Derek Bambauer retweeted
Actually, it’s not even passing a bar. You get to call yourself a lawyer after you take the lawyer’s oath. The finish line isn’t a test, it’s a pledge.
16
9
150
5,710
Derek Bambauer retweeted
Guys, in the US, “lawyer” and “attorney” mean the same thing. My old dean said you have to graduate and pass a bar exam and then you can call yourself a lawyer. Anyway, the Press Secretary’s LinkedIn says she was “General Counsel” to Fix California. A GC has to have a bar license
0
1
3
160
I talk with @CBSNews about Florida's lawsuit against OpenAI - and attempt to get a preliminary injunction that would limit the company's development and deployment of its AI models. cbsnews.com/video/can-stat…
0
0
3
99
usatoday.com/story/tech/202… Thinh Nguyen and me on why an AI kill switch is a dangerously bad idea
0
1
6
207
Derek Bambauer retweeted
I have an op-ed in today's LA Times: Congress's failure to regulate Flock and other license plate readers has fueled the vigilantes now taking down these cameras themselves. latimes.com/opinion/story/…
2
3
3
185
Tonight, at 6:35PM, I'll be on CNN discussing the AI Kill Switch proposal with host Omar Jimenez. Please tune in if you can!
4
1
10
511
For background, see my op-ed with Thinh Nguyen: washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/4666127…
0
0
0
106
Derek Bambauer retweeted
Advancing scholarship at the intersection of intellectual property and technology.
@LinfordInfo , Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the Loula Fuller & Dan Myers Professor, and FSU Law recently hosted the two-day Florida Intellectual Property & Technology Law Workshop.
The evholarship from @dbambauer (@UFLaw), Mark Edward Blankenship Jr. (@StThomasLaw), @brianrdowning (@umlaw1854 ), @Prof_Schuster (@universityofga ), and FSU Law professors Jake Linford and Justin Sevier, Charles W. Ehrhardt Professor of Litigation.
@LinfordInfo , Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the Loula Fuller & Dan Myers Professor, and FSU Law recently hosted the two-day Florida Intellectual Property & Technology Law Workshop.
The evholarship from @dbambauer (@UFLaw), Mark Edward Blankenship Jr. (@StThomasLaw), @brianrdowning (@umlaw1854 ), @Prof_Schuster (@universityofga ), and FSU Law professors Jake Linford and Justin Sevier, Charles W. Ehrhardt Professor of Litigation.
0
4
8
336
My op-ed in AI Journal: When it comes to AI, we need to stop regulating tools and start regulating systems aijourn.com/when-it-comes-…
0
0
1
119
Thinh Nguyen and I have an op-ed in AI Journal discussing how the Supreme Court's Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment decision protects AI innovation: The Supreme Court just saved AI — without even mentioning it aijourn.com/the-supreme-co…
0
0
0
116
cltampa.com/news/florida-a…
How weird, I thought Florida Republicans were against cancel culture. But no. It turns out government censorship is costly. Not just in $$, but because of the talented researchers we can't hire due to the political censorship this state enforces.
How weird, I thought Florida Republicans were against cancel culture. But no. It turns out government censorship is costly. Not just in $$, but because of the talented researchers we can't hire due to the political censorship this state enforces.
0
0
0
90
Derek Bambauer retweeted
When night walk is at 9:00, it is 9:02 right now
270
2,938
43,160
1,862,023
Derek Bambauer retweeted
Nice write-up of a great piece by Lyrissa Lidsky and Andrew Daves, two of the wonderful people roaming the halls at @UFLaw
Congratulations to all of my students leveling up to 2Ls, 3Ls, and bar-exam studiers. For all of you—but especially those sticking around @UNLCollegeofLaw a while longer—I have some homework: Read Lyrissa Lidsky and Andrew Daves’s Inevitable Errors: Defamation by Hallucination in AI Reasoning Models.
I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I only just now found time for it. It had been sitting on my reading list for too long.
The article is worth reading for its treatment of AI defamation alone. Lidsky and Daves offer a careful, sensible account of how defamation law should handle LLM hallucinations—those plausible but false AI outputs that can fabricate accusations, fake legal materials, or other reputationally damaging statements. I agree with almost all of their analysis.
BUT the reason I especially recommend the article to students and young lawyers is broader: It is a fantastic example of how to apply existing law to a genuinely new and difficult problem. New technologies often tempt lawyers into thinking old legal categories have become obsolete.
More often, the better first move is to ask what existing law already can do: What is the harm? Who acted with fault? Who was in the best position to avoid the injury? What older doctrines were built for analogous pressures?
That kind of work is slower than announcing a brand-new legislative framework. It is also better lawyering. So if you are a student writing a note, or a young lawyer trying to persuade a court to see a problem in a new way, this is the model: start with doctrine, respect what came before, and adapt carefully. Only then ask whether something truly new is needed.
Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky and Andrew Daves don’t need my praise to know they have done excellent work. But it never hurts either. Thanks to them both.
#AILaw #Defamation #LegalEducation @UFLaw
0
2
3
513
"the most valuable heuristic of movement in the USNWR law school rankings? It’s a symbol of law school management. The rankings are simply something to be managed. If a school is managing the rankings well or poorly, one can observe and attempt to assess why" Quote @derektmuller
2
0
1
212
@derektmuller From Above the Law: abovethelaw.com/2026/04/end-of…
"As for the biggest drop in this segment of the rankings, we’ve got Arizona (-11). Ooof."
"As for the biggest drop in this segment of the rankings, we’ve got Arizona (-11). Ooof."
1
0
0
64
@derektmuller Again: "the most valuable heuristic of movement in the USNWR law school rankings? It’s a symbol of law school management."
0
0
0
61
f you're Kia, and your ranking from, say, Car and Driver, of your Telluride goes from "top of class" to mid-level, you would be deeply concerned. If not panicked.
You would be right.
You would be right.
1
0
0
126
It's the single most important thing that applicants consider, including financial aid.
It's fashionable to conclude that the rankings don't matter. In the same way that political candidates prefer to believe that polls don't matter.
It's fashionable to conclude that the rankings don't matter. In the same way that political candidates prefer to believe that polls don't matter.
1
0
0
46
Except at the end of the day, someone marks a box - or pays a seat deposit. And the polls / rankings are excellent predictors of that outcome.
Believe what you want. But jobs are on the line, and not just ours.
Believe what you want. But jobs are on the line, and not just ours.
0
0
0
35
This is exactly right. One would think university presidents / provosts would use this as a metric for law school leadership. Most don't. In fact, there are very recent examples of law schools doubling down on leadership failure in this regard.
1
0
1
41