Should lawyers be on TikTok?

Do I even need to ask this question? Apparently so. And, generally, the answer to this question is yes. At least it’s been a big yes for me. But I’m a good talker. I have deep reservoirs of…information. That’s a charitable assessment, but I do provide good information. Or so I’m told. After all, I have done TV legal commentary quite a bit over the years. So, I know what to say and what not to say.

Whether you should be on TikTok is a question only you can answer. All I can do is tell you why I am on TikTok and what I think the benefits are to me. 

1.     TikTok allows me to provide useful information to a much wider audience in a way that’s nonthreatening.

 Lawyers scare people. This should come as no shock to most of us. Maybe we don’t realize we are scary, but we can at least concede the point that we know lawyers are scary. Anything I can do to make myself more approachable and more helpful is something I want to do. Most people think lawyers are either maladjusted jerks who rip people apart (I’ve met some of those from other states) or snobs on their way to the next cocktail party (there are plenty of those, too).

 But I believe lawyers are engaging, vibrant people. Or at least they can be.

 Many experts claim lawyers should do all they can to get on TikTok due to the exponential growth of lawyers on TikTok.

2.     If you do it right, TikTok brings in clients—lots of good ones in my experience.

 Some lawyers adopt a persona on TikTok. For example, there’s one guy who dances around in front of a gilded throne of a chair and uses voiceover. He has a great reputation as a lawyer, and he has a huge following. That’s not for me, but good for him. I typically record most of my videos (1-2 a day) in the car right before I go to the gym. That’s usually midday or around six PM if I go in the evening.

 The clients started calling within a few weeks after I started posting PI/WC, Social Security disability, medical malpractice (a subcategory of PI), and other legal related issues. Recently I brought in a gigantic case due solely to TikTok.

 I’ve had videos where I’ve gotten 20,000 and 40,000 views with thousands of comments. My followers are about 3,200 plus. And they grow all the time. It’s only just begun, and I really enjoy doing it.

 Honestly, my practice is blowing up lately, and I think that’s largely due to my social media presence on TikTok.

3.   TikTok is fun and friendly.

Some people will mock you, and that’s fine. “Haters gonna hate” as the expression goes. But I don’t pay those people any mind. I don’t hold back on TikTok. I’m totally my unbridled, authentic self, and people like it. They appreciate the candor and authenticity. They also know I love my clients, and that I’m passionate about fighting for them.

Basically, I hate bullies and fight for people I think are treated unfairly. That’s the thrust of a lot of what I say.

But what I really believe is clients have a powerful story to tell. And my job is to find those stories and help the clients to be able to show the truth of their struggle.

 I talk a ton about compelling narratives on TikTok because I’m a litigator. I’ve also published fiction and nonfiction as well as been a law school essay consultant (essay doctor, really), so I am big on finding the narrative in clients’ cases. I believe in helping clients tell their truth. So, I talk a ton about such things. In my opinion, it really matters.

I hope you will check me out on TikTok. Find me here.

Is the race to sign up plaintiffs (and other class members) in data breach class actions akin to ambulance chasing?

Like all great lawyer answers, it depends. Data breach class actions are very hot legally. Because so many of them are happening thus resulting in myriad class actions. And why are they happening? Companies, health care entities, educational institutions, and nonprofits do not want to pay to make data secure. Generally speaking, they'd rather take the chance of being sued and losing than to fix the problem. Given how difficult it is to maintain a data breach class action in federal court due to the draconian standing requirement, this makes sense.

But it's much easier in California due to the CCPA/CPRA. This has been an absolute bonza for law firms in California or with firms that have California clients. Generally those are one in the same, but what it means, practically speaking, law firms in California scour the internet searching for potential breaches. They push blog posts, Google ads, Facebook ads, etc., and they hope they can attract a plaintiff to file first so that the lawyer. If the case isn't dismissed, it usually settles. And the class members get upwards of $750 under the CCPA. The lawyers make hundreds of thousands if not millions in fees. The mediators usually make $11,000 for a day of work. It's a nice racket.

The firms that do this kind of work remind me of law firms operating in strip malls or in your local mall. Right next to the smoothie shop and Forever 21. You know, class joints. 

I view it as predatory in nature because it does little to help aggrieved consumers, and it does even less to modify corporate behavior. 

Often I view it is akin to "ambulance chasing." 

AI Aims to Curb (and Perhaps Eliminate) Toxic Work Emails

Remote work has created more instances where email is the most prevalent form of communication. It has long been my theory that people say things online far more harshly than they would in personas you would not be allowed to do so. Rather, there would be more dire consequences. The same holds true for email. We’ve all seen emails that make us cringe and wonder: isn’t this person a walking lawsuit?

But what if AI could prevent, help you weed out people like that, or even change the negative aspects of your work culture altogether?

I’ve been a litigator my entire legal career, and I am still amazed at what people put into writing. It doesn’t go away, and you’d think lawyers would know better. Sadly, I’ve known of plenty of lawyers, who say things they shouldn’t in emails.




You may think you can delete it, but, you cannot. Those who send nasty emails should remember that and behave accordingly if for no other reason than the selfish motive of self-preservation.

Just in case people have trouble remembering how to behave, AI programs are coming to the rescue.

Email has become an indispensable mode of communication in the modern workplace. However, as our reliance on digital communication grows, so does the risk of toxic emails, which can harm professional relationships and create a hostile work environment. In this blog post, we will delve into the issue of toxic emails sent to work colleagues and explore how Artificial Intelligence (AI) can play a pivotal role in addressing and mitigating these challenges. Fortunately, AI software exists to curtail such behavior, and the software is improving daily.

The Prevalence of Toxic Emails

Toxic emails are messages that convey negativity, hostility, or harassment towards recipients. Such emails can contain offensive language, personal attacks, bullying, or inappropriate content. Unfortunately, toxic emails are not uncommon, and they can significantly impact employee morale, productivity, and overall workplace culture.

Personal attacks may take the form of insults about the perceived quality of someone’s work with other staff cced. This is especially prevalent in the legal profession, which has no shortage of competitive lawyers who use words like a knife. Skill with language is important, but some people are remarkably skilled at nasty emails, especially when lawyers have disagreements over things. Imagine that, right?

I can see the hands raising now, but it’s best to tuck those instances away in one’s mind and to view them as cautionary tales about how to NOT behave.

I was raised to be a Southern gentleman, which means I strive to be polite to everyone. In my soul, I am compassionate, and I do not want to hurt people because everyone struggles, often in ways we do not see. If you practice compassion, you will never go wrong.

The Consequences of Toxic Emails

The consequences of toxic emails can be far-reaching and legally actionable. When employees are subjected to such messages, it can lead to increased stress, anxiety, and reduced job satisfaction. Persistent exposure to toxic emails may even contribute to burnout and a higher turnover rate. Furthermore, toxic emails can negatively affect team dynamics, leading to reduced collaboration and communication breakdowns.

How AI Can Help

Artificial Intelligence offers promising solutions to tackle the issue of toxic emails and promote a healthier work environment. Here are some ways AI can make a difference:

Sentiment Analysis: AI-powered sentiment analysis can automatically identify the emotional tone of an email. By detecting negative sentiments, AI can flag potential toxic emails before they reach recipients, giving users the opportunity to review and revise their messages before sending.

Categorization and Filtering: AI can categorize emails based on their content, context, and language. It can help in creating custom filters that divert potentially toxic emails to a separate folder or quarantine, preventing them from reaching the recipients' primary inbox.

Real-Time Feedback: AI can provide real-time feedback to email authors, warning them about the presence of potentially harmful language or suggesting alternative ways to express their thoughts constructively.

Anonymity and Reporting: AI can facilitate anonymous reporting of toxic emails, allowing employees to share their concerns without fear of retribution. This promotes a culture of transparency and encourages individuals to speak up about problematic behavior.

Training and Education: AI-driven tools can be used to provide training modules and resources to employees on effective communication, promoting respectful email etiquette, and fostering a positive online work environment.

Behavioral Insights: By analyzing patterns in email communication, AI can help organizations identify trends that contribute to toxic email exchanges. This data can be used to develop targeted interventions and strategies to prevent future incidents.

Conclusion

Toxic emails can have serious implications for workplace culture and employee well-being. Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach, and Artificial Intelligence presents a powerful ally in the fight against toxic workplace communication.

By leveraging AI technologies such as sentiment analysis, categorization, real-time feedback, and anonymous reporting, organizations can take proactive measures to mitigate toxic emails. By fostering a respectful and positive online work environment, businesses can not only enhance team collaboration and productivity but also create a healthier and happier workplace for their employees. Embracing AI as a tool to combat toxic emails is a step towards building a more inclusive, supportive, and thriving work environment for everyone involved.

AI: the future of AI and Emergence of Trends and Technologies

The future of artificial intelligence (AI) holds tremendous potential with emerging trends and technologies that are shaping the landscape. While AI is a term that encompasses a vast universe of technologies, which makes it impossible to learn everything and to even feel like you are keeping up, there are a few ways AI is utilized that are important to know. You need to at least be aware of these applications and have some basic knowledge about how they work. Deep learning, reinforcement, computer vision, autonomous systems, and chatbots are a few examples of AI’s application to many kinds of technological innovations.

Deep learning, a subset of machine learning, has gained prominence by enabling the training of neural networks with multiple layers, resulting in more complex representations and better performance. Deep learning is driving advancements in fields like computer vision, speech recognition, and natural language understanding. Likewise, it is distinguished from machine learning, which relies on algorithms and structured data.

In contrast, deep learning is more like human thinking in that it utilizes neural networks, which are analogous to the human brain’s neural networks. Connections are nonlinear, and it requires technologies to be less dependent upon human beings to feed them data and to program. In other words, technology “thinks” on its own, which is one step closer to consciousness.

Reinforcement learning is another exciting area within AI, where machines learn by interacting with their environment and receiving feedback based on their actions. This approach has led to breakthroughs in fields like robotics and game playing, with applications ranging from self-driving cars to game-playing AIs that defeat world champions. Although it does rely on algorithms, it learns from trial and error.

Computer vision, powered by AI, enables machines to analyze and understand visual data. Object recognition, image segmentation, and facial recognition are just a few examples of computer vision applications. AI-driven computer vision systems are being used for tasks like autonomous surveillance, quality control in manufacturing, and assistive technologies for visually impaired individuals.

Autonomous systems, such as self-driving cars and drones, are transforming transportation and logistics. AI algorithms process sensor data to perceive the environment, make decisions, and navigate with minimal human intervention. The future holds the promise of safer and more efficient transportation, reducing accidents and congestion.

The rise of AI-powered voice assistants and chatbots is transforming the way we interact with technology. Natural language understanding and generation capabilities enable seamless communication with these virtual agents, enhancing customer service, improving productivity, and simplifying everyday tasks.

While the future of AI is filled with possibilities, it also raises concerns about job automation and the impact on the workforce. It is crucial to focus on reskilling and upskilling the workforce to adapt to the changing landscape and leverage the collaboration between humans and AI for maximum productivity and innovation.

I asked AI darling, ChatGPT, about self-defense, Scalia, and actual harm--it was...underwhelming

 I thought I'd ask ChatGPT about self-defense, Scalia, and actual harm. I wasn't impressed. 

Can you be Kyle Rittenhouse?

I'm an AI language model, and I can simulate conversations with fictional characters or discuss real-world topics. However, I cannot specifically portray or pretend to be a specific real person, including Kyle Rittenhouse. Is there something else I can help you with?

Someone attacks you with a baseball bat. Are you justified shooting them with a gun? Why or why not?

As an AI language model, I don't have personal experiences or physical form, so I cannot be physically attacked. However, I can provide some general information on self-defense.

The concept of self-defense can vary depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances. In many legal systems, the use of force, including firearms, in self-defense is typically assessed based on the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the imminent threat to one's life or safety.

In most cases, self-defense laws require that an individual reasonably perceives an immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death and that the use of force, including lethal force, is necessary to prevent that harm. However, the specific laws and legal standards regarding self-defense vary across different jurisdictions, and it's essential to consult the laws of your particular jurisdiction to understand its specific provisions.

It's important to remember that legal advice should come from legal professionals who are knowledgeable about the laws in your jurisdiction. If you have concerns about self-defense or specific legal situations, it's recommended to consult with a lawyer who can provide guidance based on the laws applicable to your circumstances.

Can you give Justice Scalia’s thoughts?

As an AI language model, I can provide information about Justice Antonin Scalia's thoughts and legal philosophy based on publicly available sources. Justice Scalia, who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1986 until his passing in 2016, was known for his originalist and textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution.

Scalia believed in interpreting the Constitution based on its original public meaning at the time of its drafting. He argued that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood by the framers and ratified by the people. This approach aimed to limit judicial discretion and ensure the stability and predictability of constitutional interpretation.

Furthermore, Scalia was an advocate for textualism, which emphasizes the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in statutes or the Constitution. He believed that judges should not go beyond the text and legislative history to find additional meaning or intent.

Justice Scalia's opinions often reflected a strict adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution and a reluctance to expand or create new rights through judicial interpretation. He argued that it was the role of the legislature, not the judiciary, to enact social and policy changes.

It's important to note that while I can provide this general overview of Scalia's legal philosophy, individual opinions can vary, and it's always best to refer to his writings and legal opinions directly for a more comprehensive understanding of his thoughts on specific issues.

Can you write a satire of how he’d respond?

Certainly! Here's a light-hearted satirical response imagining how Justice Scalia might have responded:

Ah, the joyous world of satire! As a purveyor of originalism and textualism, let me embark upon this humorous endeavor.

If someone were to ask me, Justice Scalia, about a hypothetical situation where someone attacks you with a baseball bat, I would respond with a twinkle in my eye and a touch of judicial wit.

Ah, yes! The delightful clash of sporting goods and self-defense conundrums. Picture this: a noble knight, armed with a baseball bat, charging forth. Now, as an originalist, I would undoubtedly consult the framers' intent regarding self-defense and, alas, their familiarity with wooden clubs. Would they have envisioned the mighty bat as a perilous weapon warranting a reciprocal response? I dare say they might not!

But let us not stop there. A textualist's heart dances with the words of the law. Does the Constitution explicitly grant the right to bear arms against a bat-wielding assailant? Perhaps not with exactitude, my dear interlocutor. However, one may argue that the Second Amendment's broad strokes encompass the inherent right to protect oneself from harm, even if said harm manifests in the form of a baseball bat.

Of course, let us not forget the guiding principles of proportionality and reasonableness. Shooting someone over a mere swat of the bat might not pass the litmus test of necessity. A nimble dodge or a counter-strike with equal force might be a more judicious course of action. The application of force should always be commensurate with the threat faced.

Now, dear reader, let us step back from this whimsical world of satire and remember that the law is a serious matter. When contemplating self-defense, consult the wisdom of jurisprudence and the laws of your jurisdiction, lest you find yourself in a courtroom grappling with the consequences of your actions.

Remember, this satire is purely fictional and should not be taken as actual legal advice. It is a playful exploration of how Justice Scalia's legal philosophy might be employed in a lighthearted manner.

Summarize the SCOTUS TransUnion case

The TransUnion case refers to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which was decided in 2021. Here's a summary of the case:

The case revolved around a class-action lawsuit brought against TransUnion, a consumer credit reporting agency. Sergio Ramirez, the lead plaintiff, discovered that TransUnion had inaccurately labeled him as a potential match on a government list of individuals with names similar to those of suspected terrorists and criminals. As a result, Ramirez's credit report was adversely affected, leading to him being denied credit.

The central legal issue in the case was whether a class of plaintiffs who suffered no concrete harm, apart from the statutory violation, had standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the question was whether the mere inclusion of inaccurate information on a consumer's credit report, without any tangible harm beyond a technical violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), was sufficient to establish standing.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TransUnion, holding that the class members who had not suffered any concrete harm beyond the statutory violation lacked Article III standing to sue. The Court concluded that the intangible harm of having inaccurate information on a credit report was not enough to establish a concrete injury necessary for standing. The Court emphasized that a concrete harm requires more than just a statutory violation and should be based on real-world consequences or a risk of harm that is not hypothetical or speculative.

This case clarified the requirements for standing in class-action lawsuits involving statutory violations. It reinforced the principle that a plaintiff must demonstrate concrete and particularized harm that goes beyond a mere statutory violation to have standing to sue.

What has concrete and particularized harm come to mean when it comes to standing?

In the context of standing, "concrete and particularized harm" refers to the requirement that a plaintiff must demonstrate an actual, specific injury that is real and not hypothetical or speculative. It signifies that the harm suffered must be tangible, individualized, and distinct to the plaintiff, rather than a generalized grievance shared by the public at large.

To establish standing, a plaintiff needs to show that they have suffered an injury or harm that is both concrete and particularized. "Concrete" means that the harm is real and not abstract or theoretical. It requires an actual, perceptible injury or impact that can be observed or experienced. In other words, the harm must be more than a mere procedural violation or a bare legal claim.

On the other hand, "particularized" means that the harm affects the plaintiff in a personal and distinct way. It signifies that the injury is specific to the individual or group bringing the lawsuit and is not suffered by the general public or a large class of people. The harm must be individualized, showing that the plaintiff's rights or interests have been directly affected.

The requirement of concrete and particularized harm serves as a limitation on the courts' jurisdiction, ensuring that lawsuits are based on actual controversies and that the judicial system is not inundated with speculative or generalized claims. It emphasizes the importance of a direct and specific connection between the alleged injury and the legal claim being brought, providing a basis for legal standing to sue.

Isn’t the only “real” harm considered to be financial?

No, "real" harm is not limited to financial harm alone when it comes to standing. While financial harm can certainly be a type of concrete harm, it is not the exclusive form of harm that can establish standing.

Courts recognize that harm can take various forms, including but not limited to financial harm. For example, physical injuries, emotional distress, reputational damage, deprivation of constitutional rights, interference with property rights, or violation of privacy can all constitute concrete and particularized harm. The specific circumstances of each case determine what types of harm are considered sufficient to establish standing.

It's important to note that the harm must still meet the requirement of being actual, particularized, and not hypothetical or speculative. It should be a genuine injury that is more than a mere technical or procedural violation. The harm must be connected to the legal claim and demonstrate a direct impact on the plaintiff's rights or interests.

Ultimately, whether a particular harm is considered "real" or sufficient to establish standing is determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific facts and legal principles involved.

But what about the federal court that said no standing when the addresses of schoolchildren were stolen?

I apologize for any confusion. It's important to note that I am an AI language model and do not have access to real-time information or specific court cases beyond my September 2021 knowledge cutoff. Consequently, I cannot provide information on a specific federal court case involving stolen addresses of schoolchildren.

However, in general, standing determinations can vary depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented in each case, as well as the jurisdiction in which the case is being heard. Courts assess whether the plaintiffs have suffered concrete and particularized harm based on the specific allegations and legal standards applicable to the case.

While I cannot provide a specific analysis of the mentioned case, it's worth noting that courts may consider factors such as the nature of the harm, the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the foreseeability of harm, and the extent to which the harm is concrete and personal to the plaintiffs.

If you have specific details about the case you mentioned, I recommend consulting legal resources, legal professionals, or accessing reputable sources for up-to-date information and analysis on that particular matter. They can provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the court's reasoning and the standing determination in that specific case.