1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous…

Judiciary

‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous comments led to censure for New York judge

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 2:11 pm CDT

Updated: A New York judge who didn’t want to transition to new case-tracking systems has agreed to a censure for gratuitous and discourteous remarks that he made while expressing his displeasure to colleagues and to officials who transferred him to a new court.

The remarks by Judge Daniel L. Seiden of the Binghamton City Court in New York contributed to a hostile work environment, according to an April 8 press release by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Seiden raised his voice and told the chief clerk and the deputy chief clerk to “stay out of my shorts” when they came to his office in April 2023 to discuss a change to a check-box case-history system, according to a March 28 determination and an agreed statement of facts signed in February.

Seiden said the “stay out of my shorts” comment was intended to convey “stay out of my business as a judge.”

Then when the administrative judge announced that the court was going to implement a new web-based case-filing system, Seiden declared in an email that he will always ask the clerks for physical files when he is on the bench.

Seiden emailed senior court officials in October 2024 after he was told of his reassignment.

“The game that you are playing, using an administrative trick to de facto remove me from my elected position for your own nefarious purposes, is a dangerous one: trying to get in the back door what you will probably never get through the front door, all the while depriving the citizens of Binghamton of their elected official while brazenly violating several state statutes,” he wrote.

He also said the officials’ “arrogance is breathtaking,” they “are utterly out of control and intoxicated by power and privilege,” and they used “administrative sleight of hand.”

During the ethics proceeding, Seiden was “cooperative and contrite,” according to the statement of facts. He has also completed civility training.

Seiden apologized to the clerks and judges for his “unprofessional remarks” and “appreciates that an apology to them at the time would have been appropriate,” the statement of facts said.

Robert H. Tembeckjian, the judicial conduct commission’s administrator, said in a statement judges must be patient, dignified and courteous.

“Petulant quarreling with colleagues is neither productive nor conducive to the administration of justice,” Tembeckjian said.

In a separate action, Seiden sought to be transferred back to the Binghamton City Court. The court to which he was reassigned is 45 miles from his residence, and his transfer there was arbitrary and capricious, he argued in a Jan. 7 mandamus petition that is pending in the Appellate Division’s Third Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court.

The petition said Seiden’s statement to “stay out of my shorts” was misinterpreted as sexual in nature and may have been used to justify the July 23, 2024, transfer order, which was made without notice and without explanation. The same day that he received the order, he was escorted from the Binghamton City Court premises “in full view” of his colleagues, the petition said.

The petition also referenced “a corrosive culture in Binghamton City Court” because of the marriage of two officials that is “perhaps not technically nepotistic or illegal.”

A Feb. 25 letter indicated that the parties were in settlement negotiations.

Seiden declined the ABA Journal’s request for comment but informed the Journal in an email that he is scheduled to resume regular duties in the Binghamton City Court on April 28, and he is still working in the Cortland City Court in New York.

His judicial term expires in 2034, but he will have to retire at the end of 2028 because he turns 70 years old that year.

Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog, which noted the censure.

Updated April 11 at 11:04 a.m. after Judge Daniel L. Seiden declined to comment and provided his return-to-office date. Updated April 11 at 2:29 p.m. to include information on Seiden’s mandamus petition.

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

I was honored to facilitate the “What’s Hot?” session for leading large law firm innovation professionals at the 2025 invitation-only Strategic Knowledge & Innovation Legal Leaders’ Summit in New York City on March 27, with Oz Benamram, the event’s co-founder and the former chief knowledge and innovation officer at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

In a combination of discussion and exploration of survey research, the conversation served as a roadmap for law firms aiming to advance their practices into the future.

The SKILLS survey interviewed approximately 100 professionals in the first quarter of 2025 regarding their use of various artificial intelligence applications. The research respondents primarily came from large law firms, although firms of all sizes that emphasize innovation were encouraged to participate. The overwhelming majority (70) were based in the United States, with nine from the United Kingdom, eight from Canada and 13 from international law firms, mainly split between New York and London headquarters and various other countries. Completing the survey was a requirement to attend SKILLS.

Large law firms are deploying generative AI

The report identified 22 use cases and 180 solutions. On average, the law firm leaders that responded have 18 active generative AI solutions, six in a pilot phase and 22 under consideration. The most common use cases included contract drafting, time entry, due diligence and legal research.

One foundational principle resonating with the group is the leadership essential for driving change, and participants offered several recommendations to gain support. First, effective change management demands consistent communication from the top down throughout the organization. Second, innovation leaders who report directly to an executive, including the managing partner, may wield more influence in implementing change. Third, cross-functional leadership can enhance a team’s value for specific projects.

Nearly all SKILLS law firms have AI use policies

Nearly all law firms that responded (99%) have an AI use policy. However, fewer firms have developed an AI strategy (92%) or created an AI task force (87%). These results underscore the significant importance that law firm leaders place on tactical AI guidance, effective deployment protocols and collaborative talent.

They also serve as vital benchmarks for innovation teams dedicated to laying the groundwork for new initiatives. Without policies, strategies and skilled teams, companies may struggle to gain the essential trust of their internal stakeholders and clients needed to succeed with generative AI. This is particularly important as many legal professionals still fear and remain unfamiliar with several AI applications used by the respondents.

Developing an AI roadmap requires leadership and a framework

During the discussion, attendees recommended that policies governing the use of artificial intelligence include provisions for ethics, restrictions on firm-approved products, the significance of human involvement and a framework for risk assessment. Companies should also enhance their efforts by collaborating with external providers to supplement limited in-house resources.

While the adoption of generative AI at some firms is strong and sustained, the audience agreed that no clear demographic patterns exist. One attendee noted that the more senior a professional is, the greater value they can derive from using an AI platform by asking “smarter questions,” given their depth of knowledge and ability to add substance to a prompt.

Innovation teams are adapting to the shift from tools to transformation

Unsurprisingly, the innovation teams at the responding law firms hold primary responsibility for implementing the firms’ AI strategies (59%), closely followed by knowledge management (44%) and IT (43%), both of which share a similar level of oversight.

While the innovation team’s involvement has remained stable over the past year (59% in 2025 compared to 62% in 2024), knowledge management (44% in 2025 compared to 63% in 2024) and IT (43% in 2025 compared to 74% in 2024) have seen changes. Additionally, a quarter of respondents in 2024 indicated that other departments provided input, and 15% relied on external support for their AI initiatives.

Specific law firm trends have influenced which teams are responsible for certain actions. The discussion among law firm leaders regarding the deployment of artificial intelligence has quickly transitioned from technology to transformation. Law firms are increasingly reexamining their entire suite of applications and evaluating the quality and integrity of their data to ensure that any large language models they use can deliver the best results.

In 2025, this will concentrate less on technology and more on redefining the law firm’s strategy for maximizing the value of its information. Consequently, the innovation, IT and knowledge management teams will work together to navigate AI’s transformative impact on the firm.

Many organizations lacked clarity a year ago as law firms were still assessing potential applications and use cases. The rapid pace of AI development and the insatiable demand for its availability necessitates a cross-functional and interdisciplinary team to drive the firm forward, with a designated ambassador coordinating its proliferation. That diplomat is the head of innovation at many firms, whose responsibilities are broader and deeper than in 2024, yet the diplomatic corps remains multifaceted.

In particular, the role of IT teams in law firms has become significantly more prominent since the pandemic. As budgets have increased, cybersecurity has become essential, and growth is closely aligned with technology. This position emphasizes holistic operational excellence rather than merely digital transformation.

Another important trend to note is the expansion of knowledge management to include innovation, legal operations and artificial intelligence. Today, law firms frequently recruit talent from knowledge management and either assign responsibilities for innovation or promote a KM leader to a broader innovation-focused role. While only 35% of respondents work at firms that have appointed a “Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer” or created a similar leadership position, this will likely change and influence who addresses or navigates these challenges.

While the data indicates that innovation teams are becoming the primary AI stakeholders, the ownership structure remains more nuanced due to overlapping talent and experience. Additionally, more professionals use the term “innovation” in their titles.

The majority of law firms have deployed generative AI

More than two-thirds of participants (73%) have implemented an internal generative AI solution—either developed an AI chatbot internally or deployed one through a secure API. Sixteen percent reported that they built or commissioned a custom internal language model. Although uncommon, almost a quarter (24%) have created client-facing or revenue-generating products using generative AI. This trend appears to mirror the actions of law firms several years ago, which initially developed mobile apps for internal use and later began offering more comprehensive versions to clients.

One participant suggested creating a fully accessible library for generative AI prompts and project-specific recommendations, akin to Netflix for queries.

OpenAI’s GPT is the leading LLM in law firms, but the generative AI support market is fragmented

Among the 73% of respondents who have implemented a generative AI solution, about three-quarters (76%) use OpenAI’s GPT as their foundational LLM model. Anthropic’s Claude ranks second with 19%, while Google‘s Gemini ranks third with 15%. Interestingly, 3% reported developing with China’s DeepSeek.

A third (33%) reported using an external provider to help them build their language model; however, the market remains fragmented. Respondents mentioned about 15 applied AI partners. Although consolidation is expected, the current demand will likely drive short-term growth rather than contraction in the provider market.

Encouraging the adoption of generative AI remains challenging

While 73% of respondents indicated that their firms utilize a legal AI assistant or chatbot, 62% have adopted the application across the entire firm or a substantial subset for testing purposes.

Adoption rates have remained low, with only 22% reporting a 50% to 100% adoption rate. This low adoption level is one reason certain teams stopped using specific tools. Other factors include cost-effectiveness and the availability of better alternatives. As the market grows and the barriers to entry diminish due to advancements in robust AI models, competition will continue to intensify.

To ensure success, the attendees agreed that law firms should begin their initiatives with individuals who are willing and passionate, especially since adoption is rising within the existing user base rather than from a surge in new participants in any given project.

Additionally, when evaluating technology and processes, exploring markets beyond the United States, especially in Europe, can be advantageous for generating fresh ideas and acquiring a thorough understanding of the evolving legal industry.

In some firms, discussions about generative AI use cases are reigniting interest in document automation. It is experiencing a renaissance, as it may provide a more effective and cost-efficient solution to the challenges that some professionals expect generative AI to address.

AI legal assistants and chatbots are leading use cases

The research indicated that an AI legal assistant or chatbot was the most popular use case. Other significant applications included data extraction, summarization, legal drafting, contract review and analysis, proofreading, research and searching. In contrast, the least cited applications were patent and IP drafting, litigation management, automation of discovery responses, pitches and proposals, and compliance.

When considering a new application, “try to avoid signing a long-term agreement,” advised an audience member, who added, “Price renewals are also absurd, and a similar tool is often available at half the cost with better functionality.” A peer offered, “Applications without a unique value proposition, i.e., a moat protecting their competitive advantage, may not be worth a long-term investment.” Finally, one participant cautioned, “Don’t try to learn everything because the technology will continue to evolve and only get faster.”

Ari Kaplan is a lawyer and legal industry analyst who publishes benchmarking reports on legal technology trends and is an experienced webinar and conference facilitator.

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Art generated solely by AI can’t be copyrighted,…

Copyright Law

Art generated solely by AI can’t be copyrighted, federal appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 19, 2025, 11:05 am CDT

A federal appeals court has ruled against a computer scientist who sought to copyright a work of art made by his artificial intelligence system, the “Creativity Machine.”

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler is not entitled to copyright artwork made solely by AI, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday.

Reuters and Courthouse News Service have coverage of the March 18 opinion.

“The Creativity Machine cannot be the recognized author of a copyrighted work because the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being,” the D.C. Circuit said in a decision by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The holding makes is unnecessary to address the U.S. Copyright Office’s argument that the U.S. Constitution also requires human authorship of copyrighted material, Millett said. The appeals court also said Thaler had waived an argument that he could obtain a copyright because he made and used the Creativity Machine.

The D.C. Circuit said its decision does not prohibit a copyright when a work is authored by a human with the help of AI.

“The rule requires only that the author of that work be a human being—the person who created, operated or used artificial intelligence—and not the machine itself,” Millett said.

Millett acknowledged that the Copyright Office has rejected some copyright applications based on the human-authorship requirement, even when a human is listed as the author.

“Line-drawing disagreements” over how much that AI contributed to a work aren’t issue in Thaler’s case, however, because he listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author, the appeals court said.

Thaler plans to appeal the decision, his attorney, Ryan Abbott, told Reuters.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Diversity references scrubbed from BigLaw…

Diversity

Diversity references scrubbed from BigLaw websites amid DEI probes; informal guidance issued

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 11:57 am CDT

BigLaw firms are scrubbing diversity mentions from their websites and reexamining policies amid the Trump administration’s attack on diversity, equity and inclusion programs that it considers to be illegal.

Many law firms began changing their websites even before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked 20 firms to supply information on their DEI practices. Publications covering the changes include Law.com, Above the Law and Bloomberg Law.

The EEOC has published informal guidance on DEI measures that can constitute illegal discrimination in a document and a website Q&A, Bloomberg Law reports.

The document, issued jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice, said DEI programs may be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if they involve an employment action “motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s race, sex or another protected characteristic.”

Prohibited conduct may include exclusion from fellowships, training, mentoring and employee affinity groups, the document said.

According to media reports, these firms are reacting:

  • DLA Piper has disbanded minority organizations and affinity groups. It also removed preferred pronouns from signature blocks on employee emails. (Bloomberg Law, Above the Law)

  • Kirkland & Ellis took references to a diversity and inclusion fellowship offline and has a new webpage touting a “Welcoming Environment.” (Law.com)

  • K&L Gates removed references to “diversity” from its website, changed the name of its Diversity and Inclusion Committee to the Opportunity and Inclusion Committee and has an “Opportunity and Inclusion” webpage. (Above the Law, ABAJournal.com, Law.com)

  • A Proskauer Rose webpage describing affinity groups is now titled “Inclusion.” Articles referring to diversity efforts now have URLs that go to the “Inclusion” page. (Above the Law)

  • Hogan Lovells has renamed “diversity, equity and inclusion” to “HL inclusion.” A DEI video has also been removed. (Law.com)

  • Latham & Watkins has redirected a DEI webpage to a page entitled, “At Latham & Watkins, you belong as you are.” The firm also removed a paragraph referring to “institutional racism.” And the firm apparently changed the name of its “diversity scholars program” to “pathways scholars program.” (Law.com)

  • Squire Patton Boggs highlights “inclusion” on the firm landing page and apparently renamed its “Global Office of DEI.” It has been replaced with a reference to “Global Workplace Culture and Development Leadership.” (Law.com)

  • Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Sidley Austin have apparently updated their landing page to reference “inclusion.” (Law.com)

See also:

EEOC chair requested ‘extensive’ info from law firms on DEI practices and hiring; did it cross a line?

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