Attorneys and AI Adoption; GenAI Court Order with Judge McGee; & “My Favorite Things”

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

It is a Legal Toolkit with Jared Correia, with guests Judge Marty McGee. We play a game of, these are a few of my favorite things, And then, Yep, you guess it more AI at first, your host, Jared Correia.

Jared Correia:

It’s time for the Legal Toolkit podcast. We’re the bulge in your Christmas stocking. And yes, it’s still called Legal Toolkit Podcast, even though I have no idea what a flat bastard file is. Wait, what did you just call me? I’m your host Jared Correia. You’re stuck with me because Sam the Snowman was unavailable. He was directing Rudolph to the proper path. This is dictated by one Burl Iel Ivanhoe Ives, a man for all seasons. I’m the CEO of Red Cave Law Firm consulting, a business management consulting service for attorneys and bar associations. Find us online at redcavelegal.com. Now, before we get to our interview today with Marty McGee, a superior court judge in North Carolina about his recent court order around ai. Let’s address the adoption rates of AI by attorneys in general. The results may surprise you, my friends, this morning I was on a planning call for a CLEs and I’m doing for the American Bar Association in May because we got to get that planned in December.

And I was talking to the co-presenter who is a former guest of one Legal Toolkit podcast about what were we going to talk about? And we had booked a half an hour to talk and I was like 15 minutes through the conversation and I was talking about what I usually do to present on ai. This gentleman was very patient with me and I then said, we’re not talking about AI at all, are we? And he said, no. I had assumed that we’re going to be talking about AI despite the fact that I was sent information about a different topic earlier. Now, why would I do that? Well, I feel like all I do is talk about ai. It’s all anybody wants to hear about. So what are we going to do? We’re going to do a whole episode on ai. Once again, this is the topic that never dies.

I thought after a year or so, the AI stuff would kind of peter out a little bit, not in terms of being used or anything, but at least a strong desire to discuss it on a near constant basis. But that’s not the case at all. I probably do something like 200 presentations a year to bar associations and various legal organizations, and they all still only want to hear about AI for the most part. Whereas I was doing zero AI presentations a couple of years ago now, like 50, 60% of what I do is AI related programming. So today we’re going to talk to a judge, an actual real sitting judge about a court order on AI usage by attorneys. But part of the reason that this is being talked about so regularly is that unlike when the cloud started becoming a thing for lawyers around about 2008, the adoption rate for AI has actually been crazy high for lawyers, especially compared to the cloud.

I mean, if you look at the cloud, like lawyers started getting into that a little bit, but it took a really long time for the vast majority of lawyers to start using cloud software, which kind of started with case management software companies like Clio and Rocket Matter up until the pandemic. That’s the thing that really pushed cloud over the edge. And now almost every law firm I taught to is using cloud software. But 2008 to 2020, that’s almost 12 years. That took a long time, a long time to become really almost ubiquitous in law practice. And it’s not that AI is ubiquitous in law practice, but a lot of lawyers are aware of it and a lot more lawyers than you might think are already using it. So let me give you some stats because I’m a numbers guy. My fantasy baseball team would be shit if I wasn’t right.

So let’s talk about some numbers in terms of how lawyers are using AI that may be surprising to you, maybe not. Maybe you’re one of the people who are using it. So I want to do two things. Let’s talk about usage and then let’s talk about how attorneys are using it. These are all from studies that I pulled that I can source if people are interested. So if you’re like, where’d you get that number from? Just shoot me an email, I can tell you. So 89% of lawyers have heard of AI and you’re probably like, oh, big deal. My grandma has heard of ai. But that’s not necessarily the case. Well, maybe your grandmother has heard of ai, but other grandmothers have not. Only 61% of the general public has heard of ai. And if you ask me what those numbers would’ve been without showing me, I would’ve thought it was reversed.

I would’ve thought most of the general public knew about what AI was, but fewer lawyers do, and that’s actually not the case. Lawyers are attuned to this, which is maybe why I’m getting so many speaking requests on the topic. Now. Better news, 73% of attorneys say that they understand how AI works, meaning generative AI and fully 68% feel prepared for its impact on legal practice. I don’t know about that. I like that that number’s high, but I think a lot of lawyers think of AI as simply generative AI and don’t have an understanding that AI is this just large constellation of tools that have come together at the perfect time to allow you to do things with technology that we’re here for impossible. So I don’t know about that, but I’m glad you’re all feeling strongly about it. And I think that 70% of attorneys know how generative AI works.

I think that probably does make sense because it’s a relatively simple and straightforward tool to use, at least as far as a consumer interface is concerned. This is even more encouraging. 34% of attorneys using generative AI in their law firms 17.5%, 17.5% using it on active matters. That’s great because this is the bridge from theory to application. So it’s great that lawyers are aware of ai. It’s great that lawyers are starting to use generative ai. The real question is are they using on an actual cases, 26% of lawyers are using AI at least once a month. And this is really interesting. 62% of law firm managers are making day-to-day operational changes to their law firms due to what they view as a positive impact of generative AI tools. So that means that not only are lawyers aware of and using ai, but they are making changes to how they run their business based on the effects of ai.

Now, those could be a lot of changes and some of those positive changes could be tweaking payment models for law firms or potentially figuring out new KPIs delivered from AI technology. That’s another use case I’ve seen that is really great that lawyers are not only utilizing ai but also changing the way they run their businesses because of it. And in some ways, that’s a consultant’s stream, right? All I try to do is tell people like, Hey, you should do this or utilize this, and then let’s also fold this into your business. And ideally you’re changing the way you run your day-to-day operations. That happening in ai, probably in many cases without consultants even being involved within AMLO 200 firms, 53% of those firms have purchased generative AI tools for use by their lawyers. And 43% of those firms are actively using AI for legal work.

So that’s relatively quick adoption. And these bigger firms that are like turning a cruise ship to get you to do anything because these are big businesses. So the fact that they are buying generative AI tools for their lawyers and that those are being used on cases, those are all good signs. Let’s talk about how lawyers are using ai. So 91% of lawyers using AI view it as a tool that will help them to draft documents faster. 90% of lawyers using AI tools view it as a way to save time researching 73% use AI to streamline communication tasks and 35% on that note use it to generate the first drafts for emails. And those are all use cases I see on a regular basis. Those are all use cases that I talk about when I do these presentations. And I think those are probably the three most common use cases for attorneys who have adopted generative ai.

That’s document drafting, researching and drafting communications, which is somewhat of a subset of drafting, but the idea is if you can get to the endpoint quicker, and for a lot of attorneys what they’re delivering is written materials, content, whether that’s an email to a client or that’s an estate plan. The fact that AI can get you there faster is I think clearly the case. But there’s sometimes a misalignment of what attorney’s perceptions are about how software works and how it actually does work. And the fact that so many attorneys are aware of these use cases is a great thing because they’re using it in the status quo. And so if you’re a client, that’s great news because the attorneys are being as efficient as possible. If you’re a law firm, that’s great news because you’re increasing the number of cases you can take on and therefore the revenue of the firm.

This is all good and I’m glad attorneys are sort of embracing it. Alright, let’s talk a little bit more about the perception side of things. So 65% of attorneys have a positive view of generative AI tools and how they’re proliferating. And 75% of lawyers believe it will have a value of reducing drudge work that attorneys don’t want to do. Now, I’ve talked about this a bunch over the course of history of this podcast, which is that to practice at the top of your law license, you want to be able to delegate the work that is lower value. As an attorney, you want to be doing the highest value work, which is really working on high-end cases and getting more high-end cases. So you’re the strategy person, you’re the person that interfaces with the clients, you don’t want to be doing the lowest possible level work.

You want to delegate that. And now we live in a world where you can delegate some of that to a technology, to an AI tool that is similar to delegating that work to a human only. They’re much cheaper than humans. And I would say further that obviously that elevates the work of everybody. Attorneys can focus on higher end work, but so can associates, so can paralegals, so can admin people, and that’s a good deal. 90% of legal executives expect to increase investment in generative AI tools over the next five years. That should be a hundred percent. And lastly, I think this is really encouraging. 47% of attorneys are exploring new lines of business or additional opportunities for billable work that stem directly from the implementation of generative AI tellingly, while the same number of believes that generative AI will cut costs for law firms in the long run.

So AI can reduce the budget for a law firm while also allowing law firms to leverage new lines of work. You don’t have to be a math major to understand that that’s a big deal. Also, you’ve got about half the attorneys actively looking to engage those new lines of business. And I think this is an interesting use case for AI because I think when you talk to a lot of attorneys about it, they’re like, this is a problem. I’m going to cut down the hours I work, which means I’m going to cut down the amount I bill. But you could move into higher leverage work. You could move into work that you could bill in a different way using a subscription or a flat fee model for example. And there’s value in that and that’s probably a more profitable endeavor than just continuing to do whatever you’ve done before.

So AI is a forcing function to having those conversations and actually getting that new work that you wouldn’t have maybe even thought to get or even thought that you have the bandwidth to take on pre ai. Alright, what does this all mean? Well, it means that if you’ve been sitting there thinking, oh, okay, AI going to be just like the cloud in legal going to be just like every other technology advancement in legal. I’m just going to wait this one out. I’ll start to use AI when I have to. You can’t be thinking that way when you have to start using AI is right now. And if you don’t, you’re going to be facing a massive competitive disadvantage sooner than you think maybe right now. So let’s not talk about how this impacts your court filings. That’s right. We up next we’ve got Marty McGee, a superior court judge in North Carolina who’s going to talk about his recent order on law firm, court filings and process and ai.

He’s actually the first sitting judge we’ve ever had on this show. What a brave man. He’s going to do the rump roast and everything, I swear. But before we get there, let’s now hear more from our sponsors. Alright everybody, let’s get to the meat in the middle of this legal podcasting sandwich. Today’s meat is grits. Being told grits is not a meat. My bad. Alright, that’s enough about breakfast. Let me introduce our guest today on the Legal Toolkit we have for your listening pleasure. Marty McGee, who’s the senior resident superior court judge at Cabra County in North Carolina. Marty, how you doing? Welcome to the show.

Marty McGee:

Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Jared Correia:

Did I say the name of the county wrong? How did I do

Marty McGee:

Pretty close? Cabs. Cabs, alright. The city is Concord, not Concord, so that’s a little different too.

Jared Correia:

Right, right. Well I’m glad I didn’t screw it up too. Thanks for coming on the show. We’re going to talk about AI and the courts, which is something I’ve wanted to address forever. But you’re a sitting judge and you’re brave enough to come on the podcast. I appreciate that. Let me get started. So senior resident, superior court judge, what is that like? What do you do on a day-to-day basis? And then I think North Carolina judges are elected, right? So you’ve got to do campaigns from time to time. Just give me the overview, broad strokes of your job.

Marty McGee:

They are elected and I’ll say senior resident sounds more impressive before you realize we only have one superior court judge in my district. So

Jared Correia:

I

Marty McGee:

Am You

Jared Correia:

Shouldn’t have said that. I was so much more impressed

Marty McGee:

Before. I’m the head administrative judge and the only spear court judge in my district. I was a district court judge for 13 years and been a spear court judge for about 11. Now North Carolina’s a little different in terms of jurisdiction. We rotate, so I go all over the state. I’ve held court in about 42, 43 counties of our 100 counties in the state. I regularly travel a good bit, but I do all the administrative work in our district here.

Jared Correia:

Your role is sort of like a circuit judge in some ways that old school judge with ride around and travel, that kind of thing?

Marty McGee:

Very much so. We’re divided up into divisions, which I cover about a fifth of the state, but they can send me anywhere. So I’ve held court from the coast all the way to Murphy, Cherokee County in North Carolina all the way to the very end. So it’s a fair amount of travel, but I enjoy it. You get to meet a lot of different people and every place does it a little differently. So it’s a great opportunity to learn how different communities address court and the different legal cultures, which I think has been a very rewarding experience.

Jared Correia:

So if I want to know the best barbecue places in any given city in North Carolina, you’re the guy to go to, it sounds like

Marty McGee:

Me and the bailiffs. So when I go to a town, I often talk to the bailiffs and they help me out. So yes, that is my one area of expertise where to eat in North Carolina.

Jared Correia:

Great. I’m going to hit you up the next time I come down. So we wanted to talk with you a little bit about AI today because you produced an administrative order on that. But before we get to that, I’m interested to know when did you first come across ai? Was that in your personal life? Was that through your work at the courts? What was your first experience? Because generative AI hit really hard a year and a half ago, and I tell this story all the time. I knew AI was a thing when my mom texted me and she was like West Chat GPT. So when did you start at least exploring this?

Marty McGee:

Well, during the pandemic I spent a lot of time out just walking, listening to podcasts. Now I listen to the Deep Mind podcast and

So I thought that was incredibly interesting and then I started thinking about how that would apply to things like whether it would do a better job than humans and setting bonds and those sorts of things. So I’m generally interested in technology of the Chief Justice’s remote Proceedings committee. So we’re trying to figure out how to hold remote hearings, particularly with folks that are incarcerated without having to transport ’em to do things like appoint a lawyer of those sorts of things, but we do please and those sorts of things. So generally interested in technology, but I’m doing an LLM program, judicial studies program at Duke and I got exposed to some excellent teachers and so just found it fascinating and a little scary in terms of when it came to court, how was I going to deal with that and trying to think through it to try to get in front of it.

Jared Correia:

That’s great. Okay, so it sounds like this was driven by your desire to be ready for this and your role as a judge, which makes complete sense.

Marty McGee:

That’s exactly it. I started thinking about if I’m in a jury trial and someone starts asking questions about artificial intelligence or in a closing argument, I didn’t want to take that cold and try to have to figure it out on the fly. So it made me try to think through it and then trying to think through are there ways that these tools could assist us in being more efficient in what we’re doing? So I would say that while I was at Duke, Nita Farhan is a professor at the law school and I believe also the business school. And she had us work through a problem where she wanted us to write a paper and she wanted us to use AI tools to research also to use an AI tool to summarize documents and then to write it and then to create an image. And I’d never done that. I’d been on chat GBT, but I’d never used it in that way.

Jared Correia:

So

Marty McGee:

She talked about sort of all the benefits of it and then I had Professor Judge Paul Grim and Professor Mara Grossman from the University of Waterloo talk about all the evidentiary challenges in deepfake.

Jared Correia:

Right. I definitely want to get to that.

Marty McGee:

I thought about trying to put all that together to provide guidance and so that’s what I did.

Jared Correia:

Well, let me ask you about this before we get to the order itself. Don’t feel like you need to throw anybody under the bus here, but how do you find the judiciary to be reacting to ai? Are people embracing the possibilities like you are some people afraid of it? Do some people not want to use it? What are you seeing? I just kind of want to get a sense from the bench, like what’s the approach?

Marty McGee:

I can speak for the judges that I’ve talked with in North Carolina. I think it’s a full spectrum of views and the Spirit Court Conference has a technology committee and they’ve created a subcommittee that I’m part of five or six judges working on trying to learn about it and to do presentations at conferences. I was asked to do a brief presentation to the district and superior court judges, the senior residents and the district court judges about it. So I think people are in it, but I think we’ve got, all of us have a long way to go to understanding what it’s going to mean for our courts.

Jared Correia:

Oh, for sure. Alright, let me ask you this before we get into the order itself. When lawyers submit documents to the court, is it obvious to you those who’ve used generative AI and those who haven’t? Do you have to dig deeper to figure that out or do you not even care as long as it’s a viable work product that’s been vetted?

Marty McGee:

I would say it is not obvious to me if it’s been used as a tool to assist, but I think if a lawyer turns something into the court, they own it, whatever it is, just as I think as if someone had an associate draft a brief and they just blindly sign it and send it in. I think Rule 11 provides it that you are responsible for your work product. So that really doesn’t seem to me to be a huge challenge.

Jared Correia:

I

Marty McGee:

May be wrong about that, but I think lawyers can choose whatever tools that they want to use to help them. And Grammarly, for example, is a tool that I find to be very helpful and I think part of a challenge for someone certifying whether or not they use AI or generative ai, not everyone knows the difference in that and I think some folks would be using tools that they didn’t realize that AI was a part of assisting in it. So that’s a long way of saying, I don’t know that I can tell and I don’t think that I really care as long as they vetted it and it’s a responsible document to file the

Jared Correia:

Court. I mean, I think that honestly, I’m not just saying this because we’re talking right now, but that feels like the right approach to me. If there’s an obsession over figuring out whether something was generated by ai. I agree. I don’t think it really matters as long as it’s been vetted appropriately and the attorney’s doing the job that they are supposed to be doing. Alright, enough with the preamble, you have published this order for your court related to generative ai, so I want to get into specifics of that, but do you mind giving people an idea of just an overview, like 30,000 foot view of what it is?

Marty McGee:

Sure. I start out talking about technical competence that lawyers should have, at least under North Carolina rules, and I think under most model rules have a

Jared Correia:

Duty to keep

Marty McGee:

Up with technology. You don’t have to be an expert in it, but I think you have to understand the tools. I think you a lawyer has to understand the confidentiality requirements and that putting this into chat, GBT opens it up for loss of confidentiality. So I think a lawyer should keep up with the technology and I don’t think it’s something they can avoid. I don’t think they can say, well, I’m just not going to use it. I don’t think that’s possible. And then I make clear that it’s fine to use generative AI in their work. I think that that’s one of those things that it’s coming and that I think understanding the technology and using it appropriately, I think lawyers should do that. The duty under Rule 11 and the duty under Rule 26, I think covers that. They’re responsible for whatever they submit to the court or the certifications with regard to Discovery. I’d said that if they use generative AI to create evidence, then they should notify the court of that and opposing counsel of that. I think that also, if there’s an issue concerning authenticity, they need to bring it to the court’s attention so that can be heard. Pretrial should let the court know when they reasonably suspect that there’s an issue. Also letting lawyers know that they need to be on the lookout for DeepFakes that their clients give them. They need to be aware of what those are. If there’s something that they should reasonably question, they have a duty to follow through with that. That really is the basics of it. The purpose of the order is to provide structure for how AI could ought to be brought to the attention of a court in opposing counsel. This really doesn’t cover the other, I think big issue is the evidentiary issues and how those are sorted out. This is more structure of how it should be brought to the court’s attention or to opposing counsel’s attention.

Jared Correia:

That’s great, I appreciate that overview. One thing you alluded to before, which I think is interesting is that the orders specifically addressing generative AI tools, did you at any point think of going broader or are you sort of like, Hey, we’ll address other uses of AI as they come up down the line? It seems like most attorneys are using generative AI right now and that’s what the focus is on.

Marty McGee:

Well, I think it will be an evolving thing. So my idea originally was to do this as a draft order and put it out and ask for comments before I formalized it, but it became clear that it would take a long time to do that. So I sort of think of this as 1.0. And so I’ve asked people to comment and I hope that those comments will help me make it better. The best idea has to win whoever’s idea it is. So if people have information and think we can make this better, I can make this better. That’s what I want to do.

Jared Correia:

That’s great. Living document. I like it. Now in terms of the order itself, when attorneys are submitting a motion to the court, for example, you’re not requiring them to say, Hey, we built this using chat GPT or we used AI technology to create this. I haven’t practiced law in a long time, so I’m not great at reading these things, but that’s correct, right? There’s no requirement like that in your order.

Marty McGee:

No, I did not require that.

Jared Correia:

I feel like this tracks back to what you were talking about before where you’re like, I don’t care if it’s ai as long as it’s good. Was that the thesis behind that? I know some courts are asking attorneys to identify whether or not they use AI in the work product they produce,

Marty McGee:

And I’m certainly not being critical of other folks that think there’s a better way of doing it, but thought behind it was, to me, if a lawyer’s getting assistance from say an associate and they sign it, they’re responsible for it. So I think it follows the same way that I don’t know that what I would really do with that information if someone tells me they used artificial intelligence, I Mean if you look at it closer than you ordinarily would, I don’t know what that information would do for me.

Jared Correia:

Okay, great. Yeah, I’m totally on the same page with you

Marty McGee:

And I’m not saying that with any sort of arrogance that that’s the right answer, but that’s just sort of the way that I thought through it and what I thought was appropriate. But down the road I may see it a different way, but to me that’s sort of what feels to be

Jared Correia:

Correct. Yeah, right now I don’t know what that gets you really that knowledge. Alright, well let’s talk about the deep fake thing because that’s pretty interesting and this touches upon some of those evidence questions that you had previously. For those who don’t know what deep fakes are, could you give a little bit of background into that and then also tell us how you specifically have addressed that in the order?

Marty McGee:

Well, I included two definitions, what generative AI is in DeepFakes. And deepfake is a type of synthetic media where AI creates deepfake images, videos and audio recordings that can be highly realistic.

And so what I’ve heard folks refer to also as cheap fakes where you can go online and create your own. So there’s a number of places that do that. One of them is, I think it’s fake you where you can go in and take a celebrity’s voice and do text to speech. And it sounds pretty realistic. For one of my talks at a conference, I did that and Morgan Freeman, I typed up something and played it for folks. That’s not perfect and it can certainly is going to get better, but it’s things that I think for in a family law case for example, where someone comes in to their lawyer and says, I want custody and listen to what my spouse said and plays a

Jared Correia:

Oh for sure.

Marty McGee:

And what I’ve also heard is that sort of the technology that creates DeepFakes and the ones that detect DeepFakes is sort of an arms race I’ve been told. So I think it’s very difficult to know. So I guess context is the way it’s sorted out, but that seems to me to be a much bigger concern to me at least than someone using generative AI to draft a brief.

Jared Correia:

Yeah, I would agree. And then so what you’ve done in the order is you basically, I think you’ve asked attorneys to flag that pretrial, right? Just to get ahead of it. Yes.

Marty McGee:

Yeah. When I try a case, I tried a case, I guess it was last week, I have a checklist that I go right through and now I’ve added to my checklist things, have you exchanged list of witnesses? I’ve added, does anyone contend that there’s any authenticity issues related to artificial intelligence? And so I try to address that they should bring it to my attention early, but if not, then before we get started with the trial, I ask that question.

Jared Correia:

Yeah. So let me ask you, is this more of a prospective thing or are you seeing deepfake evidence center, the court system right now?

Marty McGee:

For me, I have not seen it that I know of. For me it was,

Jared Correia:

Unless it’s been really good,

Marty McGee:

Well, I did it out of concern of just getting caught and how to figure it out on the fly. But for example, I would say this that, so I tried a case not too long ago where there was an automation recreation of an automobile accident and no one raised that issue. And I thought, well, was artificial intelligence involved in the recreation of this? I don’t know the answer to that. So there may be instances where that’s come before me in a case that I was trying and not recognized it, but this has made me, I think more on the lookout for it

Jared Correia:

All. The more reason to put out an order like this and get ahead of it. Alright, I got a couple more questions for you and then we’ll do some fun stuff. So what kind of sanctions are you looking at for lawyers who don’t comply with an order like this?

Marty McGee:

Well, I’m certainly hoping to avoid having to sanction anyone for it. Me too.

Jared Correia:

Hopefully never after you use it. But yeah,

Marty McGee:

That’s why I’m trying to spend so much time on the front side of this trying to make sure that folks are aware of it. I think really probably most likely the problems that we would have, and I haven’t had any, but what I think is the most likely problem is somebody just simply not understanding the technology.

Jared Correia:

Yeah, I think that’s right.

Marty McGee:

At the very beginning I think perhaps some folks thought it was just magic. You would ask it an answer and it would tell you, and then that’s it. And not understanding the limitations of the technology, not understanding the confidentiality concerns related to using it, I think is where probably the biggest concern. I certainly hope that no one’s going to intentionally fabricate evidence and present it. I mean that,

Jared Correia:

Let’s hope not.

Marty McGee:

Courts have ways of dealing with that. If that comes up, I think the main concern is just not understanding it.

Jared Correia:

Last question for you is obviously you’ve got your order out there. A number of other court have produced orders as well. If I’m a practicing attorney and I’m in maybe different courthouses, maybe I have a federal practice, the first thing I’m thinking of is like, okay, now I got to figure out the local rules before I go into a situation where I’m going to trial. How hard do you think that’s going to be for attorneys moving forward? And what I’m really asking is, do you think at some point some of this is going to coalesce and the majority of these local court orders will have the same overriding themes, or is that happening right now?

Marty McGee:

I don’t know, but ultimately I think it’ll become more unified. I think the A BA gave its formal opinion five 12 about the use of artificial intelligence

States are doing that, state bars are doing that. North Carolina has a proposed opinion about it. So I think ultimately it will get there. But I think really the basics of it will be pretty common. I mean, I think it’s going to be important. I would imagine all the rules will say the lawyers need to be technically competent in this area. And I think that some notice requirements for how these things come up, I think will probably become maybe not uniform in the timelines, but I think that’ll be a requirement most places. So I think it’s going to take us a while. I mean, I’ve did this in July and I hope in several months I’ll have a better way of doing it and figure it out. So I think it will evolve.

Jared Correia:

Marty. Thank you. That was really great. I learned a lot. Thank you. Can you hang around for one final segment? Sure. All right everybody, we’ll take one final break so you can hear more about our sponsor companies and our latest service offerings. Then stay tuned. As always, for the Rump Roast, it’s even more supple than the Roast Beast. Welcome to the rear end of the Legal Toolkit podcast. That’s right, it’s the Rump Roast everybody. It’s a grab bag of short form topics. All of my choosing, why do I get to pick? Because I’m the host. So in celebration of having our first ever sitting judge on the show, Marty, I want to go a little easy on you. We’ll see. No for fives here. I wanted to play a little game called, these are a few of my favorite things, which should get us into the holiday mood. Now you know what Marty thinks about AI and lawyers, but let’s get to know him on a deeper level. Alright, so here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to read off lists, covering different categories, and Marty, you simply need to pick your favorite thing. We’re just going to go entirely off feel and feel free to go off board if you don’t like any of my preordained selections. So the good thing about this is that there are no wrong answers.

Marty McGee:

That sounds very good.

Jared Correia:

You can judge for yourself as it were. See what I did there everybody? All right, here we go. Category number one is favorite puppet, favorite puppet. I’m going to give you some choices and again, if you don’t like these, go off the board of this grouping. What do you like the best? Statler and Waldorf from the Muppets. Some of my favorites. King Friday from Mr. Rogers neighborhood or Team America from the movie Team America World Police. Do you have a favorite puppet?

Marty McGee:

I would have to say no, but I’m afraid that’s a wrong answer.

Jared Correia:

You don’t like any of those at all? I was over three.

Marty McGee:

I would say Mr. Rogers puppet. Good one. Alright.

Jared Correia:

King Friday is a good choice. My wife is like deathly afraid of puppets. For whatever reason, she has puppet phobia. So occasionally I’ll put on a puppet thing. Fraggle Rock. Any Frale Rock? No,

Marty McGee:

I remember a little bit of that.

Jared Correia:

Yes,

Marty McGee:

I’m a little than that. I think

Jared Correia:

Miraculously I said there will be no wrong answers, but we went. Oh, for one. Alright, let’s keep it going. Alright, category number two. Category number two. Favorite movie trilogy. Favorite movie Trilogy. I have some options again, you can go off the board. This movie came out, what is it now? Almost 40 years ago, one of my favorite movies. 45 years ago maybe Back to the future. The Back to the Future trilogy. Then we’ve got the Star Wars trilogy episodes four through six, not the first one or the last one, and then the Lord of the Rings. Do you have a favorite trilogy for movies among that group or would you like to go off the board?

Marty McGee:

Off the board please?

Jared Correia:

Okay. Yes, please.

Marty McGee:

The Godfather series, although the third one was not very good.

Jared Correia:

Well see. Okay, so this is good. This is great. Now everybody gets to know a real life judge. On a personal level, I was going to throw Godfather in there, but then I thought Godfather three. Not a very good movie. Do you concur?

Marty McGee:

I agree, but I think the first two are good enough to bring that up.

Jared Correia:

Okay. Alright. So you would choose Godfather over any of those other suggestions I had.

Marty McGee:

I would.

Jared Correia:

All right, keep that energy because I’ve got a related question coming up. Alright. Alright. Number three. What is your favorite bread? Favorite bread? Wheat, rye or just money? Like bread, cash. I know what my favorite is. Do you have a favorite?

Marty McGee:

Well, I would say sourdough.

Jared Correia:

Really? Alright, we’re going off the board to get sourdough. Iss good. Alright. I dunno if I have a favorite bread. I like bagels though. I’m a big bagel guy. Let me ask you this. So I’m going to go off the board myself. We talked about North Carolina barbecue before. Are you comfortable saying your favorite barbecue place in North Carolina or do you not want to do favoritism?

Marty McGee:

I am. I am comfortable

Jared Correia:

Saying you are. Alright, so let me know next time I’m in North Carolina. Where should I go to get barbecue? Maybe with some cornbread on the side.

Marty McGee:

There’s lots of good barbecue in North Carolina and the East West is a big controversy in North Carolina. But for me, honey Uck Barbecue in Lexington, North Carolina is my favorite. Although corn sticks out. East is very good.

Jared Correia:

Where is Lexington? North Carolina. I don’t even know where that is.

Marty McGee:

It’s between Charlotte and Greensboro

Jared Correia:

On

Marty McGee:

85.

Jared Correia:

Wow. You do travel a lot? I do, I do. Alright, I’m hitting that one up the next time in North Carolina. I’ll let you know how it goes. I hope you like it. I’m sure I will. All right, I got two more for you. We’re coming back around a little bit to The Godfather because I want to ask you your favorite television series. We can go off board, but I have some choices for you. Sopranos Breaking Bad. Let’s throw it way back. Family ties. Sopranos, do you have a favorite among those? Really? Okay.

Marty McGee:

I would think Sopranos is.

Jared Correia:

Alright, so we got a theme here. We got the Godfather, we got Sopranos. You like Ceno as well?

Marty McGee:

I’ve seen it. Not quite as much. Not

Jared Correia:

Quite as much. Alright, well thank you for being such a good four all. I have two more for you. I have six categories. I lied. I mean so much fun. We’re going to add another category. All right. Category five. What’s your favorite font? I feel like a judge should have a favorite font. Comic Sands Times New Roman Ariel, what do you got

Marty McGee:

Times New Roman. I know that’s not very exciting, but I would say that’s probably what I use the most

Jared Correia:

Times. New Roman is great. I have no problems with that at all. At least you didn’t say comic stands. All right, last question. What’s your favorite rule of evidence? And I actually don’t know any, so just tell me.

Marty McGee:

I think 4 0 4 B is always a challenge. So I would say probably that you like a challenge.

Jared Correia:

Clearly. Thank you so much for coming on the show. I had a lot of fun. I had a lot of fun getting to know you, A lot of fun talking ai. Please come back again at some point.

Marty McGee:

I’d love to. Thank

Jared Correia:

You. Thanks. Take care. Goodbye. If you want to find out more about Marty McGee, his work, you can visit the website for the Cabra County Superior Court in North Carolina. Say that three times fast, but you can also follow him on Twitter at Judge Marty McGee. Now for those of you listening in Booger Town, North Carolina, I’ve got a really funky playlist just for you. It’s straight from the Northern Most Pole. It’s all songs about Santa Claus because even the big man should have a chance to get down this holiday season. Sadly, I’ve run out of time to talk about ai. Oh, nevermind. All I fucking do is talk about ai. Come on. This is Jared Correia reminding you not to forget to leave out those milking cookies. I promise I won’t eat them scouts on unless there’s Carmel involved, at which point all bets are off and I was never a Boy Scout. Happy holidays, everybody.

Marty McGee:

I enjoyed it. You got me with the puppets though. Not expecting that.

Continue Reading