Date of Publication:
Kristen R. Moore and Angelina M. Vigliotti, Library Spaces as Wellness Spaces, 28 AALL Spectrum 36 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kristen R. Moore, Field Note: Supporting Student Parents in Law School, in Supporting Student Parents in the Academic Library: Designing Spaces, Policies, and Services (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting, Ductile Rights, Ky. L.J. (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article presents two important results. First, depending upon the magnitude of ideological conflict in society, a flexible right, rather than an inflexible right, can produce the socially efficient outcome. In general, if social conflict decreases as a right becomes more flexible, then the right is described as “ductile,” and not weak. Conversely, if social conflict increases as the right becomes more inflexible, then the right is described as “brittle,” and not strong. Second, a negative correlation can exist between ideological conflict in society and personal freedom. That is, the more people are negatively impacted purely by what others do, the less people are free to do what they so choose. This Article terms this result the paradox of ideological incitement and considers the cable news channels as an illustrative example. In addition, this Article contends that the State has, under certain circumstances, an obligation to resolve direct conflict that can arise in the exercise of fundamental rights. As part of this obligation, the State must provide remedial mechanisms that create the separation necessary for the exercise of two otherwise conflicting fundamental rights to coexist, spending public funds to implement a ductile right as defined here.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase, Aren’t We Exhausted Always Rooting for the Anti-Hero? Publishers, Prisons, and the Practicing Bar, 56 Tex. Tech L. Rev. __ (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Legal research companies are no more novel than the other platforms we use to navigate our daily lives, and they operate similarly to other information access giants like Amazon and Ticketmaster. Academics are quick to decry the cost of course materials and attorneys are quick to complain about their monthly research bills, but year after year, academics assign course materials through Lexis and Westlaw, and attorneys rely on those products to perform the research necessary to quickly move cases through the system. Similarly, there is ample information available about the problems associated with prison services monopolies and attorneys have been quick to denounce those predatory practices and the harm they place on incarcerated people. Some attorneys have gone so far as to attack some technologies that may benefit litigants as unauthorized practice of law, while also suggesting a change in entry requirements for practicing law for the benefit of indigent criminal litigants, so a law-school-to-public-defender pipeline can be created for the benefit of those individuals. But where is the outcry surrounding legal information access, access which could immediately and significantly impact the ability of incarcerated litigants to understand their cases, themselves?
This article will discuss the history of access to legal information in American prisons, and the history of legal information ownership and the myriad ways in which these ownership schemes negatively impact all Americans, but acutely impact incarcerated litigants. It describes the advocacy work of attorneys surrounding the use of technology by non-lawyers, ability to practice law and, yes, Taylor Swift tickets. The Article concludes with suggestions for how this kind of advocacy can be mobilized to fight back against predatory publishers for the benefit of all those currently in the justice system, but especially those fighting for their freedom behind bars.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase and Sam S. Harden, Through the AI-Looking Glass and What Consumers Find There, J. Tech. L. & Pol'y (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
While a lack of internet regulation is the norm in the United States, generative artificial intelligence presents a series of new challenges, particularly in the legal field. Those who are trained in the law know to check their sources whether they come from case law or a generative AI tool like ChatGPT, but the average consumer is not so discerning. When that average consumer is in the midst of dealing with legal issues and has to navigate those issues without a lawyer, he or she is less likely to sit back and evaluate the information they’re being given, particularly if it looks bright, shiny, and full of knowledge and the ability to help navigate the legal system quickly and efficiently. This lapse in judgment, whether conscious or subconscious, may deepen the justice gap and cause those who are unfamiliar with the legal system to become even more distrustful of not only the system, but the resources that are meant to help self-represented litigants navigate that system in a meaningful way.
This Article will begin with a brief explanation and analysis of generative artificial intelligence more broadly, as well as its current role in the legal field. It will go on to analyze global regulatory frameworks surrounding artificial intelligence and compare those frameworks to the current approaches in the United States. In Part II, the Article will discuss access to justice in the United States and the ways in which technology currently is and is not filling that gap, as well as the regulations to the industry. Part III will propose a scheme for regulating consumer-facing generative AI products and analyze the potential and pitfalls of regulation. Next, Part IV will discuss enforcement of any consumer-facing generative AI products that may be created to fill the justice gap, while Part V will look on the other side of the looking glass, and discuss predictions based on whether or not meaningful consumer-facing generative-AI reaches those in the justice gap, and whether regulating those products becomes a reality.