The number one issue facing scholarly publishing today is research integrity. The crisis is associated with paper mills selling authorships to fabricated papers; reviewer cabals colluding with special issue guest editors; predatory journals, sans reviewers and editors, acting as auto-publish clubs; and papers rife with image and data manipulation. In response, publishers and editors are scrambling to retract thousands of corrupted papers, close complicit journals, and cease special issues. The publish-or-perish culture, often backed by cash incentives (now banned in China), can be blamed, as can publishers pushing papers through to capture open access fees. It all reflects how, in . . . [more]

In a prior post for Slaw, I argued that law schools should make AI more central to the curriculum. We should teach how to use AI effectively rather than resist it or pretend it isn’t there. To do this, we need to take a different approach, which might entail permitting the use of AI on some assignments and exams.

In this post, I want to address a strong counter-argument: encouraging law students and young lawyers to use AI too much, too soon will prevent them from developing the skills they need to do their jobs effectively—or even to be any . . . [more]

Recently I visited the Vanderbilt Mansion in Hyde Park, New York.

For those of you who are movie buffs and enjoy American history, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had his family estate there and returned to Hyde Park on a regular basis to relax and recharge.

In fact, the Vanderbilts and the Roosevelts were neighbors and their estates are now part of the New York State Parks.

The era to which these families belonged was called the Gilded Age. I had heard of this time period before, however I never really focused on its real meaning until the tour guide explained it . . . [more]

Don’t include fake cases in court submissions. Don’t miscite cases for wrong propositions of law. Don’t refer to cases in court if you haven’t read them. This is the most basic of lawyering stuff. Probably too basic to even be included in an Advocacy 101 course. Yet, over the last two years, lawyers have made headlines for doing exactly these things. Their common partner in misadventure? Generative AI.

The landscape of AI-generated errors in court submissions

AI-related mishaps first came to the attention of the legal community (and the rest of the world) in May 2023 when an American lawyer . . . [more]

It’s pretty much impossible to get away from a discussion of how AI is going to affect legal practice these days. From AI tools that allow users to summarize documents to tools that create new precedents to tools that carry out legal research, it feels like there’s an AI tool for every part of the legal process. 

We’ve also seen the stories about legal research using AI gone bad: for example, this Federal Court case or this Ontario case. (There’s even a database of legal decisions involving AI hallucinations.) The problem in these situations is not that the lawyer . . . [more]

Perhaps, you say, it is akin to the hockey player, who skates with the puck again and again into the offensive zone, only to be met with a stick here, a shoulder there, caroming into the boards or sliding splayed out into the ice, but upon another foray sneaks one way around a stick while pushing the puck the other, then erupting forth past a shoulder, gathering the puck and looking up to find only a wide-eyed squid between heaven and hell. A sudden rise in heat, pressure transforming into euphoria, but not quite yet, the sensation of success and . . . [more]

A considerable amount of Canadian legal scholarship exists within the boundaries of either civil or criminal law. Each camp generally invites separate consideration of gaps, standards, trends, shifts, and other issues. Rarely do these two domains of scholarship meet. A similar divide is apparent in legal practice, with the civil and criminal legal systems commonly viewed as separate arms within our broader legal machinery. There are certainly valid reasons for the siloing of these bodies of law. For those trained in law, the divide between civil and criminal law and the reasons for it will be clear, logical, and in . . . [more]

Can the Alberta Privacy and Information Commissioner limit a foreign corporation from collecting images of Albertans for use in facial recognition software? That was the issue that came to the Court of Kings Bench of Alberta on the application by Clearview AI Inc. (“Clearview”) for judicial review of the decision of the Alberta Privacy and Information Commissioner.

Clearview obtains images of Albertans and Canadians by scraping publicly available data from web pages and social media sites on the internet. The privacy commissions of Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, and Canada investigated Clearview’s practice of scraping images from the internet. A joint . . . [more]

This submission is part of a column swap with the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) bimonthly member magazine, AALL Spectrum. Published six times a year, AALL Spectrum is designed to further professional development and education within the legal information industry. Slaw and the AALL Spectrum board have agreed to hand-select several columns each year as part of this exchange. 

Practical applications of generative AI in legal research.

“How do you use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for legal research?” The question usually surfaces in the context of continuing legal education presentations. The answer for most law librarians is, “I . . . [more]

This month’s column is aimed at Gen-Xers like me and the Boomers who preceded us in the legal profession. Readers in your 20s, 30s, and 40s – I’ll catch you next time out.

Preparing a talk the other day, I realized with a mild shock that last month, I celebrated the 30th anniversary of my call to the bar. Although maybe “celebrated” isn’t quite the right word – “commemorated”? “Glossed over with mild discomfort?” “How the hell did that happen?” 1995 was also the last year in which I engaged in anything like the practice of law, so I suppose . . . [more]

Mediation has become a cornerstone of Canada’s civil justice system. Whether driven by mandatory programs or chosen voluntarily, it offers parties an efficient, relationship-focused path to resolution. And with the Ontario Civil Rules Review poised to expand its role, mediation’s prominence is only set to grow.

I am still surprised when I am retained as a mediator by counsel who I have never worked with in the past nor even spoken to. While I am happy to have the opportunity, it concerns me and raises a crucial question: how are mediators being selected? Are lawyers choosing mediators based on their . . . [more]

While many in the justice sector are confused and ambivalent about artificial intelligence, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has taken a clear stand. CHRT “tribunal members,” as announced in a Practice Direction last fall, ”do not use AI to write decisions or analyze evidence.”

To understand why the CHRT (and some other Canadian tribunals and courts) have explicitly banned AI in adjudication, read the work of Prof. Amy Salyzyn. The “corrosive risks” she identifies include hallucinated cases, biased language, and subtle (and not-so-subtle) legal errors. Then there’s the issue of litigants’ confidential data being provided to AI companies through queries . . . [more]