Il recevait ses ordres de mission sur WhatsApp sans téléphone professionnel : la #justice lui donne raison

"La cour d'appel de Paris a rendu un arrêt contre une société de transport sanitaire qui imposait WhatsApp et Waze à ses salariés sans équipement professionnel. Un avertissement disciplinaire envoyé par la messagerie a notamment été annulé.".

#France #DroitDuTravail #droit #jurisprudence

https://www.clubic.com/actualite-608629-il-recevait-ses-ordres-de-mission-sur-whatsapp-sans-telephone-professionnel-la-justice-lui-donne-raison.html

Nouvelle rubrique "Victimes de violences" en ligne - De quel droit ?

https://dequeldroit.fr/nouvelle-rubrique-en-ligne-victimes-de-violences/

« Du nouveau sur le site, De Quel Droit met à jour la rubrique dédiée au séjour des victimes de violences. »

#droitDesÉtrangers #droit #jurisprudence

The Transformative Power of AI in the Legal Realm: Enhancing Jurisprudence, Advocacy, and Magistrature

AI in the Legal: Revolutionizing Jurisprudence, Advocacy & Magistrature Globally

The integration of artificial intelligence into the legal profession marks a pivotal shift in how justice is administered, researched, and argued. No longer confined to science fiction, AI tools are now embedded in daily legal workflows, offering unprecedented efficiency and insights that human practitioners alone might struggle to achieve. For professionals in jurisprudence—the study and theory of law—AI provides analytical depth that uncovers patterns in vast datasets of case law and statutes. In advocacy, where lawyers craft compelling arguments, AI accelerates research and drafting, allowing more time for strategic client counsel. Magistrature, encompassing the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying the law, benefits from AI’s ability to streamline case management and predict outcomes, potentially reducing backlogs that plague courts worldwide. At both local and international levels, this technology promises to democratize access to justice, but it also raises questions about ethics, bias, and the irreplaceable human element in decision-making.

Consider the core importance of AI in these domains. Legal research, traditionally a time-intensive task involving sifting through libraries of precedents, has been revolutionized by AI-powered platforms. Tools like those from Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg Law enable lawyers to query massive databases and receive synthesized insights almost instantaneously. This not only saves hours but enhances accuracy by identifying relevant cases that might otherwise be overlooked. In jurisprudence, AI aids scholars and judges in analyzing trends across legal systems, fostering a deeper understanding of how laws evolve. For instance, predictive analytics can forecast how a court might rule based on historical data, informing both academic discourse and practical strategies.

In advocacy, AI’s role extends to contract review and due diligence, where machine learning algorithms scan documents for risks, clauses, or inconsistencies far quicker than manual methods. This is particularly vital in high-stakes corporate law, where errors can lead to multimillion-dollar losses. Advocates can use AI to generate initial drafts of briefs or motions, refining them with human oversight to ensure persuasive narratives. The technology also supports e-discovery in litigation, automating the review of electronic evidence to highlight key information, thus allowing lawyers to focus on building stronger cases rather than drowning in data.

Magistrature sees perhaps the most direct impact, as AI assists judges in managing caseloads and rendering fair decisions. Systems that transcribe hearings, summarize arguments, or even suggest sentencing guidelines based on comparable cases help alleviate judicial burnout and promote consistency. However, the emphasis remains on AI as a supportive tool, not a replacement, preserving the judiciary’s independence and the nuanced judgment that defines human magistrature.

Turning to practical examples, AI’s applications are diverse and growing. In legal research, platforms equipped with natural language processing allow queries in plain English, returning cited authorities and explanations. For advocacy, AI-driven chatbots provide preliminary legal advice to clients, especially in underserved areas, bridging gaps in access to justice. In magistrature, tools like those used in predictive justice analyze past rulings to anticipate outcomes, aiding judges in complex matters such as intellectual property disputes.

Case studies illustrate AI’s real-world efficacy and pitfalls. At Rupp Pfalzgraf, a U.S. law firm, integrating Lexis+ AI increased attorney caseload capacity by 10%, enabling faster handling of cases through automated summaries and research. Similarly, Gibbons P.C. reported expedited identification of key issues in litigation, enhancing strategic planning. On the cautionary side, the Mata v. Avianca case saw lawyers sanctioned for submitting AI-generated fictitious citations, highlighting the need for verification. In Johnson v. Dunn, a firm faced fines for similar hallucinations, underscoring ethical responsibilities in AI use. These incidents emphasize that while AI boosts productivity, human diligence is essential to avoid malpractice.

Globally, several countries are pioneering AI in their legal sectors. Brazil stands out as a leader, deploying over 140 AI tools in courts for case management, legal research, and predictive analysis, including systems like SIGMA for drafting decisions. China’s “Smart Justice” initiative uses AI for transcription, case analysis, and error-checking in a nationwide smart court system, though human judges retain final authority. Singapore employs the Intelligent Court Transcription System and AI assistants for self-represented litigants, improving efficiency and access. Colombia became the first nation to adapt UNESCO’s AI guidelines for judiciary use, focusing on ethical integration to uphold human rights. Germany has implemented systems like OLGA for categorizing cases and Frauke for handling air passenger rights lawsuits, reducing backlogs through automation. Estonia’s AI judge for small claims under 7,000 euros automates resolutions, clearing minor disputes swiftly. In Africa, Morocco and Tanzania use AI for transcriptions and translations, addressing multilingual challenges in courtrooms. Ukraine’s Cassandra assesses reoffending risks for prisoners, aiding parole decisions amid ongoing digitalization efforts.

At the international level, AI influences arbitration and human rights law. In international arbitration, AI aids document production and arbitrator selection, though limitations in legal reasoning persist. Organizations like UNESCO advocate for guidelines ensuring AI in judiciaries respects transparency and fairness, as seen in their global survey revealing widespread but unregulated use. Concerns about bias in AI algorithms, trained on potentially skewed data, prompt calls for international frameworks to mitigate discrimination in global legal proceedings. The United Arab Emirates integrates AI into lawmaking, streamlining legislative processes while emphasizing oversight.

The benefits of AI in these areas are clear: increased productivity, cost savings, and broader access to legal services. Surveys indicate that a majority of legal professionals view AI positively, with expectations of transformative impact within years. Yet, challenges loom. Ethical dilemmas, such as ensuring algorithmic transparency and avoiding overreliance on machines, demand robust governance. International bodies stress human oversight to prevent erosion of judicial discretion. Bias in training data could perpetuate inequalities, particularly in human rights cases, necessitating diverse datasets and regular audits.

Looking ahead, the legal profession must embrace AI thoughtfully. Training programs for lawyers and judges in AI literacy are crucial, as are policies that mandate disclosure of AI use in filings. Collaborative efforts between tech developers and legal experts can refine tools, ensuring they align with principles of justice. As AI evolves, so too must regulations, fostering innovation while safeguarding the rule of law.

In essence, AI’s importance in jurisprudence, advocacy, and magistrature lies in its capacity to augment human capabilities, making the legal system more responsive and equitable. From local implementations in Germany to international standards set by UNESCO, the trajectory is toward a hybrid model where technology and human insight coexist. This balance will define the future of law, ensuring that progress enhances rather than undermines justice.

References

[0] Surveys on legal professionals’ views of AI: Thomson Reuters report showing 72% view AI positively.
Title: How AI is transforming the legal profession (2025)
URL: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/how-ai-is-transforming-the-legal-profession

[1] AI-powered legal research tools from Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg Law.
Title: AI-Driven Legal Research and Tools – Bloomberg Law
URL: https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/products/ai-and-bloomberg-law

[3] Natural language processing in legal research platforms.
Title: Lexis+ AI | Legal AI for Drafting, Research, & Analysis
URL: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/lexis-plus-ai.page

[7] AI assistance in judicial decision-making and sentencing guidelines.
Title: AI Sentencing Ethics: Balancing Justice and Innovation
URL: https://www.rev.com/blog/future-ai-sentencing

[8] AI in contract review and due diligence.
Title: Buyer’s guide: AI for legal contract review and analysis
URL: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/buyers-guide-artificial-intelligence-in-contract-review-software

[19] Singapore’s Intelligent Court Transcription System.
Title: INTELLIGENT COURT TRANSCRIPTION SYSTEM
URL: https://www.a-star.edu.sg/docs/librariesprovider10/default-document-library/fw-new-infosheets/smart-nation-digital-economy/intelligent-court-transcription-system.pdf?sfvrsn=72a5a971_3

[21] Colombia’s adoption of UNESCO AI guidelines for judiciary.
Title: Justice meets innovation: Colombia’s groundbreaking AI guidelines for courts
URL: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/justice-meets-innovation-colombias-groundbreaking-ai-guidelines-courts

[23] Brazil’s AI tools in courts, including SIGMA.
Title: AI in Global Majority Judicial Systems
URL: https://www.stimson.org/2026/ai-in-global-majority-judicial-systems

[24] China’s Smart Justice AI system.
Title: China | AI deeply embedded in criminal justice system
URL: https://www.techandjustice.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/china

[26] Germany’s OLGA and Frauke AI systems in courts.
Title: Judicial systems are turning to AI to help manage vast quantities of data and expedite case resolution
URL: https://www.ibm.com/case-studies/blog/judicial-systems-are-turning-to-ai-to-help-manage-vast-quantities-of-data-and-expedite-case-resolution

[28] Morocco and Tanzania’s use of AI for court transcriptions and translations.
Title: Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Systems in Africa
URL: https://www.lawyershub.org/news/post/artificial-intelligence-and-judicial-systems-in-africa

[30] UAE’s integration of AI in lawmaking.
Title: AI in the UAE Understanding the Regulatory Landscape and Key Authorities
URL: https://www.lw.com/en/insights/ai-in-the-uae-understanding-the-regulatory-landscape-and-key-authorities

[31] Ukraine’s Cassandra AI for assessing reoffending risks.
Title: Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine’s Courts
URL: https://verfassungsblog.de/ai-ukraine-judiciary

[32] Estonia’s AI judge for small claims.
Title: From Estonian AI judges to robot mediators in Canada, U.K.
URL: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-ca/ihc/from-estonian-ai-judges-to-robot-mediators-in-canada-uk

[33] Ethical challenges of AI in law and governance.
Title: Ethical uses of generative AI in the practice of law
URL: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/ethical-uses-of-generative-ai-in-the-practice-of-law

[39] Mata v. Avianca AI hallucinations case.
Title: Mata v. Avianca, Inc.
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_v._Avianca,_Inc.

[40] Johnson v. Dunn AI-generated citations fine.
Title: When AI Policies Fail: The AI Sanctions in Johnson v. Dunn and What They Mean for the Profession
URL: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/when-ai-policies-fail-the-ai-sanctions-9043268

[41] Lexis+ AI case studies for Rupp Pfalzgraf and Gibbons P.C.
Title: AI in Case Studies – LexisNexis
URL: https://legal.lexisnexis.com/AI-Case-Studies

[53] AI literacy training for lawyers and judges.
Title: AI Literacy for Courts
URL: https://ncsc.courtlms.org/ai-literacy

[62] Bias in AI legal algorithms.
Title: Bias and Fairness in Artificial Intelligence
URL: https://nysba.org/bias-and-fairness-in-artificial-intelligence?srsltid=AfmBOooaeRPNn1016bP-b01oM4Afq4fvQ9zTggXjWlH869tMMmGsjzO9

[70] UNESCO survey on AI in judiciaries.
Title: UNESCO Survey Uncovers Critical Gaps in AI Training Among Judicial Operators
URL: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-survey-uncovers-critical-gaps-ai-training-among-judicial-operators-0

[73] AI in international arbitration.
Title: Arbitration and AI
URL: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/2025-international-arbitration-survey-arbitration-and-ai

👉 Share your thoughts in the comments, and explore more insights on our Journal and Magazine. Please consider becoming a subscriber, thank you: https://borealtimes.org/subscriptions – Follow The Boreal Times on social media. Join the Oslo Meet by connecting experiences and uniting solutions: https://oslomeet.org

Conférence de Presse de Juan Branco, le 14 octobre 2025 - ShinyHunters/FBI, Palestine, Yamb, Sénégal, etc. >

https://youtu.be/OucwekJixyM?si=Zq92LJ98NgsGN39t&t=2409

#conférence_de_presse #Juan_Branco #rewind #France #hackers #Shiny_Hunters #souveraineté_numérique #Salesforce #Google #neuro_divergence #autistes #FBI #hacking #data_theft #Yamb #Free #Sénégal #Palestine #politique #jurisprudence #société #injustice #image #société_du_spectacle #danger #vidéo #faits #justice

Just published:

"The Social Rights Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru"
by Juan-Pablo Pérez-León-Acevedo

https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2026.2613580

#Socialrights
#ConstitutionalTribunalofPeru
#Jurisprudence
#Internationalhumanrightslaw
#humanrights
#peru
#IHRL
#openaccess

I've long considered the connexion of Law and Morality to be weak and tenuous.

https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/31/why-so-serious/?utm_source=masto&utm_medium=social

After listening to this survival-cannibalism-on-the-high-seas story by Judge Coleridge in 1870 and the attendant murder convictions, my opinion gets categorically worse. Pictures at 11.

#philosophy #psychology #law #morality #morals #jurisprudence #consistancy #trials #blog #hiatus #video #society #justice #humancondition #AskMeWhy #politics #girard #serious #history

A president who has turned against free markets, made immigration a nightmare, bashes his own judicial appointees and the Federalist Society, and now embraces the very foreign policy backed by neocons and hawks, but opposing which got him elected in the first place. Does anyone else feel kind of nostalgic for the first Donald Trump presidency, but 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 kind of?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/15/trump-first-term-nostalgia/

#DonaldTrump #freeMarket #immigration #interventionism #jurisprudence #politicalNostalgia #tariffs #USPolitics

The irony about mainstream libertarians in the US is that they are much more conservative than typical right-wingers, at least as far as jurisprudence goes. Seriously, they are ardent supporters of natural law and the Constitution who pay no deference to the president and focus only on the legality of the government's and not at all on the merits. It's always funny when "liberal" judges rule more conservatively than Clarence Thomas.

#conservatism #libertarianism #jurisprudence #USPolitics

This is the nastiest opinion by a Supreme Court justice in 2025 – Slate

Jurisprudence

This Is the Nastiest Opinion by a Supreme Court Justice in 2025

It was the perfect shadow-docket sandwich.

By Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, Jan 03, 20265:45 AM

Copy Link Share Comment

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

Every year, Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern invite listeners to nominate the Supreme Court’s most egregious behavior, then choose their own “worst of the worst” to memorialize the most ignominious moments. In 2025, there was no shortage of contenders. In a preview of their conversation on this week’s Slate Plus bonus episode, Lithwick reveals the SCOTUS lowlight that still rankles her the most. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Mark Joseph Stern: We certainly had a bumper crop of bad decisions this year. What’s your nominee for worst of the worst?

Dahlia Lithwick: There were a lot of decisions in 2025 that immiserated huge amounts of people and made the world materially worse. But my pick is not one of those. Instead, I need to talk about NIH v. American Public Health Association. Yes, it has to do with slashing research grants, which does materially harm a lot of people. But more profoundly for me, this case is emblematic of every single level of destruction and mayhem coming out of the Supreme Court—all the arrogance bundled into one.

So let me take you back to August, when the justices handed down NIH. It’s another unsigned, incoherent shadow-docket order pausing U.S. District Judge William Young’s decision to block the Trump administration from canceling thousands of National Institutes of Health grants—including those supporting research into suicide prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer’s, and cardiovascular disease. The NIH is the largest funder of medical research in the world, but Donald Trump’s executive orders forced it to cancel all those grants because they allegedly promoted DEI, “gender ideology,” and COVID research. Young held a bench trial, then issued a 103-page opinion laying out extensive factual findings and holding that the agency must make good on the payments of these grants. A federal appeals court agreed.

Then the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court in an emergency posture. And the justices hand down a 5–4 decision that’s totally inscrutable but says that Young contradicted a different 5–4 shadow-docket order from last April, Department of Education v. California. That decision halted another judge’s efforts to require the administration to reinstate canceled education grants. And the court asserted that it controlled this case. Right there, you have the perfect shadow-docket sandwich: perfunctory, bad decisionmaking, conclusory predictions about what constitutes an “emergency” and who’s going to win, decided in a couple of days, wiping out extensive factual findings. And it’s rooted in a different shadow-docket order that, as Justice Elena Kagan said at the time, was “at the least under-developed, and very possibly wrong.”

So likely wrong, in fact, that Chief Justice John Roberts actually dissented from California, and dissented again in NIH! It takes a lot of nonsense to make the chief jump ship. But the majority in both cases said that the plaintiffs had to seek reimbursement from the Court of Federal Claims rather than the district court through the Administrative Procedure Act. Which is both obviously wrong and, as a practical matter, impossible much of the time.

This is why the court doesn’t decide national “emergencies” with some back-of-the-cocktail-napkin, invisible-ink reasoning, then expect judges across the country to act as though it wrote a law-review article on the subject. Here’s Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:

Today’s decision reveals California’s considerable wingspan: That case’s ipse dixit now apparently governs all APA challenges to grant-funding determinations that the government asks us to address in the context of an emergency stay application. A half paragraph of reasoning (issued without full briefing or any oral argument) thus suffices here to partially sustain the government’s abrupt cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to support life-saving biomedical research. 

Related From Slate

Mark Joseph Stern How Democrats Can Fix the Supreme Court in 2029 Read More

I want to get to the ham in the shadow-docket sandwich. Famously, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a snotty concurring opinion, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that went after Young—a senior district judge with 47 years on the bench and a Ronald Reagan appointee. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh accused him of ignoring their shadow-docket ruling, claiming that it “squarely controlled” his case. And Gorsuch snippily noted: “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.” And he continued:

This is now the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to intercede in a case squarely controlled by one of its precedents. All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress.

That gets my vote for the single nastiest opinion of 2025. It even prompted Young to apologize to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh from the bench.

I hate this on so many levels.

Popular in News & Politics

One thing that floats to mind is: Can you imagine how horrible it must be to have to work with these people every single day? This is how they treat lower-court judges—how do you think they treat colleagues like Jackson? No wonder she accused them of “Calvinball” in her NIH dissent. Maybe she’s being informed by the fact that her colleagues evidently treat her like garbage on and off the page. That’s why one of my contenders for “worst of the worst” is Justice Amy Coney Barrett condescendingly dismissing Jackson in her CASA decision. It just drips with contempt for her. I cannot imagine having to be collegial with these people.

The only thing I want to add to that is that judges are getting death threats and impeachment threats and being thrown under the bus by members of Congress and the president. And the justices on the Supreme Court themselves are like: Should I go after a senior district judge personally for not applying my inscrutable shadow-docket order? And do it in a way that makes it sound as if he’s reckless and insubordinate and doesn’t care about the law? Why, yes! Fantastic idea.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: This is the nastiest opinion by a Supreme Court justice in 2025.