Erin Mulvaney

Harp is still remaining on and maintaining his clients as far as we know.

It remains to be seen what the shift will mean.

They definitely aren't quite using it to just plop in and say, hey, here's a decision, chat TBT, tell me what to do.

They seem to be being pretty discerning, but they're using it to look at tons of documents, maybe synthesize.

All the different laws, all the different arguments that lawyers have made and hundreds of thousands of documents.

Maybe a few have said that they are saying, hey, what questions should I ask in this hearing to lawyers based on the record so far?

And just a few things to speed up the process.

They're really just dipping their toe and using some of these products to maybe make things a little more efficient.

That's a really fair point and maybe one reason that a lot of judges would balk at even the idea of using it at all whatsoever because they don't want to have any kind of question of whether their decision was influenced by a machine or some kind of past decision that they didn't analyze carefully or...

A mistake being put in is even worse.

But I think that's why judges really are trying now to learn how the tools are actually working.

That's why it's early days.

So the folks that I interviewed, they are probably the contingent of pioneers in this area.

I would say the much more common tact is that judges have been referees against lawyers that are submitting and using ChatGBT to cut corners in some ways.

So LexisNexis is one of the main providers.

There are tools that have some basic research functions and some that can synthesize documents.

Those are available to all federal judges, and they don't share publicly the data on how many judges are actually using it.

It's available in chambers to everyone.

And then these other tools that are specifically designed for courts and judges

I'm sure they're wading into it.