Kill The Computer Preview: Max Resist Ft. Charles Star
Apr 5, 2026
Charles Star, legal analyst and podcaster known for A-Lab, tackles wild legal stories. He previews cases where AI-sourced research got lawyers sanctioned. They unpack a Supreme Court fight over conversion therapy bans and explore how narrow rulings can reshape law. The conversation also tracks a global database of AI-related attorney mishaps and why hallucinations are dangerous in legal briefs.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Narrow Plaintiffs Let Courts Convert Medical Acts Into Protected Speech
- The Childs v. Salazar discussion shows how framing a plaintiff as narrowly situated lets courts recast medical practice as protected speech.
- That rhetorical tactic can incrementally expand First Amendment protections into areas states regulate as medical practice.
Small Rulings Can Build A Staircase To Broader Rights Erosion
- Even seemingly narrow Supreme Court rulings can be stepping stones; a narrow opinion today can enable broader erosion of rights later as Court composition changes.
- Charles warns the conservative incremental approach builds a staircase of precedent.
ChatGPT Fabricated Case Law And Sank A Lawsuit
- Charles Starr recounted the Mata v. Avianca case where a lawyer used ChatGPT to generate legal research and the model fabricated eleven case citations.
- The plaintiff sued after two years; ChatGPT-created cases falsely purported to toll the statute of limitations and triggered court sanctions when exposed.