Agreed. Another way to think about it is that using language generators deprives you of the ability to experience that your argument "won't write," as lawyers and judges sometimes say.

Thanks to my colleagues for awarding me the 2024 Faculty Scholarship Award for The Major Questions Doctrine in the States.

In this article, I evaluate whether states should follow the Supreme Court's lead in adopting the major questions doctrine. /

This is from a few months back, but my article, Issues, on the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was published by the Wm. & Mary L Rev.

Here is the quote from me:

Reprints!

Thanks to the UCI Law Review for publishing my article, "Due Process and the Right to an Individualized Hearing."

The article revisits the constitutional requirement for an individualized hearing. In Administrative Law, this requirement is linked to the Londoner and Bi-Metallic cases. /

In Plain Words, Gowers explains that statutes cannot be written in "plain English." Statutory language, he writes "lies in the province of mathematics rather than literature."

Not to justify this practice, but it is unfortunately not new for judges to quote English translations of the Bible, and even interpret statutory language according to the meaning of words used in the Bible.