Lawyers and Generative AI: To the AI pushers I say "get off my lawn."

  

I now regularly get emails from the Virginia Bar Association’s “Senior” section which I guess makes sense since my Virginia Board of Bar Examiners license is dated in October 1988.  So perhaps I’ve reached curmudgeon status and I’m just yelling at young lawyers to “get off my lawn.” 

With these qualifications out of the way, some quick history. When I started practicing law the secretaries at the firm where I worked had IBM Selectric typewriters that stored about a paragraph of information.  We had a word processing department where longer items were typed on PC’s by a staff that either read from legal pads or listened to those tiny dictation cassette tapes.  Nobody was connected to anybody else.  The peak of technology was Westlaw or Lexis searches.  None of our lawyers had a stand alone PC on their desk.  Fax machines had just come into vogue (we quickly learned you had to copy faxes or they would fade over time).  This was “state of the art.”  Within seven years (1995ish), I was at a job with a PC on my desk and we were all connected to each other.  Outlook was standard (I loved the calendar especially but still kept my paper calendars for a while as back up).  Obviously, email was becoming ubiquitous and, of course, by late 1999 we were all worried about the technological Armageddon that we might be facing with Y2K. 

My point is change always happens and I’m not a Luddite (although in my more retro moments a small cabin in the mountains with plenty of books and a nearby trout stream sounds inviting).  Yet . . . a recent report from Thompson Reuters tells me “the future isn’t just about whether organization should be adopting AI – it’s about how they can do so strategically to get the most benefit from advanced technology.”  Well, maybe, but can we ease off the gas pedal a moment?  Thompson Reuters and other similar ventures have a financial stake in pushing AI.  This is not to say their motives are purely mercenary but let’s not pretend they are exactly philanthropic, either.  Each outfit pushing the use of AI has a stake in getting lawyers to jump on board while proclaiming they are the firstest with the mostest at just $99.99 per user per month for the next forever number of years.  Another quote from Thompson Reuters:  “the most successful organizations are those deploying AI with a coherent strategic framework – one that acknowledges today’s challenges while building resilience for tomorrow’s competitive landscape.”  Oh, really?  I recently read a legal memorandum which shouted “AI” due to various features, for instance, improperly citing “not to be published” cases, and generally sounding banal and dull.  We can’t all be Ernest Hemingway (choose your favorite author) but a little personality wouldn’t kill our writing and improperly citing case law is first year associate level nonsense. 

Generative AI isn’t merely a new way to communicate or a new way to obtain copies of cases and statutes or a new way to store information.  It’s a way analyze and organize and create legal documents.  As someone involved (part-time) in education for the past 20 plus years at the law school, college, and high school levels, I can assure you AI is making unfortunate inroads on student behavior.  It’s an all too easy shortcut, especially in the get-it-done now society, to just let some form of AI do the heavy lifting.  Pushing this into the legal world as must have or you’ll be left behind sounds much more like marketing and less like sound advice.  

When faxes started dotting the landscape, suddenly clients believed that sending a 38 page document at 5:14 pm on a Friday afternoon somehow meant by 6:00 pm it would be completely and fully analyzed and a return letter making all the necessary changes, additions, and suggestions would be sitting on their fax machine.  Oddly enough, I don’t recall my brain being able to read, digest, and effectively review documents any more quickly after fax machines than before them.  AI promotes a similar but more disconcerting view that somehow plugging in a query will offer up acceptable answers on a virtually immediate basis.  I know that it will work with remarkable speed, accuracy, and precision with good queries but I also know from doing on-line legal research for several decades that a slight modification in a query can make all the difference.  If lawyers assume the first query does the trick, will they be lulled into thinking this is sufficient?  But what if it isn’t?  I get this runs into the Bee Watcher Watcher problem of Dr. Suess fame[1] but it does raise the question about how often lawyers will need to check AI results.  At what  point do AI results stand as sufficient?  How can we be sure?  How many queries meet best practices standards?  (See, I do know some current lingo despite my advanced age).  

Yes, one can point to computer assisted research as a forerunner of AI and that would be true.  Of course, the obvious difference is the attorney still reads the cases and statutes and regulations that get downloaded.  The attorney still has to analyze what the cases and statutes and regulations mean given the facts and circumstances of the situation. As needed, the attorney still has to write some kind of document commenting on the impact of cases, statutes, and regulations on the situation at hand.  If AI is doing this, and we can’t pretend this won’t happen, perhaps with great frequency, does practicing law ultimately devolve into practicing queries for AI?  Yes, this picture sounds a bit dismal and Brave New Worldish, but we can’t ignore the push being made to get everyone on board and on board sooner rather than later. 

Am I against AI?  If by that you mean am I against the current rush to jump headlong into AI without carefully weighing its use from all angles, then yes.  If by against AI you mean I see no value in it at all, then no.  I have used Chat GPT, for instance, to try to acclimate myself to AI and what it looks like.  On the whole, my experience has been moderately interesting and partially successful but certainly not transformative. 

If, as we lawyers really do stand in the gap for clients, making sure justice is done, wrongs are righted, language is used effectively and legally, and provide clients excellent legal support, then shouldn’t we at least take measured steps regarding generative AI?  Shouldn’t there be an air of caution and a willingness to put our foot on the brake for a moment?  Shouldn’t we be assuring ourselves precisely how well it truly works without relying on marketing from those who gain the most from its use?  

Will AI be transformative?  Maybe it will.  For right now, I will continue to say to the AI pushers: I can cut my own grass for now, thank you.

---

[1] https://www.schooleverywhere-elquds.com/lib/uploadbook/160841479105326Did_I_Ever_Tell_You_How_Lucky_You_Are%20%281%29.pdf accessed 8-25-2025 (p. 14 – 15) in case you want to remind yourself.

Kanye and the uncritical mind

 

I think I've put my finger on what galls me so much about the current atmosphere in which we live.

It's the casualness.

People are intellectually casual, socially casual, ideologically casual, philosophically casual.

Here's an example of what I mean.  Ye, or the star formerly known as Kanye West, was at one time the coolest guy on earth to many young people (anyone under 40).  Recently, Ye has said some rather atrocious things both via social media and in interviews which I am NOT defending.  He has clearly lost his way, assuming he was ever on anything other than a raw narcissistic and ego-driven course to begin with.  Of course, many who never once gave much thought to antisemitism suddenly think it's terrible and awful that Ye said the things he said and he MUST, of course, be and was, in fact, ‘canceled’.  Frankly, most of these folks aren't concerned about actually informing themselves about much of anything but simply see headlines and run with whatever is the latest cool rant.  Anti-Ye sentiment is cool and acceptable (for now) so as long as the wind is cooling off the finger they licked before sticking it in the air.  He must be stopped and crushed.  Because he hates Jews.

Ironically, many of these same people likely devolved into pro-Palestinians after the October 2024 massacre of Jews by Hamas and Israel’s retaliation because, well, the online mob said so.

What's frustrating about this is the absolute self-assurance such folks often have that they're right without any apparent concern for the irrationality and absurdity that almost inevitably accompanies their pronouncements.  The self-righteous loathing of any unfashionable opinion is mind-bending.  There is no principle in play here other than "today we are right."  Of course, the same people never once gave a thought about such things just five minutes ago.  They won't give it much thought in five more minutes.  It feels so good to be right in the moment (and, allegedly on the “right side of history”).  There is much hoopla surrounding their opinions but little or no action as their guiding principle offers no real guidance for what's next.  Never mind the harm it may cause others to treat them so loathsomely, as if any of us is so perfect we have a right to sneer.

As a Christian, I find much of this soul-crushing.  I see people who claim they "love" others because they have the right feelings about them, but don't do anything of substance to help others.  They don't volunteer in any way, their finances are completely self-absorbed (they might throw a dollar in the Salvation Army kettle at Christmas time although even that is doubtful), and they are so concerned about "me" and "my identity" and “my health” (physical and mental) that there is little room left in their minds for others, except as it makes them feel good.  They unironically believe that posting something in support of or to “bring awareness” of some cause, and in so doing getting their social do-gooder fix, is sufficiently socially and morally good to meet whatever their typically amorphous standard is.

This often includes their families and even children.  Why they get married and have children is beyond me, as there is no sense that it is good and right that one must frequently sacrifice their own wants and, even needs, for those of their spouse and children.  Rather, the sentiment, which is most often the driving motivator in these folks lives, seems almost always to be "am I getting what I want out of this?"  This, I think, goes a long way toward explaining the willingness to have children out of wedlock or the unwillingness to have any children at all, or the casual willingness to abort children, or the extent of casual divorce.  It’s always and ever about me and my “needs” when “needs” really usually means “desires.”

In the end there is nothing more than devotion to being on the right side of issues, which, in turn, is simply devotion to self.  There is little gainful action to help others and little concern for making changes in their own lives.  The only thing such folks are often free with is their advice, much of which comes from second-hand circumstances (I saw it on Twitter, Instagram, some website, someone told me, I read an article by an EXPERT), as opposed to any actual living, learning, or training.  Yet, frequently, these folks will tell you without any sense of irony just how absurd your views are, even when you gently suggest you might actually know a bit more because, well, you've actually lived more and seen more and experienced more and learned more regarding a particular issue, circumstance, or situation.  They don't care.  They're right because the fashionable opinionators say they're right.  It's just mob rule and the mob is always right until the mob isn't right anymore.  Then you just join the new mob and carry on!

Back to Ye. 

Yes, his recent pronouncements have been disturbingly unpleasant and peculiar.  But I must ask: so what?  He has staked out his position.  If that bothers you, don't buy his music or other assorted goods he has for sale.  If you want to talk about what a rotten scoundrel he is, do so.  If you want to convince others Ye is a horrible person, help yourself. 

But perhaps one ought to have a willingness to offer "there but for the grace of God go I."  I don't even mean this in the sense in which I say it as a Christian.  I mean this in the generic sense that one might choose to exercise a little bit of humility prior to pronouncing judgment on others for their beliefs and views.  Yet, as best I can tell, many in this crowd seem to have no clue about what irony even looks like.  They press forward and onward, leaving a garbage heap of silly, putrid, irrational, and philosophically absurd statements behind them, forever tossed into the recycle bin in their uncritical minds, where they can dump them out at their leisure, pretending or ignoring they ever said them, or claiming didn't mean it "that way,” or simply disengaging because they can’t handle the way the conversation is going.

Ye appears to be a mess. He appears to be profoundly narcissistic, utterly without shame, and disabled by an intelligence that he uses for profoundly bizarre means to ends that seem wholly ego driven.  The irony is that those who are now canceling him are the very same people who today will uncritically accept that men can pretend to be women and tomorrow will uncritically accept that transgenderism was really never a good thing.  The moment Ye returns to them by agreeing with them, or by saying something they like, they’ll love him again, even though now they’ll deny it as if their life depends on it. 

This won’t be about forgiveness, by the way; it’s about forgetfulness, it’s about casualness, it’s about frivolousness. People won’t forgive Ye, they just won’t care because they simply won’t choose to remember he was a bad guy eight minutes ago.

And the mob will move on to its latest victim, unaware that just 20 minutes ago, they loved the latest victim. 

Jesus Gets Us but He Gets Us Doesn't

 

As usual, I’m behind the times with my posts, but I like things to die down before I speak up.

The He Gets Us campaign again spent upwards of $10,000,000 for ads during the Super Bowl.  Part of me is glad to see the name Jesus but I can’t help but ask: at what cost beyond just the dollars and cents?

Andrew Walker, Professor of Ethics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary noted in a tweet after the game that there were no Nazis shown getting their feet washed in the ad, no KKK members, no MAGA hat wearers.  He then asked an appropriate question (paraphrased): don’t they deserve to have their feet washed, too, or is that only for left-of-center socially acceptable sins like LGBTQ and abortion? Others, like Professor Walker, more well known than me (Robert Gagnon among them) have asked similar questions.

Where He Gets Us (the campaign, not Jesus) fails to get us is it does not deal with sin . . . at all.  Jesus said in Mark 1:15 “repent and believe the good news.”  Repent of what?  Sin.  For what else can there be repentance?  We certainly need not repent of good deeds or for worshipping God or glorifying God.  What is the good news?  That by repentance through faith in Christ you can be forgiven of all sin.  Paul noted in Romans 3:10 (quoting Psalm 14:3 and Psalm 53:1), there is none who are righteous, not even one.  This is the default setting of every human being that has been in existence since Adam and Eve’s fell from grace in the Garden.  It is an inescapable feature of human existence.

Apparently, the He Gets Us campaign either (a) doesn’t care, (b) doesn’t understand Christian theology, or (c) is pulling a bait and switch.  None of these are desirable characteristics. 

Apologists for the campaign will argue well at least people are seeing Jesus’ name in public on one of the most watched programs on tv every year, doesn’t that count for something?  Well, yeah, to some extent. 

He Gets Us throws the name Jesus out there, but isn’t really directly promoting the whole Jesus.  It was more of a Barney the Dinosaur kind of Jesus singing I love you, you love me . . . without sufficient context for people to get the whole message.  Might some folks investigate Jesus further because of these commercials?  Possibly.  But how can we conclude He Gets Us actually cares without telling people the more fundamental problem: THEY ARE SINNNERS IN NEED OF A SAVIOR? 

The second problem is that the campaign makes you wonder if the people running it actually understand Christian theology.  The foot washing commercial took a scene out of John Chapter 13 where Jesus was celebrating the Passover for the last time with his disciples.  There is theological weightiness and heaviness in this circumstance.  Nowhere in Scripture is foot washing proclaimed as some sort of indication of one’s love for neighbor. The commercial implies Jesus went around washing people’s feet to show how much he cared.  Foot washing was a lowly task because people in those days, who walked almost everywhere and wore footwear that didn’t cover their feet completely had very dirty feet.  It was a menial task allotted to the lowest of servants because it was gross.

Jesus was using the foot washing as an enacted parable of sorts to show his disciples how they were to relate to each other and to other Christians, not to the world at large.  In fact, the context of the entire situation was Judas leaving to betray Jesus and Jesus telling the disciples that one of them would betray him.  In John 13:18 Jesus says “ I am not speaking of you all [regarding the point of the foot washing]; I know whom I have chosen . . .”  He told them they were not to wash Judas’ feet because he was not “chosen.”  

Each disciple was to seek to be the servant of the other – later he tells them the abiding characteristic of Christians should be love for each other. (John 13:34 – 35).  Yes, Christians are to evangelize – but that wasn’t what Jesus was demonstrating here.  The point was that if he, their master, was willing to wash their feet, they should be willing to wash each other’s feet to show their love for one another.  It’s not symbolic of how Christians are to interact with non-believers but how Christians are to interact with each other.

Finally, there’s the bait-and-switch aspect here.  What in the world do you do with someone who says “I like the Jesus on the commercial” when they meet the real Jesus?  The Jesus who says “repent” and who tells a woman caught in adultery to sin no more and who has come not to bring peace but division.  When confronted with the full picture of Jesus and not just the cuddly Barney version, you have to think people are going to get rather incensed.  They’ll rightly say to He Gets Us I didn’t want that Jesus.  Offering a false gospel is offering no gospel at all.  In fact, Galatians 1:8 says that preaching another gospel is “accursed” (some versions might say “anathema”).

He Gets Us isn’t telling the truth because somehow the people who run it have concluded people just can’t handle the truth.  Well, this isn’t a Tom Cruise movie and people aren’t on a witness stand being cross-examined.  This is real life.  We have to be honest with people.  He Gets Us doesn’t get it.

 

A professor's lame lambasting of the word lame

 

https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/lets-stop-using-the-word-lame

No. Let’s not.

The above is a link to an article by a so-called professor of English, Ethnic Studies, and Women and Gender Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville.

Acting as if it somehow denigrates people to use the word lame is completely contrived.  Our erstwhile English professor is correct that the word lame has in the past referred to a physical condition, typically related to one’s difficulty or inability to walk. I daresay if tomorrow you interviewed 100 everyday people on the street what you’d find is most would define lame as per the current vernacular – it means something isn’t good or worth the time, money, or effort or that it’s just dumb.  Most (likely 90% or more is my guess) wouldn’t even realize that it had a meaning related to a person’s physical condition. Agonizing over the current usage as somehow demeaning creates angst and worry where none is required or even meaningful.

Why do I even care?  Irony. The same English professor would likely be angered if I wrote that we shouldn’t be using gay to mean homosexuals – she’d argue that’s what the word means now and that I should just get over it and that words sometimes change meaning or add meaning over time.  The word “gay” until about 50 years ago still meant happy or well-disposed.  Now it doesn’t.  That’s in the nature of words. The word “texting” didn’t exist in 1980 when I was a teenager. But we now use it as a gerund (a verb used as a noun typically ending in “ing”) to mean sending a written message via a device known as a smartphone. It may, or may not, retain this usage exclusively over time. Neither I nor Professor Wendorff can know.  The irony is that it is all-too-predictable that I'd be told to stop being whatever villainous kind of "phobe" or "ist" it is to suggest we go back to gay meaning happy.

One of the most fascinating things about words and usage is the additions and changes that occur over time. We don’t speak in Chaucer’s Late Medieval English. For that matter we don’t speak the same English as that of the late 1700’s. Fortunately, many words retain their meanings over long periods of time (we could likely converse reasonably well with people from the 1700’s but there would be awkward moments).  So why, suddenly, must we stop using lame in its current form?

To add insult to injury, let me use some clichés to describe what the good Professor is doing here. She’s finding a cure for a disease that doesn’t exist; she’s treating everything as a nail that requires hammering; she’s sawing off the branch while standing on it. 

We don’t need so-called do-gooders like the Professor shaming people for their ordinary usage of words because she needs to justify her salary and position at a university teaching nonsensical ideas like not using lame to mean what it has come to mean.

She's being, dare I say it . . .  LAME.