Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
When the Law Rode Into Town Looking for AI and Other Tales
I first encountered ChatGPT and NotebookLM in October 2024. In prison, my legal writing was entirely handwritten, created with pen and paper and without the assistance of Google, MS Word, spell checkers, or any AI—just my intellect. My first experiment with AI was the case of Ex parte Adrianna Jean Veal.
I fear that authentic writing is becoming a dying art in light of the inevitable technological changes we are witnessing. This leads me to ponder whether legal writing is also becoming obsolete with the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT and NotebookLM. Are law schools now offering courses like “AI 101”? That thought is quite unsettling at first glance.
For those who may not be familiar, Article 11.07 habeas litigation in Texas stipulates that the Court of Criminal Appeals' rules permit a maximum computer-generated word count of 15,000 for a memorandum of law submitted in support of an application, which is equivalent to 50 pages if handwritten.
After typing a draft of the memorandum for Ex parte Veal, I submitted it to ChatGPT. The AI praised its quality but suggested refining it. The result was concise but too bland. Below is the ChatGPT session for your review.
The Anatomy of an AI Interrogation
ChatGPT: What can I help with?
Gary: Let's explore some reasoning behind my original memorandum and your refined version.
ChatGPT: I'd be happy to help with that! Could you please share the original memorandum and my refined version so we can go over the reasoning behind the changes?
Gary: We can discuss the issue without the text. This discussion has to do with the very novel and complex issues and laws that I raised in the original memorandum versus your refined version which does not go into detail about significant issues. Now, let's explore that based on a Texas memorandum of law being allowed a 15,000-word count versus the 1,500-word count in your refined version of the memorandum. Granted, I agree with being concise and all that, but to fully present this novel case, in my judgment, requires an expanded presentation. You recognized how well the original memorandum was presented. So, do you think in all cases that being so brief and concise is the best route at the sacrifice of leaving out so critical details?
ChatGPT: You've raised a very important point about the balance between thoroughness and conciseness, especially when dealing with novel and complex legal issues. In your case, given the intricacy and significance of the issues involved, I understand why a longer, more detailed memorandum might be necessary. Legal matters that break new ground or involve intricate nuances often require an expansive approach to ensure that all angles are fully explored and presented for the court's understanding.
In general, the decision to prioritize brevity over depth depends on several factors:
Context and Audience
Word Count Constraints
Word Count Constraints
If the memorandum is going to a judge or court that is already familiar with the relevant issues or legal context, it may be more beneficial to be concise and to the point. However, if the case is complex or involves novel arguments, a more detailed approach is warranted to ensure all relevant facts, laws, and precedents are properly presented and understood.
Word Count Constraints
Word Count Constraints
Word Count Constraints
As you pointed out, Texas law may allow for a more extensive word count (15,000 words in your case), which provides the space to fully explore complex arguments. In such cases, I agree that a detailed presentation may be necessary, especially if you are introducing new legal theories or arguments that require careful explanation and citation of supporting law.
Strategic Presentation
Word Count Constraints
Risk of Oversimplification
The refined version I provided might have been an effort to present the argument in a manner that’s clear and digestible, keeping in mind that judges are often pressed for time. However, it's clear from your description that in your case, precision and depth are paramount. Complex legal concepts, especially in cases that challenge existing legal frameworks or involve cutting-edge issues, benefit from a comprehensive explanation to help ensure they are not misunderstood or overlooked.
Risk of Oversimplification
Risk of Oversimplification
The concern with overly concise memoranda is the potential for oversimplifying key issues or omitting critical details that could make a significant difference in the court's understanding or ruling. If critical issues are left unexplored due to word constraints, it can lead to a situation where the legal foundation for your argument is underdeveloped or unclear.
Conclusion
In your specific case, I would say that a detailed memorandum that covers all aspects of the novel legal issues—properly referencing statutes, case law, and any relevant policy considerations—would likely be more effective, as long as the level of detail doesn’t come at the expense of clarity. Given the complexity and novelty of your case, the expanded presentation seems necessary to ensure that all the significant issues are addressed in a manner that highlights their importance.
To sum it up, I don’t think conciseness should always trump detail, particularly in cases like yours. Striking the right balance between thoroughness and clarity is key.
Gary: Thank you.
ChatGPT: Anytime.
What I noticed about ChatGPT’s “refined” version of Adrianna's memorandum of law is the “passion” aspect. Does AI have “passion”? I guess it depends on who is defining the word “passion.” Like being a prosecutor and defining “justice.”
Reminds me of Humpty Dumpty, who was sitting on a wall one day discussing the meaning of a word with Alice (remember Alice?); don’t ask me what word they were discussing, you’ll have to read the story, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll (1865).
Scornfully, Humpty Dumpty told Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more nor less.” Alice replied, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.” To which Humpty Dumpty retorted: “The question is, which is to be master?”
In my advocacy, I speak about “justice,” with passion, yet I am not the one to say what “justice” is. That’s why we have kings, judges, and yes, lawyers; we must love and admire those who study “law,” too.
What is “Law”? I guess we could always -- “Go ask Alice/I think she'll know/When logic and proportion/Have fallen sloppy dead/And the White Knight is talking backwards/And the Red Queen's off with her head/Remember what the dormouse said/Feed your head.” -- Jefferson Airplane, “Go Ask Alice” (1967).
Asking someone, even someone like Humpty Dumpty, what the meaning of “Law” is, is like asking someone to define “God,” or the word “consent,” as in a prosecutor’s unfettered discretion to “consent” to a justice-involved veteran’s participation in a veterans treatment court (VTC) program under Texas Government Code, §124.002(a).
Adrianna's memorandum is about that “consent” from the viewpoint of my passion for justice-involved veterans. When I instructed ChatGPT to refine the memorandum, it took out the passion, and I found that disturbing, yet very insightful.
We all possess a certain passion for doing something. As Gary Vee said –
“Live your passion. What does that mean, anyway? It means that when you get up for work every morning, every single morning, you are pumped because you get to talk about or work with or do the thing that interests you the most in the world. You don’t live for vacations because you don’t need a break from what you’re doing—working, playing, and relaxing are one and the same. You don’t even pay attention to how many hours you’re working because to you, it’s not really work. You’re making money, but you’d do whatever it is you’re doing for free.” ― Gary Vaynerchuk, “Crush It!: Why Now Is the Time to Cash In on Your Passion.”
That’s when we know it’s passion. When we pursue it freely. Can AI replicate that passion? I think not. Is AI intelligent and useful? Oh, yes!
Talk about the dying art of writing. Imagine the Founding Fathers using AI to write the United States Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, or the Federalist Papers. Do you believe that the passion those men had for this country -- for “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” being equal to “All Men” -- would have been expressed and felt the same as it is in reading their original works? Was George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Jay constrained by the limitation of a rule on the word count?
As another example: Justice Wiener, in writing his dissent opinion in Larry Bledsue v. Gary Johnson, 188 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 1999), found the majority opinion to be so “frustrating,” that he was prepared “to take whatever time (and ink) is needed to illuminate the flaws I perceive in the majority opinion's disposition of this admittedly complex case.”
Methinks, anyone with a legal background can instruct AI to generate virtually any legal document. There is probably no limit to what AI can do, and that's as scary as the sharks, shams, and con artists in prison who possessed impressive legal ease and called themselves so-called “writ writers.” I found, however, the limited ability of AI to write a legal argument with true, human passion. Just as Judge Wiener felt in Bledsue, I took the time – from November 7, 2024, when Adrianna wrote, “I'm intrigued and I'd like to see how you can help,” to December 17, 2024 -- on average a total of 336 hours, and a lot of proverbial ink preparing a habeas application and memorandum of law to “illuminate” the flaws in the State’s handling Adrianna's criminal case.
I rejected ChatGPT’s refined version.