rosenhouse-law-office

Legal AI -- preliminary take

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 16:51:10 GMT

A game-changer no doubt, but....

I haven't seen anything as mind-boggling as AI since my early experiences browsing the web. There's no doubt it changes the world -- for the better. Thus far, I've used it primarily for document review, to unearth latent factual details and identify the documents where they appear. (The platforms I use are confidential and secure; no AI learning or training from the data I provide). It saves time.

That said, the hype is overdone. The tools make mistakes and sometimes won't accept correction, defending their errors in a ludicrous manner. Sometimes, they have offered up "research" that turns out to be sloppy, such as in manufacturing cites for cases that do not exist. It's hard to imagine how anybody could manufacture an algorithm that does that.

Legal AI won't substitute for careful file review and research but will be a boon for a lawyer who knows the case well enough to sense when the AI tool is hallucinating.

Settlement conference on the eve of trial?

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 19:43:24 GMT

Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin, 6b

Food for thought from the Talmud on chambers settlement conferences, Sanhedrin, 6b:

R'Shimon ben Measya says: When two litigants come before you (the judge) for judgment, before you have heard their statements, or even after you have heard them but you do not yet know towards which side the judgment leans, you may urge them to compromise. But once you have heard their statements and know towards which side the judgment leans, you are not permitted to say to them, "Go out and compromise."

A non-appeal appeal

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 18:53:07 GMT

NY CPLR 5704

NY CPLR 5704 provides an often overlooked route to the appellate court when a trial court refuses to sign an application for an order to show cause, i.e., a request for relief without affording the opposition the normal time to respond. But the situation must present a true emergency justifying dispensing with regular notice and motion. The appellate might in theory agree with the applicant's position on the merits but still refuse to consider a motion directed to it under CPLR 5704 where the papers don't show the required emergency circumstances.

It must be our originalist approach

Mon, 29 Dec 2025 23:07:58 GMT

Hoary article on damages for trade secret misappropriation remains relevant

It's surprising though highly gratifying that a decades-old research article of ours continues to be helpful. It's gratifying because when we wrote it -- Proper Measure and Elements of Damages for Misappropriation of Trade Secret , 11 ALR4th 12 -- the notable complaint from the legal academy was that the subject was in a state of relative disorder. We read the cases and tried to bring some order to it. The article has been cited by the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, the supreme courts of Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, and a fair number of lower state and federal courts, including, most recently, US Trinity Defense, LLC v DTV Arms, LLC , 4:22-CV-314-JDK, 2023 WL 3681686, at *7 [ED Tex Mar. 7, 2023](Kernodle, J.).

Service of process by email?

Mon, 29 Dec 2025 22:30:25 GMT

Not necessarily, says the Second Circuit, quoting our article

Quoting with approval the first sentence of our research article, the Second Circuit recently rejected a contention that the Hague Convention authorized service of process by email on a Chinese defendant, reasoning that "reading into the Convention's silence implicit permission for all types of service not affirmatively barred would render meaningless its 'approved methods of service,' encouraging end-runs around the very system it created." Smart Study Co., Ltd v Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi , 24-313, 2025 WL 3672740, at *5 [2d Cir Dec. 18, 2025] The Second Circuit quoted and added its own emphasis to our carefully-phrased assessment: “The Hague Convention ... establishes a specific mechanism for international service of process between parties to the Convention and allows for the use of other specified methods in certain circumstances.” (emphases added by the court)).

Smart Study is the seventh federal case in which our article, Permissibility of Effectuating Service of Process by Email Between Parties to Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 8 (Originally published in 2016), has been cited. Secondary sources citing the article include the Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law and the Wayne Law Review.

Overdue update

Mon, 29 Dec 2025 21:26:39 GMT

When parties have agreed on where suit must be brought, the courts should respect that agreement

It has been far too long since our last update. We'll review and try to remedy the situation. For now, we're pleased to report an Illinois appellate court ruling in our favor in Project Is 43:19, LLC, v Vanderburgh House, LLC, 2025 IL App (4th) 241194, involving a commercial lease dispute. The appellate court reversed the lower court on the basis that the court should have respected the parties' "forum selection" clause, meaning that the plaintiff should have brought suit in Massachusetts, not Illinois.

Suit dismissed

Tue, 03 Aug 2021 19:07:13 GMT

On June 24, 2021, the firm secured dismissal of a substantial commercial suit against a client of the firm.

By rosenhouselaw | Published August 3, 2021 | Posted in News/developments | Comments Off on Suit dismissed

No judgment, no subpoena

Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:05:33 GMT

For better or worse, handling appeals sometimes leads to handling enforcement issues. In a recent appeal, we won a favorable modification of an order under which a judgment had been entered against the defendant, our client. Thereupon, the plaintiff issued subpoenas for disclosure of information for enforcement purposes, but he took no steps to have the old judgment reduced in accordance with the appellate court decision. Rather, he filed a motion to modify the judgment in his client’s favor on other grounds. But that motion had not been decided.

New York practice allows for the issuance of subpoenas for disclosure of information to enforce a judgment. But the subpoena must specify the date of the judgment, the court in which it was entered, its amount and the amount then due. The plaintiff withdrew the subpoenas after we filed a motion arguing that the the plaintiff had cited no currently effective judgment that could be enforced and could not have done so because the existing judgment had been effectively obviated by the appellate court’s decision.

By rosenhouselaw | Published March 23, 2021 | Posted in Litigation | Comments Off on No judgment, no subpoena

Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari

Fri, 05 Feb 2021 20:04:26 GMT

Mandamus, prohibition and certiorari are extraordinary common law writs that often resemble appeals in that they are based on review of a closed record for error.

Under the common law, an application for a writ of mandamus is an action to require a court, board, corporation or person to perform a non-discretionary duty imposed by law. It can be used to command a governmental officer to pay a pension or free a prisoner, for example, or to require a corporate officer to allow inspection of books and records by a minority shareholder or to perform other duties required by statute. A writ of prohibition is one that commands a person or tribunal not to do something which he or she is about to do, and has been used to prevent a tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction. See Black’s Law Dictionary (8th).

Certiorari is a common-law writ issued by a superior to an inferior court or to some other tribunal or officer exercising a judicial function, requiring the certification and return of the record and proceedings so that the record may be revised and corrected in matters of law. See Black’s Law Dictionary (8th). The U.S. Supreme Court uses this writ in reviewing most of its cases.

In New York, relief formerly granted under writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari is currently available under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

United States Courts of Appeal are empowered by the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to issue writs of mandamus. In federal district court practice, Rule 81(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that relief previously available by mandamus may still be obtained by appropriate action or appropriate motion under the practice prescribed by the Rules. Orders and relief in the nature of mandamus are also available in federal practice under various statutes and rules pertaining to agencies, including the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 706.

By rosenhouselaw | Published February 5, 2021 | Posted in Appeals , History | Comments Off on Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari