
When Copy & Paste Gets Costly, & other recent cases
No se pudo agregar al carrito
Solo puedes tener X títulos en el carrito para realizar el pago.
Add to Cart failed.
Por favor prueba de nuevo más tarde
Error al Agregar a Lista de Deseos.
Por favor prueba de nuevo más tarde
Error al eliminar de la lista de deseos.
Por favor prueba de nuevo más tarde
Error al añadir a tu biblioteca
Por favor intenta de nuevo
Error al seguir el podcast
Intenta nuevamente
Error al dejar de seguir el podcast
Intenta nuevamente
-
Narrado por:
-
De:
Failing to cite your secondary sources in briefs is poor form. But is it plagiarism? Jeff and Tim debate. And when the Supreme Court The publishes a case, should it explain itself? PJ Gilbert and Tim say yes, Supreme Court and Jeff disagree.
Also in this episode:
- Can copying from a CLE article really get you sanctioned? Kelly v. Tao suggests… maybe.
- Presiding Justice Gilbert rails (again) against the Court's silent de-publishing practices.
- Deny a request for admission in a one-way fee-shifting case? You might still owe fees—Gammo v. Morrell.
- $105k in sanctions after failing to abandon claims disproven in discovery—Atlantic v. Baroness.
- The perils of citing the wrong fee statute—Martin v. Hogue.
- Gibson Dunn bills $1.8M for May alone in public interest litigation over LA homelessness.
- Can ChatGPT testify against you? OpenAI’s CEO says maybe.
- How AI tools are reshaping billing, ethics, and expectations for appellate lawyers.
Tune in for AI ethics, briefing blunders, and why even your RFA denials could cost you.
Todavía no hay opiniones