I think more than law firm structures, corporate clients will grow their in house counsel teams as they can use AI and their own lawyers instead of relying on large law firms
Cheers to all the ones innovating! Let's transform lives of corporate lawyers who suffer severe mental health issues due to extremely poor work life balance
Yeah but if you look at what's happening globally, it's absolutely crazy. Thomson Reuters paid 650 million dollars for Case text. Do you know how much money that is!!!
Rather than replace the junior lawyers, my thesis is that junior lawyers will be spared the mindless/ mechanical/ grunt/ administrative work and will be given the opportunity to do more intellectually stimulating work within a few months of starting out as lawyers. This is where I believe the future of lawyering is headed
IBC was quite good but tax answer could have been better.
Does an application by a financial creditor under Section 7(5)(a) of IBC have to be mandatorily admitted?
No, an application by a financial creditor under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC does not have to be mandatorily admitted. The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 7(5)(a) gives the Adjudicating Authority the discretion not to admit even when the evidence of default is satisfied 1. The use of the word “may” in Section 7(5)(a) is intended to confer discretionary power on the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to admit the application of a financial creditor seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor 2. The Adjudicating Authority must apply its mind to a spectrum of relevant factors, including the financial health and viability of the corporate debtor, and the feasibility of CIRP, as the IBC aims to revive a company/debtor and not spell its death knell 1. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the Adjudicating Authority’s discretion not to admit the application of the financial creditor is based on relevant facts and circumstances, including the overall financial health and viability of the corporate debtor, indicating that the existence of a debt and default merely give a financial creditor the right to apply for initiating CIRP, but the Adjudicating Authority has the discretion not to admit the application 2. Therefore, the decision to admit an application under Section 7(5)(a) is not mandatory and is at the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority 3.
Seems like a demo product, which basically does one thing as of now - tries to perform a google search (or whatever other search engine they are using) for the query you type in and then tries to scrape the content (i.e., read the content) of the first few articles that the search engine shows for the search query (I am not sure if it is scraping the content from the search results correctly and hence it maybe hallucinating what the text of such articles will be) and then provides a brief summarized answer (the answers to my queries included incorrect answers). Also it loses context of your query if you ask follow questions. So lol nobody needs to worry about their jobs as of yet.
Try Perplexity AI instead, it does all of the above, more accurately. I have been using Perpelxity for quite some time now. Shows sources and all and it can maintain context for follow up questions for a long time.
Is rummy a game of skill or chance as per the supreme court?
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that rummy is a game of skill, not a game of chance. The Supreme Court clarified that games in which success relies more on skill than on chance will not be classified as gambling, but will be recognized as games of skill. The Court emphasized that rummy requires a certain amount of skill, particularly in memorizing the sequence of falling cards and strategically holding or discarding cards to build a strong hand. Moreover, in a case before the Madras High Court, it was affirmed that rummy, whether played online or offline, is a game of skill.
Therefore, as per the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, rummy is considered a game of skill rather than a game of chance.
I asked 12 questions. 9 were quite good. 2 could have been better and 1 was wrong. I think they've trained an AI model like chatgpt on Indian law. Not perfect but can be useful
Co pilot is shit now. Only throws some bits. Always says sorry but....blah blah blah...unprofessional...blah blah and gives some breadcrumbs worth info. In its earlier days it used to be very good
I got correct answers for some CCI related research from Jurisphere, pretty neat tech. Have tried using ChatGPT in the past, the answers were almost always incorrect.
I’ve tried both Jurisphere and Casemine and I find Juris way better, the response time is great - casemine is slow and has given incorrect answers multiple times
Jurisphere.ai so far is much better than others in terms of Indian law related queries, I've been using it since somebody recommended it to me, pretty good one not gonna lie.
1) jurisphere is not at all great having tested it myself. the culmination of multiple sources seldom gives a reliable answer.
2) reminds me of this recent quote by a former googler gaurav aggarwal, ""I advise a few tech companies and I realise how shallow the AI capabilities are in India," he says. "Unfortunately, most AI companies in India are just wrappers, they are just following OpenAI APIs and building some cute little applications on top of it. They are not deep AI companies at all. In fact, there are very few people in India who know how to train models in India." jurisphere is another such wrapper but not even done well.
Use gemini and ask in the prompt to give link for sources. It also uses google search to check the validity of its own responses.
On the other hand, bing ai is fairly more reliable, but is extremely lazy and gives very short and clipped answers. Does not follow prompts as well as other GPTs.
Do not use ChatGPT, Claude or any of the others - the amount of hallucinations in these is insane plus they both do not have updated databases. The ones I suggested actively use the internet.
The AI chatbot provided by casemine is limited and useless. Do not rely on anything other than the two I suggested
Just fine tune your own LEGAL BERT implementation. I pay like 30$ a month for the server and use python to script it to do what I want. Been able to get it to read documents and generate notices etc
Is there any AI research tool that gives links to sources?
It's only relies on legit Indian sources like RBI, SEBI, law firm articles, lexology Mondaq etc. so yeah worth checking out cause it's free also
Does an application by a financial creditor under Section 7(5)(a) of IBC have to be mandatorily admitted?
No, an application by a financial creditor under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC does not have to be mandatorily admitted. The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 7(5)(a) gives the Adjudicating Authority the discretion not to admit even when the evidence of default is satisfied 1. The use of the word “may” in Section 7(5)(a) is intended to confer discretionary power on the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to admit the application of a financial creditor seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor 2. The Adjudicating Authority must apply its mind to a spectrum of relevant factors, including the financial health and viability of the corporate debtor, and the feasibility of CIRP, as the IBC aims to revive a company/debtor and not spell its death knell 1. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the Adjudicating Authority’s discretion not to admit the application of the financial creditor is based on relevant facts and circumstances, including the overall financial health and viability of the corporate debtor, indicating that the existence of a debt and default merely give a financial creditor the right to apply for initiating CIRP, but the Adjudicating Authority has the discretion not to admit the application 2. Therefore, the decision to admit an application under Section 7(5)(a) is not mandatory and is at the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority 3.
I wish this was like reddit and I could give you a fake internet award but just take my thanks ig
Try Perplexity AI instead, it does all of the above, more accurately. I have been using Perpelxity for quite some time now. Shows sources and all and it can maintain context for follow up questions for a long time.
Is rummy a game of skill or chance as per the supreme court?
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that rummy is a game of skill, not a game of chance. The Supreme Court clarified that games in which success relies more on skill than on chance will not be classified as gambling, but will be recognized as games of skill. The Court emphasized that rummy requires a certain amount of skill, particularly in memorizing the sequence of falling cards and strategically holding or discarding cards to build a strong hand. Moreover, in a case before the Madras High Court, it was affirmed that rummy, whether played online or offline, is a game of skill.
Therefore, as per the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, rummy is considered a game of skill rather than a game of chance.
2) reminds me of this recent quote by a former googler gaurav aggarwal, ""I advise a few tech companies and I realise how shallow the AI capabilities are in India," he says. "Unfortunately, most AI companies in India are just wrappers, they are just following OpenAI APIs and building some cute little applications on top of it. They are not deep AI companies at all. In fact, there are very few people in India who know how to train models in India." jurisphere is another such wrapper but not even done well.
On the other hand, bing ai is fairly more reliable, but is extremely lazy and gives very short and clipped answers. Does not follow prompts as well as other GPTs.
Do not use ChatGPT, Claude or any of the others - the amount of hallucinations in these is insane plus they both do not have updated databases. The ones I suggested actively use the internet.
The AI chatbot provided by casemine is limited and useless. Do not rely on anything other than the two I suggested