Hopefully judges consider ordering the use of outside counsel to independently review citations as a sanction in future cases. That feels like the kind of thing that could have some pain associated with it, particularly if it came along with a publicly filed report of the results.
"we didn't find any other Gen AI, but, man, these guys are really bad Bluebookers."
“Parenthetical quote appears in the holding at the cited page, but is immediately followed by ‘The court disagrees’”
(I once actually caught OC quoting from a case as though it was the holding and not an internal quote from the prevailing party’s brief in the case below, which the appellate court was reversing)
There's a judge in DNM famous for very long opinions where he spends a long time summarizing the briefs and arguments, so it's something I have to watch out for a lot
As in, you worry OC might be quoting from those sections as authority? Or you worry the judge (my former boss) misquotes from the briefs?
I triple check citations by OC to make sure they're from the ruling instead of the parties' arguments! I've caught it a few times
Got it. Yes, that makes sense. I see how that’d be a risk.
👀
There is a bespoke version of this where you read very old #SCOTUS cases and don't realize that the Reporter used to summarize the parties' arguments before giving the Court's opinion.
Lol
Ohhhh I had this happen once with an OC, cited a case, directly on point for his argument...except when you flipped to the next page, first line, "We are not persuaded by this reasoning"