THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 5: THE “NUANCED” BITS: IT IS ALL ABOUT DELEGATION OF TASKS AND SUPERVISION (AND HERE IT IS OVER TO THE REGULATORS…)
I have already written that the judgement is Mazur is far more nuanced than many commentators have suggested. It does not give a “free for all” for non-authorised persons to litigate. Rather it gives authorised lawyers the ability to delegate…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 4: THE CONCLUSIONS: IF AN UNATHORISED PERSON IS IN REALITY CONDUCTING THE LITIGATION “THEY WILL BE COMMITTING AN OFFENCE”
The judgment in Mazur today is far more nuanced than some observers have suggested. It is not an “as we were” situation. There is still scope for those working within solicitors’ practices to be breaking the law and thus committing…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 3: NO DEFINITIVE DEFINITION OF THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION: BUT WE DO HAVE THE “MAGNIFICENT SEVEN”
We continue our look at the judgment today by looking at the court’s more detailed consideration of what was meant by the “conduct of litigation”. The court did not give a definition. However it did give seven key points as to…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 2: WHAT CAN AN “UNAUTHORISED” PERSON DO?
We continue with our breakdown of the Mazur decision today. Here the Court of Appeal considers what an “unauthorised” person can do. (The next post will look at the practical examples the judgment gives). “The judge was wrong to…
MAZUR COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: JUDGMENT AT FIRST INSTANCE OVERTURNED: THE SUPERVISION OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS
I will be writing about this judgment throughout the day. The first posts will contain a summary of the views from the court. Later posts will analyse the position as a whole. This post contains a consideration of the carrying…
MORE USE OF AI: MORE HALLUCINATED CASES: THERE IS “NO PROBLEM” IN USING AI: BUT CONSIDERABLE CARE HAS TO BE TAKEN
If these issues continue as they have been we may soon be seeing an “AI Tuesday” to add to the other themes we examine throughout the week. Here we look at another “hallucination” case which ended with the person involved…
GUIDANCE FOR THOSE USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO CARRY OUT LEGAL RESEARCH: THERE IS AN OBLIGATION NOT TO ADVANCE SUBMISSIONS BASED ON “FAKE” AUTHORITIES…
There appears to be many hundreds (possibly thousands) of cases throughout the world where litigants (and often their lawyers) have relied on “hallucinated” cases, or real cases which do not, in fact, contain the quotations relied on or support the…
PROVING THINGS 285: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: “IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH QOCS TO EXTEND IT TO CLAIMANTS WHO KNOWINGLY TELL UNTRUTHS ABOUT SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL TO THEIR CLAIM…”
This is a judgment on fundamental dishonesty where the judge considers, in some detail, the burden of proof and what a defendant needs to establish. There are important observations about the burden of proof and consideration of the term “dishonesty”…
You must be logged in to post a comment.