Sam Brunson

it's only a recession if it's made in the region of a Democratic administration, otherwise it's merely a sparkling economic contraction

Reading the suit I’m having a hard time detecting the fraud they’re alleging. The “last resort” of raising prices was in reference to other actions to offset the cost, not a promise to eat the cost.

And this part is just… stupid. I can’t come up with another word for it.

1/

Is there any indication in the complaint that the plaintiff saved his receipts and can show the amount of each product attributable to tariffs? Because that feels like a critical aspect of winning.

I was planning on reading the suit after diner was done. That’s what I suspected though.

Or at least my “if you’re going to bring emojis into my lawn, at least make them big enough to see” stage!

WBAL in Baltimore helping viewers understand the difference between watches and warnings

Thanks!

I am a transactional lawyer and I've had 3 clients this week tell me they ran documents through Chat GPT and it gave them legal advice that contradicated my advice. In all 3 cases the Chat GPT advice was wildly wrong but sounded convincing to my clients

Iran has been preparing for this war for 40 years, but what Trump & Co boldly asked was: what if they hadn’t?

Ok, not pro se.

I don’t know anything about Korein Tillery, but web design-wise, if a significant portion of your attorneys are wearing white shirts in their profile pictures, maybe don’t write their names in white letters over their torsos?

I LOVE the Clooney Oceans movies, so I also tried to watch the Rat Pack version. The good: it’s an introduction to a Vegas that predates me, when the curry seems to have had more personality. And it’s got Sinatra.

The bad? The plot. The acting. Basically everything else.

I will probably show up to Target one last time in the nearish future: for the bankruptcy fire sale.

I mean, when we talk about how American consumers beat the costs of tariffs, we’re talking economic costs, not legal cost. Consumers don’t directly pay tariffs. They’re paid by importers, generally. We beat the cost because retailers raise their costs.

I sincerely hoped this is a pro se suit, not one brought by an actual attorney. Because, unless I’m missing something massive, there’s no cause of action against a retailer who charged higher prices than you wanted to pay.

Yep.

“I have a PhD and I think we should legalize herouin and USians ounly think farm labour is hard because of coulounialism.”

“organizes white communities into movements for justice” lol fuck

Yeah, I just didn’t know what to do with that.

I’d never heard of this org, but now I know they’re cool with Nazis. Which is good to know.

Honestly relieved that this time a company was only trying to steal people's credibility and not sell deadly baby products to unsuspecting parents.

Maybe* it's my age, but I hate flag emojis because, even where I know the country's flag, the emoji is way too small for me to see.

I mean, that has nothing to do with the post, but I needed to vent my flag-emoji-issues.

* Definitely

And let's assume the can be useful in a transactional context. I want to know what pitfalls transactional attorneys need to watch for.

* Well, apparently not *all* of us, or these cases would end.

** Profit. 3/3

I assume transactional attorneys are using it (Thompson Reuters seems to be very in favor of it, for some unknowable reason**). And the downsides are less likely to be news, both because they don't involve courts and because nobody knows what transactional attorneys are. 2/

At this point, we all* understand the risk of AI use in litigation, in no small part because of the constant stream of courts ordering attorneys to show cause on hallucinated cases, misrepresentations of what cases say, etc.

And there any corresponding risks in transactional legal work? 1/

This results in Legal decisions getting filtered through someone else’s lens. In this case, I think that may have happened because even the best lawyer can’t get past a CFO focused on growing revenue without concern for risk.

Maybe I just have a big ego (no maybe about it), but when I’m in various writing applications and am inundated with buttons that beg to let some uninvited AI parasite to “Write” “Revise” “Polish,” my only thought is: You wish you could do this as well as I do.

We have some printers that have apparently been printing for the law school since before I started law school. Which was a long time ago.

Needless to say, they sometimes need a couple days to rest.

A tax barrister sued me personally for £8m for libel after we linked him to a tax avoidance scheme.

Today the High Court struck out the claim, granted summary judgment, and ruled it was a SLAPP. The judgment is highly critical.

Here's my bottom line:

Much of what they are doing is bad.
Much of what they are doing is unpopular.
Pushback is working.
We are winning.
Keep fighting.
Be creative.
Push for what you'd want.
Allow for insiders and outsiders.
Realize that change takes time.
Reduce harm in the meantime.

The aforementioned leaders have come out saying they have NOT ended the Target boycott, they were NOT contacted for the original Star-Tribune story this is based on, and the boycott is still very much in effect.