we’ve had cases thrown out for those reasons, sadly.

And it’s not always obvious if a case falls into our practice area. But I hear the frustration loud and clear. When we can, we put together an introduction to someone in the right area.

I think it depends in part on the TOS for your LLM.

I’ve sent those requests to adversaries! Don’t have a fully briefed motion to compel yet, but…

But I worry a bit that thinking that way privileges people who are educated on this, much the same way our standard biases privilege certain types of communication, etc.

Yeah, seems right—and kind to the cite checkers.

I think the basic problem is that cite-checkers at different schools are going to have completely different guidance from EICs, etc., and there’s no way to predict where their editors want them to land.

Maybe the best choice is to come up with a solution that’s easy to find/replace?

Maybe it’s having gone to Chicago when the Maroonbook was still a going concern, but it seems to me you could do something like this on the first docket cite:

“other documents from this case will be cited as Toyota( I) ECF No. ___.”

(With the number if there are multiple cases by Toyota)

“Truth!”

Okay, well, yes.