Metro sheriff backs red-light cameras in Las Vegas. [KTNV]
Not Vegas, but something you all should consider: the outcome of the Order to Show Cause in District of Wyoming regarding Morgan & Morgan and the citations to AI-manufactured cases. [Court Listener]
This is what chatgpt says. Rely on the case at your own risk: In Nevada, the distinction between “Person, trustee of YYZ Trust” and “Person, as trustee of YYZ Trust” can have significant legal implications.
“Person, trustee of YYZ Trust”:
Ambiguity: This phrasing may be interpreted as granting the property to the individual personally, with “trustee of YYZ Trust” merely describing their role, not necessarily indicating the property is held in trust.
Legal Implications: Without clear language establishing the property as part of the trust, it could be subject to the individual’s personal liabilities and creditors.
“Person, as trustee of YYZ Trust”:
Clarity: This wording explicitly states that the individual receives the property in their capacity as trustee, indicating the property is held within the trust.
Legal Implications: This helps ensure the property is protected under the terms of the trust and is not considered part of the trustee’s personal estate.
Nevada law emphasizes the importance of clear language in trust documents. In the case In re Trust Agreement of Davies, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld that a trust agreement listing a property in its schedule of assets effectively included that property in the trust, even without a separate deed transferring the property. This underscores the necessity of explicit language to reflect the grantor’s intent.
LAW.JUSTIA.COM
Best Practice: To avoid potential legal disputes and ensure the property is appropriately included in the trust, it’s advisable to use clear and explicit language in the deed, such as “Person, as trustee of YYZ Trust.” Additionally, recording a deed that transfers the property into the trust can provide further legal clarity and protection.
Given the complexities of trust and property law in Nevada, consulting with a legal professional experienced in estate planning is recommended to ensure all documents accurately reflect your intentions and comply with state laws.
Deed to a person. The person is the owner.
Deed to a trust. Nevada recognizes trusts as an entity. However the trustee is the person authorized to act on behalf of the trust, and has fiduciary duties to the trust IAW with the trust provisions. The convention is to deed to the trustee as in you example.
Guest
Anonymous
February 26, 2025 9:40 am
Anybody use Lexis AI (protege) regularly? Can you tell me your experience with it?
Guest
Anonymous
February 26, 2025 9:42 am
I don’t care what some federal Judge in Wyoming thinks…Ronnie Mund says Morgan & Morgan are the people you use…
Due!!!
Guest
Anonymous
February 26, 2025 9:50 am
Hallucinations are more common than people realize. I had more than one case where the Court included hallucinated cases in a minute order that were not offered by any parties. I have caught opposing parties with hallucinating cases. Ironically, this problem is creating more work and inefficiency because now I believe there is a heightened duty to scrutinize citations not only in-house, but also everything that comes in from out of the office, including the courts.
Honestly, a bit of heightened scrutiny for citations could do this bar some good. I’m constantly blown away by how defense counsel will twist caselaw like Morgan v. DeMille in discovery disputes. People just throw case law in motions without ever reading one line of the case. It’s insane.
Pre-hallucination, people would quote the statements of law in a case without reading the rest of it. Many still do. I love it when opposing counsel does this because I get to provide context exclusively, obviously in my favor.
Nothing better than when opposing counsel uses 10% of a case to support their position when the other 90% helps ours. A nice little gift with a bow on top.
Not saying Plaintiffs lawyers don’t do it, but I see it way more with defense counsel. DC is usually lazier and recycles the same exact forms for every case. They’re not incentivized to cross their T’s and dot their I’s.
Just say that you’re a plaintiff’s lawyer or that you don’t understand how incentives work.
Allow me to explain – defense counsel is generally compensated by the hour, meaning they would be incentivized to spend additional time “crossing their T’s and dotting their I’s”… plaintiff’s counsel on the other hand is generally compensated on a contingency fee basis. Meaning, they are incentivized to spend as few hours as possible on a case. If anything, it is plaintiff’s counsel that would be more inclined to recycle the same exact forms for each case (and they do)…
That would be true… if defense counsel was actually billing on a time basis. The actual workflow goes something like this:
1. Identify issue (it’s the same issue as in the last 50 cases).
2. Pull out previous motion/form.
3. Update form to reflect current case caption.
4. Change the names and update for various facts. Maybe spend a 0.3 doing that.
5. Bill an hour per page, since “that’s what it would cost to do it from scratch.”
6. Repeat for 6-7 other forms/motions. Bill 10 hours. Grab lunch.
7. Insurance company knock it down by 30%.
8. Argue the relevance of the billing entry. Get a small increase back.
I did this all the time when I was doing ID work. get appointed on many arbitrations, and often I get briefs from the defense where they spend four or five pages explaining to me what the burden of proof means, or what a preponderance of the evidence means. i guess they bill the company as if they were researching and writing about these concepts for the very first time.
Yes. A well known defense firm threw everything against the wall in a motion. I checked all the cites. Some were not even appellate decisions. All of the cites mischaracterized the holdings.
In my day we checked our authorities in the library, with books. Big red ones usually. I’d go over there with an onion on my belt, as was the style at the time. And if you wanted to copy a page, it’d cost you a nickel, except we didn’t call them nickels, we called them bees. “Give me five bees for a quarter,” you’d say.
$3,000 is the top sanction for using completely AI made-up case law to support your motion? That seems extremely low – it’s just egregious to type in “give me case law” into your AI machine and then never double check this law. This slap on the wrist deters nothing going forward. Yikes.
But in reading the opinion, they were pretty contrite about it, took steps to make sure it won’t happen again, etc. People are adjusting to both the benefits and the limitations of newer technology, and sh*t will happen from time to time during that process. The sanctions could have gone either up or down by a notch, but the court was reasonable. Now, if you will excuse me, I think Alexa just finished my brief.
Is there a legal distinction when a property is deeded to a trustee?
Property deeded to Person, trustee of YYZ trust.
Property deeded to Person, as trustee of YYZ trust.
In the first instance, is the property deeded to Person (who just happens to be a trustee) as opposed to deeding it to them *as* the trustee?
Not sure if I’m splitting hairs here (but that’s why they pay us the medium bucks).
This is what chatgpt says. Rely on the case at your own risk: In Nevada, the distinction between “Person, trustee of YYZ Trust” and “Person, as trustee of YYZ Trust” can have significant legal implications.
“Person, trustee of YYZ Trust”:
Ambiguity: This phrasing may be interpreted as granting the property to the individual personally, with “trustee of YYZ Trust” merely describing their role, not necessarily indicating the property is held in trust.
Legal Implications: Without clear language establishing the property as part of the trust, it could be subject to the individual’s personal liabilities and creditors.
“Person, as trustee of YYZ Trust”:
Clarity: This wording explicitly states that the individual receives the property in their capacity as trustee, indicating the property is held within the trust.
Legal Implications: This helps ensure the property is protected under the terms of the trust and is not considered part of the trustee’s personal estate.
Nevada law emphasizes the importance of clear language in trust documents. In the case In re Trust Agreement of Davies, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld that a trust agreement listing a property in its schedule of assets effectively included that property in the trust, even without a separate deed transferring the property. This underscores the necessity of explicit language to reflect the grantor’s intent.
LAW.JUSTIA.COM
Best Practice: To avoid potential legal disputes and ensure the property is appropriately included in the trust, it’s advisable to use clear and explicit language in the deed, such as “Person, as trustee of YYZ Trust.” Additionally, recording a deed that transfers the property into the trust can provide further legal clarity and protection.
Given the complexities of trust and property law in Nevada, consulting with a legal professional experienced in estate planning is recommended to ensure all documents accurately reflect your intentions and comply with state laws.
Not too shabby ChatGPT. That’s essentially the issue I’m trying to parse.
And that’s actually a real case (even though not directly on point).
Deed to a person. The person is the owner.
Deed to a trust. Nevada recognizes trusts as an entity. However the trustee is the person authorized to act on behalf of the trust, and has fiduciary duties to the trust IAW with the trust provisions. The convention is to deed to the trustee as in you example.
Anybody use Lexis AI (protege) regularly? Can you tell me your experience with it?
I don’t care what some federal Judge in Wyoming thinks…Ronnie Mund says Morgan & Morgan are the people you use…
Due!!!
Hallucinations are more common than people realize. I had more than one case where the Court included hallucinated cases in a minute order that were not offered by any parties. I have caught opposing parties with hallucinating cases. Ironically, this problem is creating more work and inefficiency because now I believe there is a heightened duty to scrutinize citations not only in-house, but also everything that comes in from out of the office, including the courts.
Honestly, a bit of heightened scrutiny for citations could do this bar some good. I’m constantly blown away by how defense counsel will twist caselaw like Morgan v. DeMille in discovery disputes. People just throw case law in motions without ever reading one line of the case. It’s insane.
Pre-hallucination, people would quote the statements of law in a case without reading the rest of it. Many still do. I love it when opposing counsel does this because I get to provide context exclusively, obviously in my favor.
Nothing better than when opposing counsel uses 10% of a case to support their position when the other 90% helps ours. A nice little gift with a bow on top.
lol because plaintiffs’ counsel doesn’t twist caselaw. Why not just say crappy attorneys who twist caselaw
Not saying Plaintiffs lawyers don’t do it, but I see it way more with defense counsel. DC is usually lazier and recycles the same exact forms for every case. They’re not incentivized to cross their T’s and dot their I’s.
Just say that you’re a plaintiff’s lawyer or that you don’t understand how incentives work.
Allow me to explain – defense counsel is generally compensated by the hour, meaning they would be incentivized to spend additional time “crossing their T’s and dotting their I’s”… plaintiff’s counsel on the other hand is generally compensated on a contingency fee basis. Meaning, they are incentivized to spend as few hours as possible on a case. If anything, it is plaintiff’s counsel that would be more inclined to recycle the same exact forms for each case (and they do)…
That would be true… if defense counsel was actually billing on a time basis. The actual workflow goes something like this:
1. Identify issue (it’s the same issue as in the last 50 cases).
2. Pull out previous motion/form.
3. Update form to reflect current case caption.
4. Change the names and update for various facts. Maybe spend a 0.3 doing that.
5. Bill an hour per page, since “that’s what it would cost to do it from scratch.”
6. Repeat for 6-7 other forms/motions. Bill 10 hours. Grab lunch.
7. Insurance company knock it down by 30%.
8. Argue the relevance of the billing entry. Get a small increase back.
I did this all the time when I was doing ID work. get appointed on many arbitrations, and often I get briefs from the defense where they spend four or five pages explaining to me what the burden of proof means, or what a preponderance of the evidence means. i guess they bill the company as if they were researching and writing about these concepts for the very first time.
Says the black hat lol.
Yes. A well known defense firm threw everything against the wall in a motion. I checked all the cites. Some were not even appellate decisions. All of the cites mischaracterized the holdings.
Crappy lawyers on both sides do it. The point was the initial comment was that defense counsel does it.
In my day we checked our authorities in the library, with books. Big red ones usually. I’d go over there with an onion on my belt, as was the style at the time. And if you wanted to copy a page, it’d cost you a nickel, except we didn’t call them nickels, we called them bees. “Give me five bees for a quarter,” you’d say.
Me and Mort Galane– cruising that dank building.
The Court included a hallucinated case in a minute order?? Details please
Nope. Not going to embarrass anyone.
$3,000 is the top sanction for using completely AI made-up case law to support your motion? That seems extremely low – it’s just egregious to type in “give me case law” into your AI machine and then never double check this law. This slap on the wrist deters nothing going forward. Yikes.
Ghosted citations, who are going to call?. Call Ghostbusters aka OBC.
But in reading the opinion, they were pretty contrite about it, took steps to make sure it won’t happen again, etc. People are adjusting to both the benefits and the limitations of newer technology, and sh*t will happen from time to time during that process. The sanctions could have gone either up or down by a notch, but the court was reasonable. Now, if you will excuse me, I think Alexa just finished my brief.
$3000 is a slap on the wrist?
On the day that we are discussing AI, the Nevada Supreme Court comes out with a new Self-Help website powered by (you guessed it) AI.
https://news3lv.com/news/local/nevada-judiciary-launches-enhanced-self-help-legal-website-with-ai-support#
Thank you to the judges who call cases where attorneys are live in person in court first.
Yes. Thank You!