Use of Research Tools and Unsubstantiated Claims by Bird & Bird
1. It has been suggested by the Defendants, Bird & Bird, that I am improperly using AI tools such as ChatGPT to assist in the preparation of my case. This argument is not only legally and logically flawed, but it also reflects a deliberate attempt to distract from the substantive issues in this litigation.
2. Firstly, there is no legal prohibition in English law against a litigant in person using AI tools or search engines like Google to assist with legal research or case preparation. As a litigant in person, I am entitled to use a variety of tools, whether traditional or technological, to better understand the legal principles, case law, and facts relevant to my case. AI tools, much like conventional search engines or legal databases, are merely research aids that help me locate information more efficiently. The responsibility for reviewing and applying that information rests solely with me.
3. Secondly, I do not rely on any tool to draft legal documents or arguments. All submissions made by me are the result of careful analysis and verification. I do, however, use tools such as Google, ChatGPT, and Casemine to assist in conducting legal research and gathering information, as any prudent litigant would. These tools help me locate legal references and case law more quickly, but the final arguments and submissions are mine alone.
4. The Defendants’ claim that using such tools somehow invalidates my arguments is a logical fallacy. Their attempt to discredit my case based on the use of research tools fails to address the accuracyor relevance of my submissions and instead relies on a straw man argument—criticising the use of tools rather than addressing the content of my legal arguments. This is a clear example of unprofessional conduct on the part of Bird & Bird, as they are attempting to mislead the court by making false claims without evidence.
5. It is also notable that legal professionals frequently use search engines, online legal databases, and AI tools to conduct research and reference materials. The Defendants’ attempt to undermine my positionby focusing on the tools I use is baseless and an example of their willingness to resort to unsound reasoning in an attempt to distract from the real issues in this case.
6. In conclusion, the Defendants’ argument is legally irrelevant, logically fallacious, and another instance of their failure to engage professionally with the facts of this case.
This is what I use to search.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 25, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1849694563990110485?t=F5R4ATjlkiGyN6YT673Iuw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1666
1. It has been suggested by the Defendants, Bird & Bird, that I am improperly using AI tools such as ChatGPT to assist in the preparation of my case. This argument is not only legally and logically flawed, but it also reflects a deliberate attempt to distract from the substantive issues in this litigation.
2. Firstly, there is no legal prohibition in English law against a litigant in person using AI tools or search engines like Google to assist with legal research or case preparation. As a litigant in person, I am entitled to use a variety of tools, whether traditional or technological, to better understand the legal principles, case law, and facts relevant to my case. AI tools, much like conventional search engines or legal databases, are merely research aids that help me locate information more efficiently. The responsibility for reviewing and applying that information rests solely with me.
3. Secondly, I do not rely on any tool to draft legal documents or arguments. All submissions made by me are the result of careful analysis and verification. I do, however, use tools such as Google, ChatGPT, and Casemine to assist in conducting legal research and gathering information, as any prudent litigant would. These tools help me locate legal references and case law more quickly, but the final arguments and submissions are mine alone.
4. The Defendants’ claim that using such tools somehow invalidates my arguments is a logical fallacy. Their attempt to discredit my case based on the use of research tools fails to address the accuracyor relevance of my submissions and instead relies on a straw man argument—criticising the use of tools rather than addressing the content of my legal arguments. This is a clear example of unprofessional conduct on the part of Bird & Bird, as they are attempting to mislead the court by making false claims without evidence.
5. It is also notable that legal professionals frequently use search engines, online legal databases, and AI tools to conduct research and reference materials. The Defendants’ attempt to undermine my positionby focusing on the tools I use is baseless and an example of their willingness to resort to unsound reasoning in an attempt to distract from the real issues in this case.
6. In conclusion, the Defendants’ argument is legally irrelevant, logically fallacious, and another instance of their failure to engage professionally with the facts of this case.
This is what I use to search.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 25, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1849694563990110485?t=F5R4ATjlkiGyN6YT673Iuw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1666
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment