latest Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Four Arrested and Charged in Latest Los Angeles-Based “JCODE” Operation for Their Roles in Operating a Drug Distribution Network on the Darknet

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 04 May 2025 17:33:00 +0000

Four men were arrested Wednesday on federal charges of conspiring to distribute various drugs on Darknet marketplaces.

Source link

The post Four Arrested and Charged in Latest Los Angeles-Based “JCODE” Operation for Their Roles in Operating a Drug Distribution Network on the Darknet appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

‘There is no question that we will fight,’ says latest law firm targeted in Trump executive order

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:40:16 +0000

Law Firms

‘There is no question that we will fight,’ says latest law firm targeted in Trump executive order

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 10:26 am CDT

The latest law firm targeted by the Trump administration, Susman Godfrey, won’t be the last, President Donald Trump said Wednesday. (Photo from Shutterstock)

The latest law firm targeted by the Trump administration, Susman Godfrey, won’t be the last, President Donald Trump said Wednesday.

Trump said the administration had signed deals with many targeted firms, and, “We have another five to go,” Bloomberg Law reports.

Other publications with coverage include Law.com and Reuters.

Susman plans to fight the executive order signed by Trump on Wednesday. It is the sixth firm targeted by Trump in punitive orders because of their representation of clients and causes adverse to Trump.

One of the targeted firms—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—is no longer subject to an order because of a deal that it reached with Trump that included an agreement to provide $40 million in pro bono services to mutually supported pro bono projects.

Three other firms also reached deals with Trump to avoid future executive orders targeting them.

Susman vowed to fight in a statement published on its website.

“Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it,” the statement said. “This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”

The Susman order seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman has been hired to provide services, including contracts retained by its clients.

Susman was one of the firms that filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order alleged that Susman “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.”

According to Bloomberg Law, “Susman is home to some of the country’s top trial lawyers and is well-known for taking major contingency fee cases.” It has profits of nearly $7 million per partner in fiscal year 2023.

Executive orders that targeted Paul Weiss and three other firms included provisions similar to the Susman executive order. A memo targeting Covington & Burling was more limited.

In addition to Paul Weiss, the firms that reached deals with Trump are Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Each of those three firms agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono services to mutually agreeable pro bono projects.

Firms that sued over the executive orders are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. They have all obtained temporary restraining orders blocking many sections of the executive orders.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post ‘There is no question that we will fight,’ says latest law firm targeted in Trump executive order appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Jack Smith slams latest Trump dismissal bid in Jan. 6 case

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 01 Nov 2024 03:50:23 +0000

Left: Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin). Right: Trump waits for the start of proceedings in his trial at Manhattan criminal court, Tuesday, May 14, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle, Pool).

Special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday rubbished the latest efforts by former President Donald Trump to have the Jan. 6 prosecution against him dismissed as both “untimely and without merit.”

Earlier this month, Trump’s attorneys ventured forth with a reprise of arguments that secured a dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago documents case over the summer. Namely: the defendant argued the prosecutor in charge of the case was given his authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s appointments and appropriations clauses.

Now, the special counsel’s office argues that the retread claim was made far too late — and in violation of binding precedent in the D.C. Circuit.

Smith’s office recites the relevant history — recalling how Trump’s defense team successfully scuppered the state in the case overseen by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. At the same time, the prosecutor urges U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan not to take the same path.

“In a separate case against the defendant in the Southern District of Florida, he timely filed the very challenge that he belatedly advances here, a year after the deadline for such a motion in this case,” the government’s response in opposition reads. “And in this case, although the defendant timely filed more than one hundred pages urging dismissal of the indictment, he chose not to raise the issues he now tries to put before the Court. Because the defendant cannot demonstrate good cause for his failure to file a timely non-jurisdictional claim under the Appointments or Appropriations Clauses in this case, the Court should not consider it.”

To hear the government tell it, the defense simply waited too long to make their present argument.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Defendant fails’: Jack Smith rips Trump’s ‘half-hearted’ dismissal bid in Jan. 6 case for being wrong on the law

In his proposed motion to dismiss, Trump aimed to overcome two obvious hurdles with arguments based on the appointments and appropriations clauses: (1) the belated filing issue highlighted by Smith; and (2) Chutkan’s own askance attitude to the concept,

To do so, the defendant relied heavily on legal arguments attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

That is, Trump’s motion cites a concurrence written by Thomas as an “intervening opinion” that essentially functioned as new information. This concurrence was only penned after the otherwise applicable deadline to list all arguments for dismissal, and, therefore, the argument necessarily could not have been made before the deadline.

The analysis offered by Thomas came in the landmark ruling where Chief Justice John Roberts issued a broad grant of presidential immunity to Trump. Cannon would go on to use the concurrence to that opinion to squelch special Smith’s authority and dismiss the case.

Thomas was the only justice to cite the long-simmering Appointments Clause issue in an unfavorable light for the government in any of the opinions attached to Trump v. United States. The majority opinion actually lists several ways in which the appointments power inures to the executive’s benefit. Thomas was also the only justice to mention the phrase “Appointments Clause” directly.

Smith, for his part, tersely rejects Trump’s appeal to Thomas’ authority — and Cannon’s cross-country ruling based on it.

“[N]either that solo concurring opinion on a question that the parties did not brief or argue to the Supreme Court nor the unpersuasive out-of-circuit district court opinion binds this Court,” the government’s motion reads.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Unjust case was dead on arrival’: Trump moves to dismiss Jan. 6 indictment and stop ‘private-citizen Smith’ from spending money — with Clarence Thomas leading the way

The prosecution also addresses the defense’s argument on the merits — and finds it entirely lacking in terms of legal support.

“The defendant argues that the Special Counsel lacks the constitutional and statutory authority to prosecute this case because (1) he is a principal officer who was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and (2) even if the Special Counsel is an inferior officer, the Attorney General lacked a statutory basis for appointing him,” the government’s motion reads. “But the D.C. Circuit has squarely rejected both claims.”

Instead, Smith says, the appeals court has already ruled on the issue — in a precursor case tangentially involving Trump himself.

“The D.C. Circuit’s decision in In re Grand Jury Investigation, squarely forecloses the defendant’s Appointments Clause argument,” the government’s motion reads — referring to a case involving special counsel Robert Mueller. “And the defendant’s Appropriations Clause challenge fails because it is entirely derivative of his faulty Appointments Clause claim.”

In his motion to dismiss, Trump also frames the appointments clause issue as a “fatal Constitutional defect” that is “causing irreparable harm.” The motion suggests Smith was only appointed as part of a first-ditch political effort by the Biden administration to hamstring the Democratic Party’s foremost bête noire.

Smith dedicates two footnotes to Trump’s political arguments.

The first footnote reads:

As in prior filings, the defendant repeats several false claims that the Government has acted with “bad-faith partisan bias” by intending to interfere with his campaign. This Court, noting the utter lack of evidence supporting defendant’s selective prosecution claim, previously has described those types of claims as “unresponsive,” “unhelpful,” and “unbefitting of experienced defense counsel” and has admonished the defendant to focus on legal argument, not political rhetoric. We therefore do not address these claims further.

The second footnote reads:

The defendant has argued repeatedly that the judicial process and court calendar should yield to his election campaign — and he appears to take the position that he cannot be investigated by anyone for anything once he has announced his candidacy. But shutting down a criminal investigation at the mere announcement of a run for office would invite and enable any would-be candidate to stymie the criminal justice process and insulate the candidate from accountability under the law. It would also be flatly inconsistent with Department of Justice history and precedent.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Jack Smith slams latest Trump dismissal bid in Jan. 6 case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Lawyers call Mar-a-Lago judge’s latest order ‘insane’

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 15:05:09 +0000

Donald Trump (AP Photo/Mike Stewart), File), U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, special counsel Jack Smith (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Lawyers were left scratching their heads over the Mar-a-Lago trial judge’s Monday order asking the prosecution and defense to propose jury instructions under the assumption that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) allowed former Donald Trump to unilaterally decide that classified documents were personal.

Unsurprisingly, the reaction to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order was swift and unequivocal, with some pointing out that likelihood of acquittal has gone up.

Conservative lawyer George Conway called the order the “most bizarre” he’s ever seen a federal judge docket, leapfrogging two other orders Cannon has already issued in the case.

“In the decades that I have been a lawyer, this is the most bizarre order I’ve ever seen issued by a federal judge,” Conway said. “What makes that all the more amazing is that the second and third most bizarre orders I’ve ever seen in federal court were also issued by Judge Cannon in this case.”

Conway’s criticism was in response to a post by former Obama administration “Ethics Czar” Norm Eisen, who wrote that the order was “clumsy & amateurish” and ignored the “different body of law” that governs classified documents, “including EO 13526.”

Since a motion hearing last week, Cannon has rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss on grounds of Espionage Act “unconstitutional vagueness” — without prejudice, meaning the defense can raise it again later and “as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.” But the judge has not yet ruled on the other argued motion to dismiss, under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

When special counsel Jack Smith submitted his arguments, he, like Eisen, emphasized that executive order 13526 — “in force throughout Trump’s Presidency and through the allegations in the Superseding Indictment” — states that classified materials “can be accessed only by a person who an appropriate United States official determines is eligible for such access; who has signed an approved non-disclosure agreement; and who has a ‘need to know’ the classified information.”

“Under the provisions of EO 13526, the Superseding Indictment alleges, once Trump left office, he no longer had authorization to possess classified information, he never received a waiver entitling him, as a former President, to possess it, and he stored documents at a location that was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents,” the special counsel said, rejecting the notion that the PRA allowed Trump to declare, by fiat, that national defense information documents were merely personal belongings.

Now, Cannon has ordered the defense and the prosecution to file, by April 2, “proposed jury instructions limited to the essential elements” of the 32 willful retention of national defense information counts Trump faces — but in light of the PRA. She ordered the two sides to “engage with” two “competing scenarios and offer alternative draft text that assumes each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law to be issued to the jury [.]” The latter scenario would plainly pave a path for acquittal:

(a) In a prosecution of a former president for allegedly retaining documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), a jury is permitted to examine a record retained by a former president in his/her personal possession at the end of his/her presidency and make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

(b) A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision. Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.

The attorney reactions only amped up from here, with some suggesting that Smith may have enough to seek the “extraordinary remedy” of a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, a court that has had to overturn Cannon’s decision-making before.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s ex-top lieutenant Andrew Weissmann said that mandamus should be on the table for Jack Smith after Cannon’s latest bit of “legal inanity.”

“This is the kind of legal inanity that could lead Jack Smith to seek to mandamus Judge Cannon- ie to get the 11th Circuit appeals court to hear this and reverse her for the third time- which could also be the proverbial three strikes and you’re out,” Weissmann said.

This is the kind of legal inanity that could lead Jack Smith to seek to mandamus Judge Cannon- ie to get the 11th Circuit appeals court to hear this and reverse her for the third time- which could also be the proverbial three strikes and you’re out. https://t.co/dMjhf9bm6q

— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) March 18, 2024

Weissmann repeated this on MSNBC.

“There’s a reason you’ve never seen anything like it,” Weissmann said, before dropping two M-words: the first was “meshuggenah,” describing the order, and the second was mandamus.

“Please draft a jury instruction assuming that the earth is flat. And the second one is please draft a jury instruction that the earth is square,” Weissmann characterized the order. “And so, the second M-word is mandamus. Mandamus is the ability — it’s not an appeal. It’s for extraordinary actions by a district court that so clearly violate the law that you can appeal it right then and there.”

“What she did today is so nutty,” he added.

National security lawyer Bradley Moss, also appearing on MSNBC alongside Weissmann, cautioned against seeking mandamus right away.

“So, Jack Smith, if he doesn’t take Andrew up on his idea of seeking mandamus, and I actually don’t think they’re going to do that yet, I think they’re going to try to fashion a response to this to basically say ‘Alright, judge, I’m not sure where you were going with that, but um, no, that’s not how this works. If you think that’s the state of the law is what you put in that second line item, that’s fine. Issue a ruling, grant Trump’s motion to dismiss, as he outlined it under the Presidential Records Act, and will take it to the 11th Circuit,”” Moss said. “But that’s an issue of law for the judge, that’s not an issue for the jury.”

“There’s nothing for the jury to do with that instruction. If that is what they went to trial with, I was Trump’s lawyers I’d sit there and take a nap through trial, play Candy Crush, and then the moment the government rested, ‘I move for a directed verdict for acquittal’ because you can’t lose,” he continued. “Because the jury instruction automatically grants you a win.”

Moss suggested Smith will push back on the order before seeking mandamus. The attorney separately called the second scenario posed by Cannon “legally insane.”

This Order makes no sense. I cannot fathom how these are legal issues for the Court to decide and not questions of fact for any jury. https://t.co/xksghbgKd6

— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) March 18, 2024

Attorney Robert Kelner viewed the mandamus route “unlikely” at this stage, but he still regarded the order as “sufficiently bonkers” to make Smith think about it.

While it’s unlikely, it seems to me Cannon’s latest order is sufficiently bonkers that Jack Smith might at least entertain the thought of a mandamus motion. I doubt he’ll do it. But he’s got to be thinking about it.

— Robert Kelner (@robkelner) March 18, 2024

George Conway scathingly chimed in again by saying it’s clear to him that Cannon has no idea what she’s doing as a lawyer, let alone as a judge.

Apart from whether or not Judge Cannon is trying to help Trump here, this order makes clear beyond peradventure that she has no idea what she’s doing even simply as a lawyer. https://t.co/P1QrbenI1O

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) March 18, 2024

Smith has already threatened to appeal if Cannon separately refuses to reconsider a “clear error” that could out government witnesses through discovery, but the judge has not made a ruling on that issue either.

The special counsel made waves once before by seeking a rarely granted writ of certiorari before judgment from the U.S. Supreme Court on Trump’s claims of “absolute immunity” from prosecution in his Jan. 6 case, so perhaps the Special Counsel’s Office wouldn’t shy away from pursuing similarly extraordinary relief.

Read the order here.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Lawyers call Mar-a-Lago judge’s latest order ‘insane’ appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Jack Smith slams latest attempt to stall Mar-a-Lago case

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:25:48 +0000

Left: Former President Donald Trump, center, sits at the defense table at New York Supreme Court, Dec. 7, 2023, in New York City. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Pool, File); Right: Special counsel Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File).

Special counsel Jack Smith urged the federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case against former President Donald Trump not to give in to the latest efforts by the defense to further delay proceedings in a pointed motion filed late Monday.

On Monday morning, a defense attorney for the 45th president requested an additional two weeks to file pretrial discovery motions with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon by citing Trump’s need to prepare for his upcoming New York City-based hush-money trial — which is scheduled to begin later this month. Meanwhile, in a different motion docketed Monday but dated March 7, that same defense attorney, Todd Blanche, moved to adjourn the Empire State’s case against Trump until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity issues which are arguably implicated by some of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recently-filed pretrial motions.

“An extension of time such that they receive more than twice the time allotted by the Local Rule is unreasonable,” the motion in opposition reads. “The briefing schedule has been in place for months.”

Cannon previously set a deadline of Thursday, March 14, to submit replies on all of the pending pretrial motions. A hearing is also slated to occur that same morning that will address just some of the many pretrial issues that have consumed and serially delayed the case.

In their federal motion, Trump’s attorneys said they have “no intention of causing unnecessary delay in these proceedings,” and asked for an extension until March 24 to reply to certain motions filed by the government. The defense said it was prepared to file replies on motions to dismiss the indictment based on the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act the day before the March 14 hearing.

In the government’s terse opposition motion, and a footnote, Smith suggests Trump is trying the legal equivalent of the old army game.

“Only now, on the eve of the reply deadline, does the defense complain that it needs more time — mostly based on circumstances about which they have been aware throughout the pendency of their motions: the trial date in New York has been in place since 2022,” the motion reads. The corresponding footnote explains: “Trump has also sought to adjourn the New York trial.”

The former president’s bid to delay further still in the Sunshine State also cites some alleged difficulties being experienced by his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta, Trump’s longtime butler, and Carlos De Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s property manager.

“Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira are reviewing physical evidence possessed by the Office that is potentially relevant to their reply submissions,” the request to extend the deadlines reads. “Defendant Nauta is in the process of conferring with the Office regarding access to materials relating to grand jury practices in the District of Columbia that are relevant to his reply in support of pending selective and vindictive prosecution motion.”

Smith dismisses Nauta and De Oliveira’s concerns out of hand.

“[T]he evidence DeOliveira will inspect tomorrow has been available to them since the Government first provided them discovery,” the government’s opposition motion retorts. “Nauta fails to explain how any questions about grand jury practice in the District of Columbia could affect his reply briefing and why he has waited until now to seek this information.”

Trump’s earlier Monday filing also complains that in order to travel to Florida for the March 14 hearing, the defense is losing “time we would otherwise use to prepare the other reply submissions.”

Again, Smith argues that is not a valid basis to shift the deadlines.

“And the fact that the defense must travel to Florida for a hearing on Thursday is not unique to those teams and poses no cause for such delay,” the government’s motion concludes. “The Court should deny the defendants’ motion.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Jack Smith slams latest attempt to stall Mar-a-Lago case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Kasowitz Benson sues former Gibson Dunn partner for nearly $500K in latest suit seeking legal fees

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:27:55 +0000

Law Firms

Kasowitz Benson sues former Gibson Dunn partner for nearly $500K in latest suit seeking legal fees

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 29, 2024, 2:34 pm CST

Kasowitz Benson Torres is seeking nearly $500,000 in legal fees from a former Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York state court. (Image from Shutterstock)

Kasowitz Benson Torres is seeking nearly $500,000 in legal fees from a former Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York state court.

The suit seeking fees from suspended lawyer Ignacio Foncillas “is the latest in a string of court actions the firm has initiated against former clients since the start of 2023 for a total of $5.2 million in legal fees,” Law.com reports.

Kasowitz Benson had helped Foncillas negotiate a “highly favorable sentencing agreement,” according to the suit allegations cited by Law.com.

Foncillas pleaded guilty in June 2018 to operating an unlicensed money transferring business between the United States and Mexico. Operating without a license allowed customers to evade anti-money-laundering safeguards, according to prosecutors. The company allegedly aided the transmission of more than $9 million between the two countries.

Foncillas was sentenced to time served, two years of supervised release, 500 hours of community service and a $7,500 fine. He also consented to entry of a $9.4 million forfeiture judgment, but the government agreed to accept more than $262,000 in satisfaction of that amount, according to a court opinion affirming his one-year suspension.

Foncillas did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment, sent to an email address listed by the New York court system. His representatives did not return Law.com’s request for comment.

Other defendants sued by Kasowitz Benson for fees include a financial adviser, a real estate developer and a marketing agency, according to Law.com. The largest amount sought was $2 million, related to Kasowitz Benson’s representation of real estate companies in connection with a mortgage foreclosure.

Law.com spoke with Michael Heller, CEO of Cozen O’Connor, about the risk of suing for unpaid fees.

“Most law firm general counsel will try to caution their law firm leaders against filing for unpaid fees because you could get a counterclaim of malpractice,” Heller said.

He declined, however, to comment specifically on the Kasowitz Benson suits.

Source link

The post Kasowitz Benson sues former Gibson Dunn partner for nearly $500K in latest suit seeking legal fees appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

How Casetext utilized the latest GPT technology to create an AI legal assistant

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 28 Dec 2023 00:28:45 +0000

In November, when OpenAI unleashed the newest, most advanced version of its chatbot, ChatGPT, it immediately captured the imagination. As we’ve covered on this podcast, ChatGPT represents a major leap forward for generative artificial intelligence in that it can converse with and respond to users in a natural, almost humanlike way. So far, it’s been a hit.

ChatGPT boasts 100 million active monthly users after only two months, making it one of the fastest-growing applications ever, according to the Guardian. On March 14, OpenAI unveiled GPT-4—a more advanced version of the AI language model that was unveiled in November, according to the New York Times.

Meanwhile, others have quickly entered the field, as Google announced an advanced chatbot, Bard, last month, according to CNN; while several former OpenAI engineers have announced Claude, according to TechCrunch. The arms race in the advanced chatbot field has begun.

Some lawyers and law professionals have seen the potential for advanced chatbots to help supplement their work, allowing them to perform tasks more efficiently. One such area is legal research.

In that vein, Casetext launched CoCounsel earlier this month.

CoCounsel does not utilize the commercially available ChatGPT. Instead, its customized model was developed in a partnership with OpenAI and trained on the latest version of its GPT large language model—which means GPT4—as well as Casetext’s proprietary legal database and search system. CoCounsel functions as a legal assistant, helping users draft all sorts of legal documents. Users can utilize CoCounsel to help draft briefs, compose research memos, draw up contracts and analyze them, and write correspondence—all by typing their questions or requests into a prompt.

In this episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, Jake Heller, the CEO and co-founder of Casetext, talks with the ABA Journal’s Victor Li about CoCounsel, as well as the potential of advanced chatbots to change the legal industry.

Heller, Pablo Arredondo and Laura Safdie, founded Casetext in 2013 and were 2017 ABA Journal Legal Rebels.

See also:

ABAJournal.com: “The Case for ChatGPT: Why lawyers should embrace AI”

ABAJournal.com: “Can ChatGPT help law students learn to write better?”

ABAJournal.com: “Techshow vendors relish return to exhibition floor amid ChatGPT buzz”

Want to listen on the go? Legal Rebels is available on several podcast listening services. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
Apple | Spotify | Google Play

In This Podcast:

Jake Heller

" style="vertical-align:text-top; max-width:80px;"/>

Jake Heller

Jake Heller is the CEO and co-founder of Casetext. Heller was a litigator at Ropes & Gray before co-founding Casetext. He trained at Stanford Law School, where he was president of the Stanford Law Review, and clerked for Judge Michael Boudin in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston.

Source link

The post How Casetext utilized the latest GPT technology to create an AI legal assistant appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.