Big sigh because it isn't remotely remarkable. It's entirely to be expected. That anyone finds this 'remarkable' is what's actually remarkable about it.

It is not something that I need to do, but my recollection is that it is "and" in civil proceedings", and "against" in criminal proceedings.

So "R. v. Brown" would be "The Crown against Brown", but "Neil v. Nicola" would be "Neil and Nicola".

I am not aware that one ever says "versus" or "v", but it is also possible that things have changed since I last needed to consider this.

I'm afraid that I don't know anything about the US approach

Surely that'd never come out 'Roe and Wade' as it's meant to indicate a conflict..?

I could be wrong. There could be significant losses / repercussions. But I should be surprised.

It’s in danger of becoming a corporate cliche but I’m also minded of “The standard you walk by is the standard you accept”

I hear a lot with GenAI “Oh well they’d use it anyway so we just have to deal with it”. I haven’t had to deal with a situation yet, but I’m not sure I agree with that approach

(v. being the abbreviation for "versus", so more like "against" than "and".)

I'd say "Cork and Arnor and Smith".

I thought the "v" was an abbreviation for "and" for archaic Latin reasons

A whole mix of things, I imagine, and not necessarily the same in each case.

Some lawyers are overworked.
Some lawyers are badly supervised.
Some lawyers are poorly trained.
Some lawyers are dishonest.
Some lawyers simply make errors of judgment.
Some lawyers do not understand the technology.
etc.

We need a LLM to find and locate fake references, citations and other flaws in documents.

By this time next year we could be millionaires 🥴

...

or is it maybe the case that many lawyers are lazy and willing to do things that are dishonest (one wonders what hours are billed for an AI-generated element of casework) BUT possibly do not see it as dishonest or questionable because of all the others they know doing it ?

Sure, fuck up once... but when you're being asked about the fuck up, it feels like you would take a bit more time and effort explaining the situation... not double-down on the same flawed methodology.

I doubt the firm will lose money / clients over this, unless it turns out to be a more widespread issue.

The impact on the individuals involved could be more significant, but probably not career-jeopardising, I suspect.

Or are my expectations and impressions too high?