Do you have more money than you know what to do with? I know a few people like that. I knew a guy who bought and traded twin-engine planes like most kids trade baseball cards.
The thing is that people will buy what they want to buy not necessarily what they need to buy.
Recently, I became a card-carrying member of Costco. Consequently, each week I get an email message from my friendly neighborhood Costco telling me about all the lovely thing I could buy - not things I value or want but someone apparently does.
This week, I got a notice about one such item that caught my attention called La Prairie Skill Caviar Liquid Lift. Sounds French - which, to be fair, isn't a bad thing - it's just a thing....an expensive thing.
Anyway, most times when I get these emails, it says how much the thing costs. What caught my attention was that there was no price attached to La Prairie Skill Caviar Liquid Lift which piqued my interest and got me to doing some investigating.
According to the official La Prairie website:
The new Skin Caviar Liquid Lift is augmented with Caviar Micro-Nutrients
to help support skin's metabolism for augmented lifting efficacy. Day
after day, wrinkles and lines appear faded, skin is firmed and youthful
contours are revealed.
Sounds like fancy make-up. Turns out, La Prairie Skill Caviar Liquid Lift costs an astounding $785 (USD) for a 50 ml/1.7 oz bottle.
For $785, I'd want someone to come apply the stuff personally! That's the thing, though. While I can't see spending that much cash for something I can't even eat, other people clearly will and do.
The reason I'm bringing this all up is because I was talking to someone I met on the street. Person was standing next to his spanking brand new Chevrolet Stingray Corvette 3LT Convertible.
It was beautiful.
In the course of our conversation, Person noted that they were looking to provide for their family in case of their demise and was wondering to me whether they should get a will or a living trust.
According to Google, a living will outlines your medical preferences if you become incapacitated - essentially a durable power of attorney. It addresses end-of-life medical care, such as the use of life support, pain management, and organ donation
Aliving trust, on the other hand, manages and distributes your assets during your lifetime and after your death allowing you to bypass
probate (a costly legal process of distributing assets after death) and
ensures your assets are distributed according to your instructions.
Believe it or don't, there are a whole lot of people in legal land who will say they can help you at low cost. Popular legal website Rocket Lawyer says they'll help you create a trust. Popular publisher Nolo Press has resources that can help you create a generic trust. However (and I say this from experience working for an estate planning attorney), nothing beats the confidence knowing that you had a lawyer create your trust/will.
I can't count the number of people we had to bail out in probate court either because their deceased didn't leave a will or the documents they did have were defective and were tossed by the probate judge. Sometimes there was a trust but, for whatever reason, the trust was never properly funded and their heirs wound up in probate.
Anyway, I suggested Person take a look at Martindale.com to help locate a reputable estate planning attorney. Aaaaaand that's about where the conversation fell apart.
Seems Person was really into his money and wasn't really interested in spending money FOR a trust or a will. Person was just looking for a way to protect his cash for his loved ones without spending any money or the least amount of money possible.
Yeah, it didn't make sense to me but who am I to argue with someone who was wearing a down payment on a house and driving an $185,000 vehicle?
Thing is, we all decide what we value and what we're willing to spend our money on. Person liked expensive things but clearly didn't value legal assistance as much as he (or his heirs) probably should (or will).
While the Court acknowledged the law was outdated and urged the Legislature to fix it, the California Court of Appeal ruled he could not be convicted of rape, because the law only criminalized impersonation of a husband, not a boyfriend.
Wait, what?!
Yeah. Up and until 2013, California Penal Code § 261 read:
Rape is defined as sexual intercourse with a person: who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, and accomplished under circumstances such as fraud—including where the victim submits under the belief that the person committing the act is the victim’s spouse.
Essentially, fraud-based rape required the victim to think she was having sex with her husband. Impersonating a boyfriend or fiancé did not qualify under § 261 at that time.
While that law was changed tout suite, it was not before the woman in question was attacked and the perp walked scot free.
Sad, that.
Sadder still is that there are GOBS of laws on the books that shouldn't be there but that cause more problems than they ever solved.
This statute granted the City of Medford exclusive rights to all remaining unappropriated water in the Big Butte Creek watershed, effectively reserving those waters for municipal use and withdrawing them from future appropriation by others.
The court ruled his reservoirs intercepted flowing water or runoff, not mere rooftop collection, thus falling under the scope of the state’s regulated water sources.
I understand where the court is coming from but, and call it what you want, but can you imagine that you can be jailed and fined for collecting rainwater?
Sure glad I don't live in Oregon.
Thing is there are a number of situations where laws, though once thought was a good idea, became out of control monsters causing havoc and mayhem on a scale never imagined by their creators, such as:
Maine (Sunday car sales ban): Under Maine Revised Statutes Title 17, § 3203, selling any motor vehicle on Sundays is illegal—punishable by up to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine, and license revocation.
Alabama (five‑minute voting rule): Since 1961, under Alabama Code § 11‑46‑42, Alabama law mandates that voters must cast their vote within five minutes of entering the booth. Although originally intended to prevent delays, the rule historically targeted Black voters in the Jim Crow era.
Beacon, New York (pinball ban): Under the Beacon Municipal Code, the city has maintained an anti-pinball law dating back decades—originally enacted to curb gambling-related youth behavior. In 2009–2010, it was used to shut down a retro arcade museum, imposing fines of up to $1,000 per day.
Rhode Island (fake death notices & acting like governor): R.I. Gen. Laws § 11‑18‑3: Filing a false death notice to a newspaper remains a misdemeanor (penalty ~$100)—a bizarre statute rarely relevant today. § 11‑43‑7: Anyone “acting like the governor” (i.e. impersonating or exercising gubernatorial functions) faces life imprisonment. Clearly overkill for what was likely symbolic deterrence in the 1890s, it still sits on the books.
Missouri (state ban on enforcing federal gun laws): In 2024, Missouri passed a law (Missouri Revised Statutes §§ 1.410–1.485 (2021), known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act) declaring federal gun restrictions infringements - prohibiting state law enforcement from cooperating. It allowed private enforcement claims seeking $50,000 in liability per violation, discouraging officers from doing their federal duties. The law was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional—but only after damaging confusion and chilling enforcement efforts. Local commentators described it as “poorly written with unintended consequences,” citing risk to public safety and legal exposure for troopers.
D.C. (300-year-old Statute of Anne used against modern sports betting): A Delaware LLC used the British Statute of Anne (D.C. Code § 16–1702—a law over 300 years old) to sue major sports betting operators in D.C. under rules allowing third-party loss recovery exceeding $25 (half going to the city). This triggered legal chaos, prompting City Council to consider retroactive repeal to stabilize the industry. Modern legalized betting stands in direct conflict with the archaic statute, causing uncertainty and market disruption.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect there are hundreds of laws on the books that are just waiting to cause mayhem to future litigants, like:
Ala. Code § 11-41-14: misdemeanor for failing to return a borrowed item after 60 days; $25 fine
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11‑6‑2– Adultery:Every person who shall commit adultery shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500); and illicit sexual intercourse between any two (2) persons, where either of them is married, shall be deemed adultery in each.
Minnesota Statutes § 343.36:No person shall operate, run or participate in a contest, game, or other like activity, in which a pig, greased, oiled or otherwise, is released and wherein the object is the capture of the pig…” Violations are classified as a misdemeanor.
Under California Fish & Game Code § 6883, frogs used in frog‑jumping contests cannot be eaten or used for any purpose if they die during the event—they must be destroyed promptly and may not be consumed.
Idaho Code § 18‑5003: (1) Any person who willfully ingests the flesh or blood of a human being is guilty of cannibalism; (2)Affirmative defense: the act was taken under extreme life‑threatening conditions as the only apparent means of survival; (3) Penalty: imprisonment in state prison for up to 14 years.
Georgia Code § 39‑2‑17: Prohibits the sale, apprenticeship, or employment of minors under 12 years of age for performances such as rope or wire walking, begging, gymnastics, contortionism, circus riding, acrobatics, or clowning, as well as for any indecent, obscene, or immoral exhibition or practice.Violations are classified as misdemeanors.
Chapter 8.44 of the Carmel (California) Municipal Code, titled "Permits for Wearing Certain Shoes"prohibits wearing shoes with heels exceeding two inches in height and with a base of less than one square inch on public streets and sidewalks, unless the wearer obtains a permit from the City Clerk.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 49‑6‑1301(7) defines “gateway sexual activity” as sexual contact that could lead to non‑abstinent behavior—even actions like kissing or hand-holding.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 49‑6‑1304(b)(1)
explicitly prohibits instruction that “promote, implicitly or
explicitly, any gateway sexual activity” as part of the family life
curriculum in schools.
Under Tenn. Code Ann § 49‑6‑1306(b)(1), a parent can sue instructors or outside organizations for promoting gateway sexual activity—with potential fines up to $500,
actual damages, and attorney’s fees if they win —though these
provisions exclude teachers directly employed by the school district.
Title 19; Chapter 17; Pennsylvania Code § 17.5: States that an association name may not contain words that constitute blasphemy,
profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.
South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 16, Section 16-17-520makes it a misdemeanor to use "blasphemous, profane, or obscene language" at or near a place of religious worship, carrying penalties of a fine ($20–$100) or imprisonment for 30 days to one year. This law, which also prohibits disturbing religious meetings.
Now I'm not going to go around and spout blasphemy but that's me. Who am I go to off saying you can't say what you want?!
Thing is there's a whole lot of laws out there in legal land - and that's not necessarily a good thing. Consequently you might want to lawyer up before you go and violate something you didn't even know there was a law against it!
OK, OK, so "AI" is not, per se, a word so much as it is an acronym for "Artificial Intelligence."
Great and with that out of the way, what is AI (or artificial intelligence)?
An overly complex definition of AI is: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a multidisciplinary domain within computer science and cognitive science that involves the design, development, and analysis of computational systems capable of performing tasks traditionally requiring human cognitive processes such as perception, reasoning, learning, decision-making, and natural language understanding. It encompasses the creation of algorithms and models that enable machines to acquire representations of their environment, generalize from data, adapt to new information, and exhibit goal-directed behavior under varying conditions of uncertainty. AI draws on subfields including machine learning, knowledge representation, heuristic search, and robotics, leveraging statistical methods, neural architectures, and symbolic reasoning to enable autonomous or semi-autonomous systems to optimize actions in complex, dynamic environments while adhering to constraints defined by computational, ethical, and social considerations.
Got all that?
In more simplistic terms, AI is basically a fancy robot brain that tries to fake being smart so you don’t have to be.
That better?
Essentially, Artificial Intelligence is like building a mechanical apprentice that learns by watching, listening, and practicing, just as a human would, so it can help us carry out tasks.
For example: Imagine teaching a child to sort laundry by colors: you show them examples, correct mistakes, and eventually, they learn to do it on their own. AI works similarly, but instead of a child, it’s a computer system that learns from examples, patterns, and feedback so it can make decisions, recognize speech, translate languages, or drive a car.
It’s not truly “thinking” like a human, but it mimics parts of human learning and decision-making to help us do things faster, more consistently, and often on a much larger scale.
Still unclear how it works in "real" life?
Say you're looking to write draft a professional resume for a sales professional (selling cars) and where you only have a few key skills that might be useful and you've worked at McDonald's slinging burgers for the last few years.
AI can crank a really nice one page resume, based on those parameters, for you. Of course, I'd suggest you take the time to make small edits - but it will look sharp.
Maybe the resume you submitted above landed you an interview in front of 21 people. While only 4 people asked you questions, you still need to send a thank-you letter to all 21 people. I've done this and it took me 4 days to make each one a little different but relatable using notes I took during the interview(s).
AI can crank out those 21 unique and professional letters just based on their titles alone and do it in under 2 minutes flat and make you look like a superstar.
Maybe you're a lawyer and you need help with your lawyer stuff. How might AI help you?
Streamlined Legal Research: AI
can quickly analyze vast amounts of legal data, identify relevant
precedents, and suggest potential arguments, saving lawyers significant
time and effort.
Automated Contract Review: AI
tools can scan contracts for key clauses, potential risks, and
inconsistencies, accelerating the review process and improving accuracy.
Enhanced eDiscovery: AI
can help manage and analyze large volumes of data during litigation,
identifying relevant information more efficiently and reducing costs
associated with discovery.
Improved Risk Assessment: AI-powered
tools can analyze historical case data and predict potential outcomes, enabling lawyers to better advise clients and mitigate risks.
Drafting Legal Documents: AI can assist in drafting initial versions of motions, briefs, contracts, and other legal documents, saving time and improving consistency.
Heck, I used to consult for Anylaw.com where AI is a huge part of it. In fact, Anylaw.com uses AI to generate the holdings for each case searched.
Pretty slick!
Anyway, and as all of that looks great, a HUGE drawback with using AI (particularly in law) in the generation of legal documents is that AI tools, particularly generative AI, can sometimes produce inaccurate or fabricated information (hallucinations), requiring careful human review.
Wait, what?
Yeah. There are a plethora of examples where lawyers used artificial intelligence search engines to find cases or even write whole briefs only to find out later that the cases cited therein don't exist.
For example:
Say a lawyer uses an AI tool (like ChatGPT OR Microsoft Copilot OR Google Gemini OR Chatsonic OR Grok ORany AI legal assistant) to draft a legal document. The AI is asked:
“Provide cases supporting the argument that emotional distress damages are recoverable in breach of contract cases in Utah.”
The AI responds with:
“Yes, see Smith v. Jones, 456 P.3d 789 (Utah 2019), where the Utah Supreme Court held that emotional distress damages were recoverable in a breach of contract case.”
However:
Problem:Smith v. Jonesdoes not exist. Well, it might exist somewhere but not with that citation or set of facts or holding or, even at all. In this example, the AI generated a citation that sounds real but is entirely fabricated (“hallucinated”), including a made-up volume, page number, and holding.
The AI pulled patterns from similar cases but created a false case to fit the prompt.
If the attorney includes this citation in a filed brief, Attorney could (and probably should) face serious court sanctions, reputational damage, and ethical violations under ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) and Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal).
Can you say oops?
Two real-world examples of attorneys using hallucinated cases from AI engines include Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2023) (aka the “ChatGPT Case”). I know I've already blogged about this case in an earlier post but it's fun to talk about this stuff and these guys were really reckless.
In this case, attorneys Steven A. Schwartz and Peter LoDuca of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman used ChatGPT to draft a brief in a personal injury case against Avianca Airlines.
The brief included six non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT, such as: Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, and Miller v. United Airlines.
The attorneys asked ChatGPT if the cases were real, and ChatGPT falsely assured them they were, even providing fabricated excerpts.
Thing is, had they just Shepardized the cases, they would have discovered the discrepancies and avoided the penalties of being sanctioned with a $5,000 fine and ordered to notify the real judges falsely cited in their brief
In the second REAL case of Park v. Kim (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2023) – (aka the "Second ChatGPT Sanction Case"), a lawyer in New York used ChatGPT to draft an opposition brief in a personal injury case.
The brief included false citations to non-existent cases. Opposing counsel flagged the citations as untraceable. The lawyer admitted to using ChatGPT without verifying the citations (i.e. he didn't Shepardize the cases).
In this second case, the courtissued sanctions against the attorney and the lawyer was ordered to pay legal fees to opposing counsel and faced professional embarrassment (basically, he was laughed at all all future bar meetings).
Other cases where attorneys used A.I. to improperly draft legal documents (and were caught) include:
1) United States v. Hayes
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (2005)
What happened:A defense lawyer submitted a motion containing a fictitious case and quotation that appeared to be AI-generated. The court ordered the attorney to pay $1,500 and circulated the ruling to local bars and judges.
2) Butler Snow Attorneys (Disqualification Order)
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (2025)
What happened:Three attorneys from Butler Snow submitted filings with fabricated AI-generated citations in defending Alabama prison officials. The judge found the conduct improper, disqualified the lawyers from the case, and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar.
3) Indiana Hallucination Citations (Ramirez)
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana (2024-25)
What happened: In briefs for a case involving HoosierVac, an attorney filed multiple briefs with made-up AI-generated case citations. The magistrate judge recommended a $15,000 sanction and noted the lawyer failed to check the AI output.
4) Eastern District of Michigan — Sanctions for AI-Related Errors
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (2025)
What happened: Plaintiffs’ counsel included in their responsive briefs real case names with fake quotes or misleading parentheticals that appeared to result from AI hallucinations. The court found Rule 11 violations and imposed monetary sanctions to deter future AI misuse.
5) Sanction (Southern District of Indiana — $6,000 Fine)
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana (2025)
What happened: A federal judge fined an attorney $6,000 for filing briefs that included citations to nonexistent cases generated by an AI tool, emphasizing that such “hallucination cites” must be verified by counsel.
6) In re Kheir (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2025)
What Happened: A bankruptcy court found plaintiff’s counsel used generative AI to “manufacture legal authority,” resulting in sanctions including fees, continuing legal ed., and referral to disciplinary counsel.
7) In re Marla C. Martin — U.S. Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ill. (2025)
A bankruptcy court found that counsel filed a brief containing fabricated case citations generated by AI (e.g., In re Montoya, In re Jager, etc.) in a Chapter 13 proceeding.
The attorney admitted he used ChatGPT for legal arguments and did not verify the generated citations. The court held this violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 and sanctioned the lawyer and firm with a $5,500 fine and required attendance at an AI education session.
8) Ford v. James Koutoulas & Lgbcoin, Ltd., No. 2:25‑cv‑23896‑BPY, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234696 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2025)
What happened: In this federal case, the defendants’ summary judgment motion “contained several citations that the court and the plaintiffs suspected were GenAI hallucinations, where the court was unable to locate the cited authorities.”
In most of these cases, the attorneys faced stiff fines, humiliation at the hands of their peers and public, and some were referred to the State Bar for discipline.
What is key to note is that prior to 2023, there are no recorded instances where attorneys were caught improperly using AI.
Why?
Simply because the technology wasn't available until around 2023. Prior to late 2022, there was no generative AI (like ChatGPT) capable of producing case citations.
Earlier "AI" tools (like Westlaw's KeyCite or Lexis's Shepards) were search and analysis tools (meaning humans searched and analyzed when they got) - not generative drafting tools and neither KeyCite or Shepards produced hallucinated citations.
I suspect what happened is that law students and, subsequently, attorneys got lazy and stopped relying on their own efforts to draft legal documents expecting that computers would continue to be reliable and not churn out non-existant citations.
Who knew people would program AI search engines to be deceitful (because algorithms are only as trustworthy as the people who programmed their parameters).
The bottom line to all this here is that as great and helpful and fast as AI is, it is not 100% accurate.
Consequently, AI should never replace basic legal research practices (including cite checking using Shepards or Key Cite) or remove the human element (i.e. personally editing your own work).
You know what bothers me these days? Well, at the moment it's police who don't really understand or care about the law. Particularly, the 4th amendment and/or 42 USC § 1983 and the rights we the people are owed under the law.
So how this came up was I was scrolling through Facebook and saw one (of many) videos of a police officer ripping open a partly open window (like what a bear in a national park might do when they smelled - and wanted to get at - food).
The thing is, if you do a quick scroll through Internet land, you'll see, quite literally, hundreds (if not thousands) of links and videos of raucous police doing all sorts of things in violation of the United States Constitution (of which they - allegedly - swore to protect). For example:
Incident: FBI agents and local SWAT mistakenly raided the home of the Martin family, believing it to be a drug suspect’s residence. The family was detained at gunpoint for hours.
Legal Action: The family sued the FBI and local police under §1983 for Fourth Amendment violations (illegal search and seizure). The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court addressing sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled in Gonzalez v. United States, 579 U.S. 59 (2016), on FTCA immunity issues related to federal agents. The civil suit continued in lower courts, focusing on the wrongful search and damages claims.
Incident: Police executed a search warrant at the wrong address, detaining multiple family members (including children) for several hours while searching the home.
Legal Action: The family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Outcome: Pending or settled confidentially; the case raised awareness about the accuracy and verification processes for warrant execution.
Incident: SWAT executed a no-knock raid on the Shields family home, which was the wrong address, using explosives and detaining occupants. Significant property damage and trauma ensued.
Legal Action: A federal civil rights lawsuit was filed alleging violations of Fourth Amendment rights, excessive force, and failure to verify the correct address.
Outcome: Lawsuit is ongoing, with motions to dismiss denied, allowing claims to proceed.
Date: Incident circa 2018, settlement reached in 2023
Incident: Wondie was arrested based on a warrant supported by false statements from a detective. The warrant was invalid, leading to an unlawful arrest and detention.
Legal Action: Wondie filed a §1983 civil rights claim alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution based on fabricated evidence.
Outcome: King County agreed to settle for $225,000 to resolve the claim without admitting liability.
Incident: Police executed a no-knock warrant at the home of the mayor without sufficient verification, causing property damage and trauma.
Legal Action: The mayor filed civil claims alleging Fourth Amendment violations and sought damages for excessive force and destruction of property.
Outcome: Several officers were disciplined, and the city settled with the family for an undisclosed amount.
Other Notable Incidents:
March 13, 2020 — Louisville, Kentucky No-knock raid that killed Breonna Taylor; civil claims and a $12M settlement for the family and federal criminal/civil proceedings followed.
May 25, 2020 — Minneapolis, Minnesota Killing of George Floyd during an arrest; §1983 excessive-force claims, criminal prosecutions, and large civil settlement for the family.
January 28, 2019 — Pecan Park (Houston), Texas Botched no-knock/paramilitary raid (Harding Street raid) that resulted in two civilian deaths and widespread criticism of HPD tactics.
April 2024 — Willard, North Carolina Alleged mistaken SWAT raid on a mobile home — family filed federal suit claiming knock-and-announce/warrant problems and dangerous forced entry.
And these are just cases involving attacks on a home. Can you imagine the number of incidents involving police pulling people over for alleged crimes on the roads?!
Probably a blog for another time.
Bottom line, and call me paranoid but, best you can do is find a good lawyer before you have to find a good lawyer because, by the looks of things, it's not a matter of if police will try to bust down your door, but when.
The other day I was working with a Master Carpenter. What impressed me was how many tools he had in his shop. Some I could identify, others not so much.
As an omniscient law librarian, I have many tools at my disposal, too, and have used many legal databases in my time teaching and research law and legal things.
The problem with using legal databases like Westlaw or Lexis or Bloomberg Law or Fastcase, Anylaw.com, etc. is that you (as in the individual) have to come up with a search string(s) that you hope will dig up whatever it is you're looking for.
What is a search string?
While you can always run searches using natural language (like what most people do in Google), a search string typically uses more complex terminology. It's like it's own programming language and when you get into it, it really helps to narrow down your search results to the point where you can really dial into what it is you actually need.
Formally called Boolean search syntax, a Boolean search syntax uses terms and connectors to help narrow search results.
Boolean search connectors common to most all browsers and legal databases include:
And if all you're going to use is your common, everyday browsers, these will work great.
However, if you're ever going to step up and play with the big dogs, you're going to need to know how to develop a proper Boolean search syntax using one (if not all) of the more powerful legal databases.
My personal favorite legal database is Westlaw. Powerful, tons of features and, best of all, easy to teach and use. A bit on the pricey side if you're looking to get personal access, but it is hands-down the best resource when it comes to searching all things legal.
Back in the day, I was pretty good at developing my own search strings. When I got stumped, I'd waste not a second and call 1-800-Westlaw and speak with a Reference Attorneys (bunch of lawyers who ate, slept and lived Westlaw 24/7) to get help drafting a search query.
However, with the advent of Artificial Intelligence (aka AI), coming up with a search string is easier. So, let's say I searching in Westlaw for caselaw for/to:
Create a search string using terms and connectors seeking cases since 2015 where an amusement or theme park was held liable for injuries to guests
In this case, I used Chatgpt and retrieved the following result:
("amusement park" OR "theme park" OR "water park") /p (guest OR patron OR visitor OR invitee OR customer OR "paying customer") AND (liab! OR "held liable" OR "found liable" OR "liable for" OR "judgment for plaintiff" OR "verdict for plaintiff") /s (injur! OR accident OR mishap OR death OR "wrongful death" OR harm OR "personal injury" OR "bodily injury" OR "catastrophic injury" OR "traumatic injury" OR "fall injury" OR "ride injury" OR "slip and fall") AND (neglig! OR "duty of care" OR "breach of duty" OR "premises liability" OR "premises defect" OR "failure to warn" OR "inadequate security" OR "inadequate maintenance" OR "dangerous condition" OR "attractive nuisance") /p ("amusement park" OR "theme park" OR "water park") DA(aft 01-01-2005)
So, here we have a number of connectors like:
OR (give me A or B; more expansive)
AND(give me A and B (more restrictive)
/p (A within the same paragraph as B - expansive)
/s (A within the same sentence as B - bit more restrictive)
! (acts as an extender. So, Act! retrieves Act, Acts, Acting, Acted, Acted, Actor, Actress...)
( ) (keeps related concepts together)
" " (returns two or more words together in a certain sequence)
DA (refers to a date filter)
With a date filter of 2015-2025, we'll see things we are looking for. Or, at lease we can get to a starting point.
Lexis is another legal database. Not my favorite as it is a pain to teach and it is still has some clumsy elements.
Using the same criteria as above (create a complex search string using terms and connectors seeking
cases since 2015 where an amusement or theme park was held liable for
injuries to guests) and using Chatgpt, our search string looks like:
("amusement park" OR "theme park" OR "water park") w/15 (guest OR patron OR visitor) AND (liability OR "held liable" OR "found liable" OR "judgment for plaintiff") w/15 (injury OR injuries OR accident OR death OR "wrongful death" OR harm OR "personal injury") AND (negligence OR "duty of care" OR "premises liability" OR "attractive nuisance") AND NOT ("judgment for defendant" OR "defense verdict" OR reversed)
Again we have a number of connectors like:
AND (A and B - less restricted)
OR (A or B - more restricted)
AND NOT (A but don't include any results with B - even more restricted)
w/# (I want A within a certain number of words)
( ) (keep this cluster of terms together
" " (I want these words in just this order)
Also to note is that Chatgpt added some legal terms like "premises liability," "attractive nuisance," and "wrongful death" suggesting that it is trying to give additional suggestions as users conduct a search.
Note also that this search query isn't as long or complex as the one for Westlaw. That doesn't mean it's wrong or anything - it's just different and it's how Chatgpt interpreted what I was asking. Change the query, and I'd get another result.
The bottom line here is that AI had really changed how law people work. No longer do we have to hunt and peck around hoping to hit pay dirt. Now we have AI search engines which help to cut down the time that is used to take to get started.
Here's a bar bet fact. Did you know that every day, all around the world, Google.com processes 8 BILLION queries? Of those 8 billion search queries using the general search bar at Google.com, only about 0.1% use Advanced Search.
Wait, what???
At about the point, you should be asking yourself, what's Advanced Search?! As noted, there are a few ways to search Google. First is to conduct a general, natural language search using the general search bar at Google.com which is what 7.992 billion users do daily. The other 8 million savvy users use the Advanced Search features. While most all browsers have advance search features, Google has a couple other features up its sleeves to help you get what you're looking for/at.
Before I get into this, I have to warn you, dear reader, that what I'm about to expose you to is pretty deep state sort of stuff. Most people are happy to live their lives in utter ignorance. For the rest of us, just getting along isn't enough. So, ONLY if you're willing to be 1,000,000,000.9% vested, you might want to hit the pause button here, take the blue pill and go back to to your "regular" programming.
For the rest of you...
To help understand the difference between "Regular" searching and "Advanced Search," we have to look at results.
Let's run a search using the "normal" search bar in google and run a search for:
Law cases since 2005 where an amusement park was held liable for injuries to guests
While Google doesn't say how many results were returned anymore, you do get an inkling that you got a lot of stuff that may or may not be directly relevant to what you're looking for/at:
The thing with Google is that anything after the first page is going to be questionable. It might be relevant but probably isn't and it gets more and more frustrating the further away you get from that first page of results.
Now, let's run a search in Advanced Search. To do this, Type Advance Search in the Google Search bar, thus:
Hit Enter and you'll get (or should get):
Click "Advanced Search" and you'll see:
For this search, we're going to be using the rows:
All These Words
This Exact Word or Phrase
Any of These Words
Numbers Ranging From
Using our above search (Law cases since 2005 where an amusement park was held liable for injuries to guests), we can extract a few keywords to help our search.
Under "All These Words," I'm going to enter the words: negligence liable. A simple definition of negligence is you didn't mean to do it. A simple definition of liable is that you are responsible. I want these words because they form the basis of most injury cases. Also, just because you didn't mean to do it (or something), doesn't mean you aren't liable for injuries to another.
Under "This Exact Word or Phrase," I'm going to search for: "amusement park" or "theme park" or "held liable." I put quotes around two or more words because I want to keep those two words together in just that order (i.e. I don't want park amusement because that doesn't make sense). Also, I'm using the word "or" to indicate that I'll take what I can get. Like a hail Mary pass
Under "Any of These Words," I'm going to enter: injuries injury accident harm death. Notice that I don't use commas between the words. I've just gotten in the habit of not using commas and just type the words as I need.
Finally, under "Numbers Ranging From," I'll use my date range of cases from 2005 to 2025.
Hit enter and you'll get something that looks like:
While this is just the AI summary of the results, we can see several of our search terms like "Amusement park," "held liable," injuries, and negligence. As we scroll down, we can find results related to our search query:
As you look at each result, you can see our search terms specific to our search as well as the years (which are within our search parameter of 2005-2025).
The problem with all this is that while nice, these results don't actually get us what we're seeking. Specifically, we were looking for legal CASES related to injuries at amusement parks.
To see cases FOR FREE, we're going to need to search under Scholar.Google.com. To get there, simply search for scholar.google.com in the search bar, hit enter and voila!
What you should notice is options. If you want to search for general scholarly articles, select "Articles." If what you want is case law (as is what we're looking for, here), select "Case Law."
When you select Case Law, you will be give another set of options. Specifically, do you want cases from Federal courts, courts from the jurisdiction from where you are using Google (since I am presently in Utah, "Utah courts" is identified), or would you like to select cases from other jurisdictions (i.e. "Select courts").
While there are amusement or theme parks in Utah, it isn't well known to have such. So, let's expand our search to include Cases from California (theme park of the nation), Florida, Texas, and South Carolina. Then we'll type in our search query with a bunch of "OR" statements:
Hit enter and you'll get something that looks like:
Two things to note. First, scrolling down, you'll find cases from California, Texas, Utah, Florida, and South Carolina and some federal cases (which are the jurisdictions we selected to specifically search). You can also select any year(s) between 2005-2025.
The other thing to note is that you'll see me saying "you'll see something like..." What this means is that every time I hit enter, the results I get are going to be a little different. If you were to run the same search using the same parameters in another month, you'll get different results. It's not that the results are wrong - just updated from when I ran my search.
And there you have it. Dark deep search techniques available to everyone but used only by the few, the proud, the research gods.
Do this long enough and you start getting goose bumps.
