A law firm recently reached out to me to conduct a CLE on Mental Health Challenges in the Age of AI. It was an interesting request. I’ve spoken about AI issues on panels, as a keynote speaker, and in the classroom, and I wrote about it for Tennessee Journal of Business Law. I also conduct workshops and CLEs on mental health in the profession. But I’ve never been asked to combine the topics. 

Before I discussed issues related to anxiety about job disruption and how cognitive overload affects the brain, I spent time talking about the various tools that are out there and how much our profession will transform in the very near future.

If you’re like many lawyers I know, you think that AI is more hype than substance. So I’ll share the information I shared with the law firm.

According to a  2024 Bloomberg survey on AI and the legal profession, 69% of Bloomberg survey respondents believe generative AI can be used ethically in legal practice. But they harbor “extreme” or “moderate” concerns about deep fakes (e.g., human impersonations, hallucinations and accuracy of AI-generated text,  privacy, algorithmic bias, IP, and of course, job displacement.

Those are

In December, the Deal Professor, Steven Davidoff, wrote a great piece about the grey areas triggered by DISH Network Chairman Charles Ergen's debt purchase from LightSquared (a failing satellite-based broadband comany).  This case has several twists and turns, and I plan to write a few posts on some of these areas.  Today, we'll start with debt purchase. 

As Davidoff explains, Lightsquared's debt could not (per the debt documents) be purchased by “direct competitor” (e.g., Dish Network), so Ergen used a personal investment vehicle to buy the debt.  This, the Deal Professor notes, appears acceptable under the debt documents (even if it's not what was intended):

In a court filing, LightSquared contends that Mr. Ergen breached the debt agreement because the documents define a “direct competitor” to also be a subsidiary of a direct competitor. LightSquared is arguing that because Mr. Ergen controls both Dish and the hedge fund that bought the debt, the fund is a subsidiary of Dish.

Yet that argument stretches the plain meaning of a “subsidiary” — a company owned or controlled by a holding company — language that is not in the document. So LightSquared’s claims against Mr. Ergen are tenuous at best.

The acquisition itself seemed