That was almost 10 years ago. Collection of people willing still willing to take the risk, from perusing the last few months of orders in the Lumen database:

Judge Perry-Bond has ruled that Jane Doe will be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym in the Cornell 7 case. She takes the opportunity to write that: > [C]yberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state lines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defendants, or their attorneys, can be considered a federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution. Since I expect this to be misinterpreted, it's probably worth noting that this order does not bind anyone other than “parties, their counsel, the parties' agents, and the [clerk's] office”.

Chirayu Rana asked for help with his problem from a chatbot. In the process, we can see a major inconsistency in his story. He originally said the abuser was a male! I guess he eventually thought it was better to pick the hottest woman he worked with to go after. This is from ten months ago on the website Ask a Lawyer. He claimed to have "AMPLE" evidence for his claim and left his name, phone number, and email. Rana calls the boss who gave him drugs and assaulted him "he." It looks like he was developing his story over time, and eventually decided to make his abusive boss into a woman, and also make himself a laughing stock in the process. It's funny to see him talk about his mental health struggles as a result and the chatbot lend him a sympathetic ear.

Chirayu Rana's latest attorneys seek to withdraw from his case against JPMC and Lorna Hajdini. Obviously, they don't provide specifics of their reasons but, from among the many possible rules permitting withdrawal, the ones they chose to cite are: > the client insists upon taking action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement > the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively Rana's answer to counterclaims is due Monday. JPMC and Hajdini (calling it “a carousel of counsel”) both oppose the motion. courtlistener.com/docket/736…

I spoke to Lauren Conlin about the Article 78 Petition to toss AG James. I don't expect it to work, but it should. AG James has no credibility as an independent investigator in this matter and Jane Doe, the so-called "Cornell 7" and the public deserve a fair and impartial investigation

Remember the Florida lawyer who was ordered to explain... WITHOUT USING AI... why she shouldn’t be sanctioned after a Florida appellate court said her filings looked like “AI slop”? She just responded... and she's pushing back HARD... And her argument is basically: > “AI slop” is not a legal standard. She says the legal strategy, arguments and professional judgment were hers, that every authority was reviewed and verified, and that the court is effectively treating writing that looks AI-generated as evidence of sanctionable conduct. She also did a full audit of the filings: roughly 237 citation instances. Her concession? Two errors... an outdated rule subsection and one quotation that wasn’t actually verbatim. Her position: those are human mistakes, not fabricated law. So this case just got MUCH more interesting. The question is no longer merely whether lawyers can use AI. It’s whether a court can infer that a lawyer failed to exercise independent professional judgment because the work product looks like AI... even where the cases are real, the citations exist, and the lawyer stands behind the arguments. That is a much bigger fight for the profession. My take: if she wrote all 84 pages of her response without using AI in 2026, free this women... she earned it! 😂

A huge problem in Georgia since Kemp took office is that the head of the GPDC fired the appellate division and started paying random contractors very little money to do serious appeals without oversight. One person did such a bad job that SCOG is remanding all their cases. @HappilyAngryEsq