Category: News Feeds

Noting
the
profound
 traditional
friendship
between
China
and
Zimbabwe,
Xi
Jinping
said
that
 in
recent
years,
under
their
joint
guidance,
the
two
countries
have
 continued
to
deepen
political
mutual
trust
and
achieved
remarkable
 results
in
cooperation,
setting
a
good
example
of
solidarity
and
 coordination
among
developing
countries.
Next
year
will
mark
the
45th
 anniversary
of
the
establishment
of
diplomatic
relations
between
the
two
 countries.
Further
consolidating
and
deepening
the
ironclad
friendship
 between
China
and
Zimbabwe
meets
the
common
expectations
of
the
two
 peoples.
The
two
sides
should
uphold
the
original
aspiration
of
 friendship,
establish
a
“five-star
ironclad”
cooperation
framework
 underpinned
by
politics,
economy
and
trade,
security,
culture,
and
 international
cooperation,
and
work
together
to
build
a
high-level
 China-Zimbabwe
community
with
a
shared
future.

Xi
Jinping
stressed
that
the
two
countries
and
the
two
parties
share
 similar
views
and
solid
mutual
trust,
which
is
the
greatest
strength
of
 China-Zimbabwe
relations.
China
supports
Zimbabwe
in
safeguarding
its
 sovereignty,
security
and
development
interests,
and
opposes
external
 interference
and
illegal
sanctions.
China
is
ready
to
strengthen
 exchanges
of
governance
experience
with
Zimbabwe
and
continue
to
firmly
 support
each
other.
China
is
ready
to
seek
greater
synergy
of
 development
strategies
with
Zimbabwe,
expand
mutually
beneficial
 cooperation
in
investment,
trade,
infrastructure,
energy
and
mineral,
 clean
energy,
digital
economy
and
other
fields,
build
a
China-Africa
 connectivity
network,
and
help
Zimbabwe
and
Africa
enhance
their
 capacity
for
independent
development.
China
is
willing
to
continue
to
 provide
scholarships
for
outstanding
Zimbabwean
students
to
study
in
 China,
so
as
to
enhance
people-to-people
bonds.
China
highly
appreciates
 Zimbabwe’s
support
for
various
global
initiatives
and
propositions
put
 forward
by
China,
and
congratulates
Zimbabwe
on
assuming
the
rotating
 chairmanship
of
the
Southern
African
Development
Community.
China
is
 ready
to
strengthen
international
cooperation
with
Zimbabwe,
carry
 forward
the
Five
Principles
of
Peaceful
Coexistence,
and
jointly
defend
 international
fairness
and
justice.

Xi
Jinping
pointed
out
that
China
has
always
taken
developing
relations
 with
African
countries
as
the
cornerstone
of
its
foreign
policy,
firmly
 supports
African
countries
in
pursuing
independent
development
paths
and
 supports
Africa
in
becoming
an
important
pole
in
the
world’s
political,
 economic
and
civilizational
development.
FOCAC
is
the
most
important
 platform
and
mechanism
for
strengthening
China-Africa
unity
and
 cooperation,
and
has
become
a
banner
leading
international
cooperation
 with
Africa.
China
is
ready
to
work
with
Africa
to
make
this
summit
a
 new
milestone
and
a
grand
event
in
the
history
of
China-Africa
relations
 and
define
the
direction
and
path
of
China
and
Africa’s
efforts
to
 advance
modernization.

Emmerson
Mnangagwa
said
that
during
this
 visit
to
China,
he
visited
Hunan,
Shenzhen
and
Nanjing,
and
he
was
 greatly
encouraged
and
inspired.
Under
the
leadership
of
President
Xi
 Jinping,
China
has
made
great
achievements
in
development,
and
many
 Chinese
technologies
and
companies
are
taking
the
lead
in
the
world.
The
 series
of
important
reform
measures
introduced
at
the
Third
Plenary
 Session
of
the
20th
CPC
Central
Committee
will
not
only
further
improve
 the
well-being
of
the
Chinese
people,
but
will
also
have
a
major
impact
 on
the
future
of
the
Global
South
and
mankind.
He
thanked
China
for
its
 valuable
support
for
Zimbabwe’s
economic
and
social
development,
 including
the
fight
against
COVID-19.
China’s
help
and
cooperation
have
 benefited
the
Zimbabwean
people
and
created
new
brands
of
Zimbabwe-China
 friendship
in
the
new
era.
The
Zimbabwean
side
is
ready
to
strengthen
 experience
exchange
with
China
on
state
governance
and
party
 administration,
deepen
cooperation
in
infrastructure,
agriculture,
 minerals,
new
energy
and
other
fields,
and
help
Zimbabwe’s
modernization
 process.
The
Zimbabwean
side
thanks
China
for
speaking
out
for
Zimbabwe
 on
international
occasions,
appreciates
China’s
constructive
role
in
 international
and
regional
affairs
such
as
the
Ukraine
crisis
and
the
 Palestinian-Israeli
conflict,
supports
a
series
of
global
initiatives
 put
forward
by
President
Xi
Jinping,
and
is
willing
to
strengthen
 multilateral
cooperation
with
China.
Zimbabwe
firmly
abides
by
the
 one-China
principle
and
is
willing
to
continue
to
be
a
staunch
and
close
 friend
of
China
in
Southern
Africa
and
work
with
China
to
push
for
 greater
development
of
a
comprehensive
strategic
partnership
of
 cooperation
between
Zimbabwe
and
China.
He
wishes
the
FOCAC
Beijing
 Summit
a
complete
success
and
strategic
achievements
in
promoting
 Africa-China
cooperation.

After
the
 talks,
the
two
heads
of
state
jointly
witnessed
the
signing
of
a
number
 of
bilateral
cooperation
documents,
including
such
areas
related
to
Belt
 and
Road
cooperation,
the
Global
Development
Initiative,
economic
and
 trade
exchanges
and
cooperation,
avocado
export
to
China,
and
news.

The
 two
sides
issued
a
Joint
Statement
Between
the
People’s
Republic
of
 China
and
the
Republic
of
Zimbabwe
on
Deepening
and
Enhancing
the
 Comprehensive
Strategic
Partnership
of
Cooperation
and
Building
a
 High-Level
China-Zimbabwe
Community
with
a
Shared
Future.

Before
the
talks,
Xi
Jinping
held
a
welcoming
ceremony
for
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
at
the
North
Hall
of
the
Great
Hall
of
the
People.

Wang
Yi
was
present
at
the
above
events.

Post
published
in:

Featured

A
June
2024
survey
of
data
privacy
professionals
found
that
the
rising
use
of
artificial
intelligence
is
the
number-one
privacy
risk
facing
companies
today,
according
to
a

story
in
Law360.

Concerns
about
data
privacy
and
data
security
are
especially
heightened
with
the
emergence
of
generative
artificial
intelligence
(Gen
AI)
tools
in
the
legal
industry,
which
enables
legal
professionals
to
quickly
obtain
AI-generated
text
in
response
to
research
queries
or
requests
for
summaries
of
lengthy
documents.
These
are
the
types
of
concerns
that
have
led
many
in
the
industry
to
gravitate
toward
Legal
AI,
Gen
AI
tools
trained
for
the
legal
profession.

There
are
some
important
differences
between
the
commercially
available
Legal
AI
solutions
on
the
market,
so
prospective
buyers
of
these
tools
need
to
know
how
each
of
these
Gen
AI
models
approaches
data
privacy
and
security
considerations.

We
recently
published
“The
Definitive
Guide
to
Choosing
a
Gen
AI
Legal
Research
Solution,”
a
free
buyer’s
guide
that
details
what
law
firms
and
in-house
legal
departments
should
look
for
so
they
can
select
the
most
appropriate
solution
for
their
organization.
One
of
the
pillars
we
addressed
in
the
guide
is
the
importance
of
Privacy
&
Security.

Six
core
concerns

The
rise
of
powerful
Gen
AI
models
that
can
create
synthetic
media,
text,
code
and
other
content
raises
important
questions
around
privacy
and
security.
These
systems
leverage
large
datasets
and
can
mimic
existing
content
and
styles.

This
makes
it
essential
for
your
team
to
thoughtfully
address
certain
privacy
and
security
risks
that
can
threaten
the
safety
of
your
organization
and/or
clients.
Here
are
six
core
concerns
that
you
should
contemplate:

• Data
  privacy
  —
  Law
  firms
  operate
  in
  a
  world
  of
  confidentiality
  and
  client
  data
  (e.g.,
  financial
  records,
  strategic
  plans,
  etc.)
  must
  be
  fiercely
  protected.
  You
  need
  to
  know
  how
  training
  data
  for
  the
  Gen
  AI
  model
  is
  obtained
  and
  used.
  Attribution
  —
  It
  is
  crucial
  that
  any
  source
  materials
  surfaced
  by
  the
  Gen
  AI
  model
  are
  properly
  credited.
  Any
  legal
  document
  must
  be
  attributed
  to
  a
  human
  lawyer
  for
  it
  to
  be
  considered
  ethically
  acceptable
  by
  the
  courts;
  this
  requires
  that
  users
  have
  sufficient
  information
  in
  their
  hands
  to
  verify
  the
  accuracy
  of
  all
  AI-generated
  content.
• 
  Data
  bias
  —
  There
  is
  a
  risk
  of
  perpetuating
  unfair
  biases
  in
  the
  Gen
  AI
  model
  training
  data.
  AI
  algorithms
  learn
  from
  the
  data
  they
  are
  fed,
  so
  if
  that
  data
  contains
  inherent
  biases
  the
  Legal
  AI
  tool
  may
  incorporate
  them
  in
  its
  outputs.
• 
  Transparency
  —
  Understanding
  the
  reasoning
  behind
  an
  AI
  tool’s
  answers
  helps
  lawyers
  identify
  and
  mitigate
  potential
  biases
  or
  inaccuracies.
  Beware
  of
  any
  Gen
  AI
  model
  that
  provides
  a
  lack
  of
  detail
  about
  how
  it
  works.
• 
  Misinformation
  —
  All
  legal
  professionals
  are
  by
  now
  aware
  of
  the
  risk
  of
  Gen
  AI
  models
  in
  creating
  convincing
  fake
  or
  misleading
  content.
  The
  rules
  of
  professional
  responsibility
  dictate
  that
  lawyers
  are
  ultimately
  responsible
  for
  the
  accuracy
  and
  completeness
  of
  their
  legal
  work
  product.
• 
  Regulation
  —
  The
  track
  record
  and
  reliability
  of
  an
  AI
  developer
  is
  important
  if
  legal
  practitioners
  are
  going
  to
  be
  able
  to
  trust
  their
  knowledge
  of
  the
  legal
  domain.
  Make
  sure
  your
  Gen
  AI
  model
  was
  built
  with
  thoughtful
  rules
  and
  governance
  of
  the
  technology.

Questions
to
ask
about
privacy
and
security

When
evaluating
a
Legal
AI
solution,
you
need
to
ask
a
few
important
questions
about
how
the
model
is
trained
and
how
your
data
is
handled,
such
as
the
following:

• Will
  my
  search
  history
  and
  usage
  information
  be
  stored
  or
  used
  to
  train
  the
  model?
• How
  does
  your
  Gen
  AI
  solution
  address
  the
  security
  concerns
  related
  to
  ChatGPT?
• How
  does
  your
  Gen
  AI
  solution
  protect
  customers’
  intellectual
  property
  and
  your
  own?
• What
  data
  security
  measures
  are
  in
  place
  for
  any
  original
  generated
  content?
• What
  safeguards
  exist
  to
  prevent
  exposure
  of
  privileged
  or
  confidential
  client
  information
  through
  AI-generated
  content?

Evaluate
Lexis+
AI

Lexis+
AI
is
our
breakthrough
Gen
AI
solution
that
we
believe
will
transform
legal
work
by
providing
a
suite
of
legal
research,
drafting,
and
summarization
tools
that
delivers
on
the
potential
of
Gen
AI
technology.

Lexis+
AI
pairs
our
unsurpassed
legal
content
with
breakthrough
Gen
AI
technology
in
a
way
that
could
redefine
the
way
that
legal
research
is
conducted
and
legal
work
product
is
created.
Its
answers
are
grounded
in
the
world’s
largest
repository
of
accurate
and
exclusive
legal
content
from
LexisNexis
with
industry-leading
data
security
and
attention
to
privacy.
Click

here
to
request
a
free
trial.

To
download
a
free
copy
of
The
Definitive
Guide
to
Choosing
a
Gen
AI
Legal
Research
Solution,
please
click

here.

Back
in
September,
we
reported
that
there
was

“heightened”
interest
in
transatlantic
mergers
between
U.K.
and
U.S.
firms
in
the
wake
of
the

A&O
Shearman
merger,
which
joined
U.K.
firm
Allen
&
Overy
and
U.S.
firm
Shearman
&
Sterling.
Now,
just
two
months
later,
we’ve
got
news
of
yet
another
major
merger
announcement
between
U.K.
and
U.S.
firms
—
and
this
merger
is
set
to
create
a
Biglaw
giant.

U.K.-based
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
—
No.
34
on
the
Global
200
—
and
New
York-based
Kramer
Levin
Naftalis
&
Frankel
—
No.
141
on
the
Global
200
—
have
jointly
announced
that
they’ll
be
combining
to
form
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
Kramer,
aka
HSF
Kramer.
The
merged
firm
will
have
2,700
lawyers
and
is
expected
to
have
at
least
$2
billion
in
revenue,
putting
it
on
track
to
rank
in
the
top
25
on
a
global
scale.
HSF
operates
in
16
countries,
while
Kramer
Levin
has
three
offices
in
the
U.S.
and
one
office
abroad,
in
Paris.
The
Paris
office,
however,
will

not
be
included
in
the
merger.

As
noted
by

Law.com
International,
here’s
what
the
firms’
leaders
had
to
say
about
the
monumental
decision
to
merge:

“This
is
transformational.
We
have
long
been
committed
to
expanding
our
offering
in
the
U.S.,
and
Kramer
Levin
is
the
perfect
fit,”
said
HSF’s
chair
and
senior
partner,
Rebecca
Maslen-Stannage.
“The
combination
delivers
immediate
growth
for
both
firms
from
day
one.”
…

“This
is
an
excellent
long-term,
strategic
move
for
our
firms,
our
clients
and
our
people—a
bold
opportunity
to
build
an
exciting
international
firm
together,
based
on
our
strong
cultures
of
collaboration,
superb
clients
and
people,
and
our
existing
areas
of
strength,”
said
HSF
CEO
Justin
D’Agostine.
“This
is
just
the
beginning.”

Kramer
Levin’s
co-managing
partner
Howard
T.
Spilko
said,
“Joining
forces
with
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
is
a
one-of-a-kind
opportunity
that
helps
us
achieve
our
vision
and
potential
for
strategic
growth.
The
combination
provides
us
with
a
significant
competitive
advantage
by
bolstering
our
destination
practices
with
a
deeper
bench,
broader
geographic
reach
and
sector
expertise,
while
providing
the
opportunity
to
collaborate
to
achieve
great
outcomes
for
clients
internationally.”

In
a
joint
statement,
HSF
and
Kramer
Levin
said
that
their
“close
cultural
alignment
and
shared
vision
for
the
future
significantly
bolsters
the
combined
firm’s
ability
to
attract
and
retain
the
very
best
talent.”
A
partner
vote
on
the
merger
is
expected
to
occur
at
both
firms
by
February
2025.

Congratulations
to
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
and
Kramer
Levin
on
their
impending
tie-up.
Best
of
luck
to
both
firms
as
their
merger
plans
unfold.

Kramer
Levin
to
Merge
With
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
[American
Lawyer]

Herbert
Smith
Freehills
Merger
Omits
Kramer
Levin
Paris
Office
[Bloomberg
Law]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Writing
style
is
clearly
important
to
the
Supreme
Court
justices. 
Not
only
are
the
justices
cognizant
of
the
writing
styles
in
briefs,
but
they
are
also
attuned
to
the
writing
styles
of
other
judges
and
justices.
Justices
past
and
present
discussed
this
and
other
matters
in
interviews
with
legal
writing
specialist
Bryan
Garner
for
the

Scribes
Journal
over
a
decade
ago.
Some
of
the
key
takeaways
from
the
justices
were:

Roberts

“…Henry
Friendly
was
a
brilliant
writer
and
had
a
way
of
exposition
that
just
revealed
the
thought
and
decision
process.
If
you
ever
pick
up
one
of
his
opinions,
he
walks
you
exactly
through
how
he
reached
the
result.
He
says
you
begin
with
this,
whether
it’s
the
language,
and
it
raises
this
concern,
and
you
pick
up
this
case,
and
he
walks
you
through,
and
it’s
very
revealing
and
very
clear.
Justice
Rehnquist,
for
whom
I
clerked
—
to
some
extent
a
very
different
writing
style,
but
a
crisper
diction
to
his
language,
if
that
makes
sense,
and
the
written
word,
and
yet
the
same
clarity
—
also
taught
me
a
great
deal
about
writing.”

“As
a
lawyer,
you
need
to
know
your
audience,
and
if
you
know
there’s
a
word
or
a
phrase
or
style
of
grammar
that’s
going
to
annoy
your
reader,
you
want
to
make
sure
you
don’t
put
it
in.”

Scalia

“Maybe
that’s
a
peculiar
part
of
my
own
style,
but
I
don’t
think
you’ll
often
find
sentences
of
mine
that
begin
with
However…”

Kennedy

“The
purpose
for
the
opinion
is
to
convince,
ultimately.
The
only
authority
our
Court
has
is
the
respect
that’s
accorded
its
judgments,
and
that
respect
is
based
on
what
we
write.
So
writing
is
of
immense
importance.”

“As
a
consumer
of
what
judges
write:
in
all
my
years
as
an
advocate
for
the
ACLU,
when
I
constantly
read
judicial
decisions
relevant
to
the
case
I
was
briefing;
as
a
law
teacher
writing
an
article
that
requires
reading
a
massive
decision.
I
try
to
write
an
opinion
so
it
will
be
what
I
would
have
liked
an
opinion
to
be
when
I
was
a
law
teacher
or
an
advocate.”

Ginsburg

Garner:
“Have
there
been
any
writers
outside
law
who’ve
been
major
influences
on
your
style
apart
from
your
own
teachers,
Cushman
and
Nabokov?”

RBG:
“I
can’t
say
that
there’s
a
direct
relationship
between
Jane
Austen’s
novels
and
my
writing.
Or
Tolstoy’s.”

---

Sophisticated
writing
software
with
AI
components
can
now
tell
you
how
to
write
like
particular
judges
by
engineering
writing
that
mirrors
stylistic
features
of
the
judges’
writings. 
This
raises
a
few
interesting
questions.
First,
what
do
we
mean
by
writing
style?
Style
is
a
very
general
concept
that
encompasses
many
dimensions. 
Measuring
style
is
somewhat
subjective
and
somewhat
objective.
There
are
features
of
style
which
most
writers
would
agree
on,
whether
they
be
word
choice,
sentence
length,
word
relationships,
etc.
Which
ones
are
more
and
less
important,
and
how
we
measure
them
is
somewhat
left
to
the
eye
of
the
beholder.

If
justices
think
they
write
well
(I
assume
most
do),
and
they
want
well
written
submissions
from
attorneys,
then
attorneys
might
gain
something
by
writing
in
the
style
of
the
justices.
A
roadblock
to
this
approach
though
is
that
there
are
nine
justices,
each
with
their
unique
style.
Usually
around
one-third
of
the
Court’s
opinions
are
unanimous
and
even
these
decisions
often
have
separate
concurring
opinions.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
it
is
tricky
to
pick
the
justice
that
will
likely
author
the
majority
opinion
of
any
given
case,
especially
at
the
point
of
drafting
the
brief
on
the
merits.

Still
some
attorneys
mimic
the
style
of
the
Court’s
majority
authors
better
than
others…

Methods:

I
have
seven
different
features
of
style
that
I
describe
below. 
I
used
Python
to
measure
each
of
these
dimensions
with
the
briefs
for
the
arguing
attorneys
for
the
merits
parties
(not
amici)
for
each
case
taken
on
cert
during
the
2023/2024
Supreme
Court
Term.
I
then
looked
at
how
well
these
briefs
mirrored
the
majority
opinions
in
these
cases
along
the
same
dimensions.
After
calculating
these
brief/opinion
comparisons
across
the
seven
dimensions
I
generated
an
Index
(Style)
Score
for
each
brief
with
lower
index
numbers
relating
to
briefs
that
were
stylistically
more
proximate
to
the
majority
opinions
in
these
cases. 
The
Scores
ranged
from
8.4
to
220
with
a
mean
of
61. 
Each
of
the
measures
discussed
below
was
weighted
equally
in
deriving
the
Index. 
Here
are
the
measures:

Average
Sentence
Length

The
average
sentence
length
is
a
key
measure
for
assessing
the
complexity
and
readability
of
a
text.
It
captures
the
typical
number
of
words
used
in
a
sentence,
giving
insight
into
the
density
of
information
and
potential
difficulty
level
of
the
language.

To
measure
average
sentence
length,
all
the
sentences
in
a
text
are
first
identified,
and
the
number
of
words
in
each
sentence
is
counted.
The
total
word
count
of
all
sentences
is
then
divided
by
the
number
of
sentences,
yielding
the
average
sentence
length.

Type-Token
Ratio
(TTR)

Type-Token
Ratio
(TTR)
is
a
measure
of
lexical
diversity,
capturing
the
proportion
of
unique
words
(types)
to
total
words
(tokens)
in
a
text.
A
high
TTR
indicates
greater
lexical
variety,
suggesting
that
the
author
uses
a
wide
range
of
vocabulary,
which
can
be
associated
with
an
advanced
or
nuanced
writing
style.

To
measure
TTR,
all
unique
alphabetic
words
are
counted
and
divided
by
the
total
word
count
in
the
document.

Trigram
Counts

Trigram
counts
measure
the
frequency
of
consecutive
three
word
pairs
in
the
text.
These
provide
a
deeper
look
at
word
pairings,
revealing
common
phrases
or
stylistic
patterns
that
contribute
to
the
flow
and
coherence
of
the
writing.

To
measure
these
counts,
the
text
is
divided
into
overlapping
word
trios,
and
each
trio
is
recorded.
The
frequency
of
each
unique
trigram
is
then
counted.

Average
Clause
Length

Average
clause
length
reveals
the
complexity
of
sentence
structures
within
the
text.
Longer
clauses
often
reflect
more
sophisticated
sentence
construction,
suggesting
a
higher
density
of
information
or
ideas,
while
shorter
clauses
tend
toward
clarity
and
simplicity

Clauses
are
defined
by
punctuation
markers,
such
as
commas
or
semicolons,
which
often
separate
individual
clauses
within
sentences.
By
calculating
the
number
of
words
in
each
clause
and
averaging
these
counts,
this
metric
provides
an
average
clause
length.

Subordination
Ratio

The
subordination
ratio
indicates
the
frequency
of
subordinate
clauses
relative
to
total
clauses,
which
is
a
marker
of
syntactic
sophistication.
Higher
ratios
reflect
more
complex
sentence
structures
with
embedded
subordinate
clauses,
a
common
feature
in
academic,
legal,
and
formal
writing.

Subordination
is
measured
by
identifying
subordinating
conjunctions
(for
example
“although,”
“because”)
within
the
text.
Each
conjunction
signals
a
subordinate
clause,
which
is
then
tallied.
The
ratio
is
obtained
by
dividing
the
count
of
subordinate
clauses
by
the
total
clause
count.

Modal
Verb
Ratio

Modal
verb
ratio
examines
the
presence
of
modal
verbs,
which
convey
degrees
of
possibility,
necessity,
or
intention
(for
example
“might,”
“must,”
“could”).
A
high
frequency
of
modal
verbs
can
imply
cautious
or
hypothetical
language,
while
a
low
frequency
may
suggest
definitive
statements.

Modal
verbs
are
counted
by
matching
each
word
in
the
text
against
a
predefined
list
of
modal
verbs.
Each
occurrence
is
recorded,
and
the
sum
is
divided
by
the
total
word
count
to
determine
the
modal
verb
ratio.

Nominalization
Rate

Nominalization
rate
assesses
the
use
of
nouns
derived
from
verbs
or
adjectives
(for
example
“discussion”
from
“discuss”).
High
nominalization
rates
can
create
a
dense,
formal
style,
as
nominalizations
make
language
more
abstract
and
informationally
packed.

This
rate
is
calculated
by
counting
nouns
derived
from
verbs
or
adjectives,
excluding
pronouns.
The
total
count
of
these
nominalizations
is
divided
by
the
word
count
to
find
the
nominalization
rate.

Findings:

The
distributions
for
each
of
the
measures
aside
from
trigram
ratios
(which
are
more
difficult
to
show
in
distribution
form
due
to
the
complexity
of
matching
the
trigrams
in
the
brief
with
the
trigrams
in
the
opinion)
are
given
below
with
the
mean
value
along
each
dotted
line:

Which
justices
were
most
accurately
mirrored?
Here
is
the
graph
of
average
Index
Score
by
justices
with
the
lower
scores
equating
with
more
closely
mirrored
opinions:

Here
we
see
that
Alito’s
style
was
mirrored
with
more
accuracy
than
the
rest
of
the
justices
while
Sotomayor’s
style
was
mirrored
least
effectively.

The
next
graph
shows
the
top
15
instances
of
lowest
Index
Score
(most
closely
mirrored)
opinions
by
attorney
for
the
past
term:

Paul
Clement
is
the
only
attorney
in
the
top
15
lowest
scores
more
than
once.
Several
of
the
attorneys
are
currently
in
the
Office
of
the
Solicitor
General
(OSG)
including
the
lowest
scoring
attorney,
Curtis
Gannon,
for
the
brief
in

Department
of
State
v.
Muñoz.
The
ways
these
attorneys
achieved
these
scores
though
are
quite
different
based
on
these
dimensions
as
the
graphs
below
show.

Concluding
Thoughts

If
one
were
to
come
up
with
a
hypothesis
of
what
to
expect
before
generating
these
measures,
OSG
attorneys
scoring
low
(more
closely
matching)
would
be
a
strong
initial
hypothesis
because
of
their
regular
interactions
with
the
justices
in
cases
argued
each
term.
Paul
Clement
and
Noel
Francisco,
who
is
also
on
the
list
of
the
lowest
15
scorings
briefs,
are
both
former
SGs,
also
indicating
the
importance
of
the
OSG
experience
in
writing
briefs
that
mirror
the
justices’
styles.

Still,
there
is
a
lot
of
randomness
and
luck
in
achieving
a
low
Index
Score.
If
you
write
more
like
one
justice,
you
may
write
less
like
another.
These
things
have
to
match
up
in
order
to
have
a
brief
that
closely
mirrors
the
style
of
the
majority
opinion.
With
that
said,
some
attorneys
were
more
adept
at
achieving
these
scores
than
others,
and
the
clusters,
especially
related
to
the
OSG
are
telling.

---

Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
For
more
information
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.

*
French
publications
sue
X
claiming
Elon’s
distributing
their
content
without
paying
for
it.
Elon
making
money
off
of
other
people’s
actual
good
ideas?
Not
the
head
of
Tesla!
[

Le
Monde]

*
Transition
offical
tells
DOJ
lawyers
unwilling
to
swear
fealty
to
Trump
that
they
should
leave.
[Politico]

*
DOJ
suit
alleges
Mississippi
Senate
paid
Black
lawyer
around
half
what
they
paid
white
lawyers.
This
is
probably
the
sort
of
action
that
the
transition
official
expects
to
go
away.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Sidney
Powell
must
disclose
her
finances
by
the
end
of
the
month
in
Dominion
Voting
case.
[Newsweek]

*
Steve
Bannon
back
in
court
for
new
fraud
claims.
[Lawyer
Monthly]

*
Goodwin
partner
to
argue
Supreme
Court
case
before
departing
the
firm
for
state
government
gig.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
NLRB
taking
a
closer
look
at
employer
statements
that
discourage
unions
for
the
next
couple
months
before
the
next
administration
starts
deporting
union
members.
[Law360]