arXiv subjects

Frank Fagan

Publications and source records attributed to Frank Fagan.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Autonomous AI and Ownership Rules

This Article examines the circumstances in which AI-generated outputs remain linked to their creators and the points at which they lose that connection, whether through accident, deliberate design, or emergent behavior. In cases where AI is traceable to an originator, accession doctrine provides an efficient means of assigning ownership, preserving investment incentives while maintaining accountability. When AI becomes untraceable -- whether through carelessness, deliberate obfuscation, or emergent behavior -- first possession rules can encourage reallocation to new custodians who are incentivized to integrate AI into productive use. The analysis further explores strategic ownership dissolution, where autonomous AI is intentionally designed to evade attribution, creating opportunities for tax arbitrage and regulatory avoidance. To counteract these inefficiencies, bounty systems, private incentives, and government subsidies are proposed as mechanisms to encourage AI capture and prevent ownerless AI from distorting markets.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Proxy Discrimination After Students for Fair Admissions

Today, there is no clear legal test for regulating the use of variables that proxy for race and other protected classes and classifications. This Article develops such a test. Decision tools that use proxies are narrowly tailored when they exhibit the weakest total proxy power. The test is necessarily comparative. Thus, if two algorithms predict loan repayment or university academic performance with identical accuracy rates, but one uses zip code and the other does not, then the second algorithm can be said to have deployed a more equitable means for achieving the same result as the first algorithm. Scenarios in which two algorithms produce comparable and non-identical results present a greater challenge. This Article suggests that lawmakers can develop caps to permissible proxy power over time, as courts and algorithm builders learn more about the power of variables. Finally, the Article considers who should bear the burden of producing less discriminatory alternatives and suggests plaintiffs remain in the best position to keep defendants honest - so long as testing data is made available.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

A View of How Language Models Will Transform Law

While most commentators have focused exclusively on how LLMs will transform day-to-day law practice, a substantial structural change could be afoot within the legal sector as a whole. Large increases in productivity and attendant cost savings could encourage law firms and corporate legal departments to develop large language models in-house. A ten percent increase in attorney productivity would encourage an average sized 'Big Law' firm to reduce its associate headcount by 300 to 400 lawyers. This represents cost savings of 60 to 120 million dollars - more than enough to pay for the development of a specialized LLM. Eventually, LLMs will push lawyers into highly specialized and nuanced roles. After fully mature LLMs arrive, the lawyer will continue to play a central role in legal practice, but only in non-routine legal tasks. These tasks will primarily involve value judgments, such as the development of precedent or its reversal, or the allocation of property and other scarce resources. This new mix of lawyer-machine labor, where machines primarily carry out routine legal tasks, and lawyers handle the non-routine, will give rise to a growing demand for lawyers who can exercise good judgment and empathize with the winners and losers of social change. Overall, the Article suggests a possible future where there are fewer lawyers and greater consolidation of the legal sector.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models

The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.

cs.CL↗