Recent posts

#21

Off the Record / Re: Working From Home

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 03:20:46 PM

As said a disadvantage of wfh is it favours the rich. For a poor person who needs an adapted workspace I imagine it could suck - but then are there not grants and such.

I have spoke to people who are really active in the accessibility community in the UK around this point and they have said for disabled people the rise of wfh is absolutely fantastic

Ok, I you have spoken to people, wonderful.

But do they have a good understanding of just how hard it is to work from home for a disabled person?  Anecdotally, we spend a lot as a firm to buy office equipment and furniture to accomodate disabilities.  Most people don't have the space in their homes for that sort of thing even if we were to replace all of that material into their home environment.

It ultimately depends on your boss.

Right, you could have a dick as a boss either way.

#22

Off the Record / Re: Working From Home

Last post by Josquius - Today at 03:14:48 PM

Introverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.

I'm not so certain there actually.
Extroverts are more likely to have a lot of shit going on outside work. They don't rely on the office for the evolutionarily dictated social interaction to keep their sanity. They have a much easier time casually calling colleagues.
I think there's examples of both who prefer each.

You are assuming WFH helps with recruitment I think because of your preferences.  It is actually not that great for younger people, who are the ones we are trying to recruit.

Colour me skeptical. You are in a very big city so it is maybe less obvious there. But I'm doubtful you'd get more people applying when they have to go to any one particular location vs. The entire country.
But then you're in a kind of job with the in person part of court fairly baked in.

Also, the accessibility issue is hard for WFH.  It is just not feasible to have the same sort of accommodated work space area in a home environment.  A number of our clients had challenges in that regard and when their employees who had accommodations could return to the office, they did.

As said a disadvantage of wfh is it favours the rich. For a poor person who needs an adapted workspace I imagine it could suck - but then are there not grants and such.

I have spoke to people who are really active in the accessibility community in the UK around this point and they have said for disabled people the rise of wfh is absolutely fantastic.

Why do you think that people are not treated like an adult in an office?

It ultimately depends on your boss. But even the coolest of bosses can only get away with so much when everyone else is watching - indeed they're watching you even if you don't report to them.
An awful lot of clock watchers out there in the work force, and locked down corporate Internet and policies that don't let you listen to Spotify or the like while you work

[IRA Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Serv. Co]

#23

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 03:13:06 PM

I tried the new improved google chat bot today, to see how useful it might be for a legal professional

As a warm up, I asked it to evaluate Trump's chances on appeal of Judge Chutkan's denial of his presidential immunity.  However, in typing I didn't notice that Chutkan was autocorrected to "Chatman."  Bard proceeded to refer to "Judge Chatman" throughout its answer, without correction. However, other than that, it did a decent job - providing a pretty good summary of the arguments on both sides and their strengths and weaknesses.

I then asked some more technical questions involving specific fact assumptions.  The bot struggled with these - it gave basic but somewhat superficial summaries of the key legal issues but didn't seem to recognize the specifics of the fact pattern.  E.g. when asked a question about federal jurisdiction over claims brought by former agents, it answered as if the litigant were a current agent.

One issue that comes up a lot is the need in a legal brief to state the elements of a legal claim - i.e. the set of facts that must be proved for a plaintiff to win. It doesn't require much insight; just locating it in the case law and writing up the para. I know that case law citation was a problem for ChatGPT, but since Google has long had its own electronic database of US case law under Google Scholar, I figured it might be able to do better. I asked the bot to give me the elements of tortious interference of contract in Rhode Island, and provide supporting case law citations. It gave me a plausible sounding list of elements but it seems that citations still need work.  Here's what it gave me:

IRA Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Serv. Co.: 525 A.2d 432 (R.I. 1987) - This case outlined the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations in Rhode Island.
Cliftex Clothing Co. v. DiSanto: 88 R.I. 338, 148 A.2d 273 (1959) - This case discussed the issue of intentional interference and the requirement for wrongful means.
Avilla v. Newport Grand Jai Alai LLC: 935 A.2d 91 (R.I. 2007) - This case addressed the question of damages in tortious interference claims.

IRA Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Serv. Co is a real case but the citation is wrong. It wasn't decided by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in 1987, it was decided by a federal appeals court in 2014. It does discuss tortious interference under RI law, but only one of the elements.  The citation does not correspond to any case; the page number is in the middle of a Pennsylvania state case.

Cliftex Clothing Co. v. DiSanto: 88 R.I. 338, 148 A.2d 273 (1959) - is a real case and accurately cited. But it doesn't have anything to do with tortious interference.

Avilla v. Newport Grand Jai Alai LLC: 935 A.2d 91 (R.I. 2007) - is a real case, accurately cited, and addresses the issue. 

So 1 out of 3.  Yeah?

#24

Off the Record / Re: Working From Home

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 03:05:52 PM

Introverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.

No

#25

Off the Record / Re: Working From Home

Last post by HVC - Today at 03:00:18 PM

Introverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.

#26

Off the Record / Re: Working From Home

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 02:58:59 PM

People need to recognise there are advantages and disadvantages for both.

Remote work pros:

* recruitment. It's popular and you have a broader choice of people to begin with in any one place.
* commute elimination
* easier for self organised exercise and interaction.
* more sleep.
* more flexibility
* opens up a broader array of jobs to people all over the country.
* much better for those with accessibility needs.
* no facilities costs for the company.
* privacy/being treat like an adult.

Remote work cons :

* miss out on incidental learning and colab.
* innovation workshops are much harder. I organised and ran one for Indian unis last year and it was just nowhere near as good as in person. So much lost without the physical space and face to face
* broader societal effects bode poorly (several here)
* less enforced exercise and interaction. Which some need.
* favours the already rich who have a home work space and don't care about the extra bills.
* puts company more out of reach of customers without a physical address where everyone is.
* potential retention suffering vs other remote jobs.

You are assuming WFH helps with recruitment I think because of your preferences.  It is actually not that great for younger people, who are the ones we are trying to recruit.

Also, the accessibility issue is hard for WFH.  It is just not feasible to have the same sort of accommodated work space area in a home environment.  A number of our clients had challenges in that regard and when their employees who had accommodations could return to the office, they did.

Why do you think that people are not treated like an adult in an office?

#27

Off the Record / Re: Working From Home

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 02:54:12 PM

CC, have you surveyed your workforce how they'd feel about the option to WFH?

Yes, that was the first thing we did when our Provincial Health Officer removed her order restricting working in the office.

I personally would have liked to have downsided our office space.  I would have made a lot more money not having to pay that overhead cost.  But the staff and junior lawyers, and many partners, wanted to return in a large percentage.

That goes to a point Garbon has made.  It is detrimental to younger folks to just be at home.

#28

Off the Record / Re: Working From Home

Last post by Josquius - Today at 02:53:54 PM

People need to recognise there are advantages and disadvantages for both.

Remote work pros:

* recruitment. It's popular and you have a broader choice of people to begin with than in any one place.
* commute elimination
* easier for self organised exercise and interaction.
* more sleep.
* more flexibility
* opens up a broader array of jobs to people all over the country.
* much better for those with accessibility needs.
* no facilities costs for the company.
* privacy/being treat like an adult.

Remote work cons :

* miss out on incidental learning and colab.
* innovation workshops are much harder. I organised and ran one for Indian unis last year and it was just nowhere near as good as in person. So much lost without the physical space and face to face
* broader societal effects bode poorly (several here)
* less enforced exercise and interaction. Which some need.
* favours the already rich who have a home work space and don't care about the extra bills.
* puts company more out of reach of customers without a physical address where everyone is.
* potential retention suffering vs other remote jobs.

#29

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 02:50:33 PM

The SCC has released a signficant decision which will have the impact of increasing French language education throughout Canada.

The facts are simple and set out in the headnote

Five parents not holding the right guaranteed by s. 23 of the Charter to have their children receive instruction in one of the two official languages, where it is the minority language, applied to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment of the Northwest Territories ("Minister") for their children's admission to a French first language education program. In each case, the Commission scolaire francophone des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest ("CSFTNO") recommended admission because it would promote the development of the Francophone community of the Northwest Territories. In spite of those recommendations, the Minister denied each of the applications for admission on the ground that the non‑rights holder parents did not meet the conditions established by the ministerial directive on enrolment in French first language education programs, which created categories of eligible non‑rights holders.

It is a complex constitutional decsion, and I don't propose to get too deeply into the weeds on the analysis.  But I think the bit that will be of interest to Languish readers is:

Second, the admission of children of parents who are not rights holders under s. 23 of the Charter can have an impact on the preservation and development of minority language communities. Population growth in the minority language community helps to ensure its development and prevent its decline, including by reducing the likelihood of assimilation and cultural erosion. The admission of children of non‑rights holder parents also contributes to fulfilling the promise of s. 23, which is to give effect to the equal partnership of Canada's two official language groups in the context of education. It follows that these values are always relevant when the government exercises its discretion to admit children of non‑rights holder parents to minority language schools and that they must therefore always be taken into account, even when there is no direct infringement of the right guaranteed by s. 23.

here is the full case

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20177/index.do

This is also going to have a considerable impact on all statutory decision makers in terms of justifying their decisions in a way that reflects Charter values.

#30

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 02:44:26 PM

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-naturopath-adriana-lagrange-rob-roth-primary-care-1.7049522

Alberta government is meeting with naturopaths to consider wider role in primary health care.  In particular they want to be able to prescribe some drugs.

This of course seems like something right up Danielle Smith's alley.  She was supportive of ivermectin as a Covid treatment for example.

So I'm pretty opposed to Naturopaths - they mostly provide a whole series of quack treatments with no scientific background.

But I mean I could see some slight benefit from being able to go to a naturopath much more quickly in order to get a prescription for, I dunno, antibiotics or a topical cream or something.

But what I would fear is naturoapths handing out prescriptions for the next ivermectin with no basis to do so.

Probably better to send them to pharmacists - the BC government allowed pharmacists to prescribe a fairly wide range of medications that has cut down on the routine things that docs used to have to deal with.