Search

The article discusses the need for the U.S. legal system to be accessible, affordable, and responsive to the needs of the general public. It argues that the legitimacy of the legal system hinges on the people's acceptance of it, and for that acceptance to continue, the legal system must work for the majority. It highlights the current shortcomings of the legal system, particularly the fact that many people handle legal problems without lawyers due to cost or lack of trust.

The article focuses on the importance of storytelling in the field of litigation. It emphasizes that crafting a compelling story and effectively presenting it is crucial for advocates to persuade listeners to prefer their client's version of events over that of the opponent. It further highlights that storytelling is deeply rooted in human history and has been used to transmit knowledge, culture, and beliefs across generations.

The article focuses on the difference between the new way and the old way to a legal research by lawyers. It mentions computerized research gives a long list of cases, and the difference between the new way and the old way is the old way requires lawyers to think. It also mentions using the old way, a researcher gets the full picture of the law, but picking the wrong key number can lead the researcher astray.

The article delves into the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on the legal profession, particularly focusing on the use of AI in the workplace and its potential impact on lawyers. It highlights recent legal cases that demonstrate the limitations of AI-generated content. It explores the possibilities of AI bringing efficiencies to legal practice and the potential for increased litigation related to AI.

The article focuses on the pivotal role played by the Litigation Section in training, upholding, and advocating for a robust adversary system within the legal profession. It discusses the Section's commitment to enhance lawyer competency and ethical standards. It highlights the Section's efforts in advocating for judicial pay increases, preserving the jury system, and promoting diversity and accessibility within the legal profession.

The article informs on meet-and-confer session. It mentions the lawyers expect nothing good will come of such sessions, they are sure, and mostly right, that opposing counsel will not genuinely try to compromise on anything. It also mentions nearly every court, nationwide, has imposed a meet-and-confer obligation on counsel as a de rigueur first step before any material disagreement with an adversary can be presented to the judge.

The article focuses on the challenges and issues related to motion practice in the legal profession, particularly in the context of civil litigation. It discusses the prevalence of motion practice in legal proceedings, including procedural motions, discovery motions, motions to dismiss, and motions for summary judgment. It also highlights the importance of effective communication between attorneys and the court to reduce unnecessary motion practice and streamline the litigation process.

The article focuses on plaintiffs' lawyer out searching for contingency matters regardless of merit, there is a defendant's counsel who calculates how the fees billed to the client can be maximized through the use of large litigation teams. It mentions Supreme Court to set aside advertising restrictions in Bates v. Arizona and following developments in legal ethics would do well to keep apprised of New Jersey's considered approach.

The article focuses on Model Rules of Professional Conduct related to work on election litigation for a particular candidate or political party. It mentions abandoning them in favor of a litigation position that offends mean that are a bad person or lack integrity. It also mentions useful service by helping achieve just resolutions of civil disputes and encourage senior lawyers to counsel clients about their social responsibility.

The article discusses the ethical and legal challenges lawyers face when representing multiple plaintiffs who are suing the same defendant. It highlights the need for conflict waivers and considerations when the defendant's resources are limited. It further focuses on navigating these complexities while maintaining ethical standards.