LET US HEAR FROM YOU!
We welcome letters to the editor on issues presented in the magazine. Email letters to wabarnews@wsba.org. All opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed in letters to the editor represent the views of the respective authors and do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the WSBA, its Board of Governors, or individual members of the Washington Bar. Publication of letters to the editor is not to be deemed an endorsement of the opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed by the author(s).
The Rule of Law is Not Political
Supporting the importance of the rule of law in our country as lawyers is not a political statement. We are a country of laws. Our professional association should encourage our members to defend our legal system against tyranny, regardless of political beliefs.
Roger Ley in his recent letter to the editor [July/August 2025 Bar News] argues to “Keep Politics Out” of our activities. I agree. But then he boldly states that the “Rule of law” as a slogan is a “thinly disguised attack on the Trump Administration.” That is baloney! His statement sounds political to me! And I thought Mr. Ley wanted to keep politics out of our discussion.
It sounds to me like Mr. Ley thinks the emperor’s new clothes look great on him. Apparently, he doesn’t see what many of us see and about which we are greatly concerned.
I choose to support the rule of law as currently enforced by our court system. I believe that thereby we can safeguard our rights as written in the Constitution.
Stephen J. Henderson
Olympia
Experimenting With AI
I always appreciate the practical approaches Jordan Couch brings to his and my shared goal of access to justice. His July/August 2025 article, “The Bright Legal Future,” focused on AI, which for me conjures up musical earworms of the themes from The Twilight Zone and the The X Files.
In essence, Couch encourages us old stick-in-the-mud lawyers to play around with AI and get ready for the future. And at my age and stage, how often do I get to enter unchartered waters that could help increase efficiency, access more research quickly, and contain costs? (Yes, the caveats are all specified and well worth considering.)
Couch suggests that “there are lots of easy ways you can begin exploring” inside and outside of your law practice: “Ask ChatGPT to plan your next vacation. Search for a dinner recipe … that uses only items you have in your fridge already. If you are using a tool at work that has a built-in AI (like Microsoft Copilot) try asking it how it can help you.”
So I held my breath and took the plunge these past few months, thinking it might help me in my personal life and in preparation for my weekly pro bono neighborhood legal clinics.
For fun, I asked ChatGPT to create a song for my 72nd birthday that incorporated the following themes: 1) always wanting/hoping to be 6-feet tall; 2) telling baristas when they ask how I like my coffee: “short like me”; 3) that my “practice” has shifted from practicing law to practicing being the silliest grandpa ever; and 4) in the style of a country song written and sung by Kenny Chesney or Chet Atkins.
I was blown away. The quality and humor of ChatGPT’s birthday ballad was clever and tight enough to share with my family (and credit the robot accordingly). No, I’m not sophisticated enough to figure out how to have it additionally compose the melody and play for it me (but I’ll bet you Couch knows how).
Then I asked ChatGPT to replay for me (so to speak) a landlord-tenant issue I handled several weeks earlier (I had already researched the issue and explained it to the client). I described similar facts and issues (without sharing any confidential information) and gave specific prompts asking for state law and appropriate city and county ordinances, and once again, it was spot on. The explanation provided was linear and organized. Yes, there were some glitches as far as listing the correct subsection of statutes or omitting them altogether.
Lastly, I took an essay I had been working on and that ideally, I’d have a friend with an eagle eye edit and critique. I was very specific with my prompts to make sure that the integrity of my writing and substance was retained. ChatGPT took and preserved the contents, style, and organization, but grammatically and tonally smoothed it out like a professional editor should. There was no question it was my essay. But it certainly became a more polished second draft. I would never ask AI to write first or second drafts of anything I submit. But for a final polish?
With regard to pro bono services, Couch encourages “the development of tools for self-represented individuals and pro bono clinics.” He highlights Querious, an AI tool that listens to meetings between intake staff and clients, helps identify and triage legal issues, and makes intake faster, which is “particularly important for organizations like pro bono clinics where budgets are tight.” My response: “Beam me up, Scotty.”
Here’s hoping that our Bar and pro bono services sectors will be able to find a way to incorporate these AI tools and train us, with the necessary guardrails in place. In the meantime, I’ll still be experimenting a bit, just for fun, while I drink a coffee, “short like me.”
Note: AI was not involved in writing this letter. And if you want to use my birthday song, will you have to pay royalties to me, or to ChatGPT?
Michael Goldenkranz
Seattle
Letters to the editor published in Bar News must respond to content presented in the magazine and also comply with Washington General Rule 12.2 and Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990).* Bar News may limit the number of letters published based on available space in a particular issue and, if many letters are received in response to a specific piece in the magazine, may select letters that provide differing viewpoints to publish. Bar News does not publish anonymous letters or more than one letter from the same contributor per issue. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity, civility, and grammatical accuracy.
*GR 12.2(c) states that the WSBA is not authorized to “(1) Take positions on issues concerning the politics or social positions of foreign nations; (2) Take positions on political or social issues which do not relate to or affect the practice of law or the administration of justice; or (3) Support or oppose, in an election, candidates for public office.” In Keller v. State Bar of California, the Court ruled that a bar association may not use mandatory member fees to support political or ideological activities that are not reasonably related to the regulation of the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.