"When combing over a document submitted by two defense lawyers from the firm Cozen O'Connor, district judge David Hardy found at least 14 citations of case law that appeared to be fictitious, Reuters reported. Others were misquoted or misrepresented. After being confronted, the two defense lawyers soon pleaded guilty: one of them had used ChatGPT to draft and edit the document. Where other judges have sanctioned lawyers for committing similar sins, judge Hardy offered a humiliating ultimatum last week that's borderline cruel and unusual."
"The two stooges could pay $2,500 each in monetary sanctions, face removal from the case, and be referred to the state bar. Or, instead, they could swallow their pride and write to their former law school deans and bar officials explaining how they screwed up - plus volunteer to speak on topics like AI and professional conduct. In their shoes, we'd opt for option c): disappear off the face of the Earth."
Judges increasingly penalize lawyers who submit AI-generated legal work without thorough verification. A district judge found multiple apparently fictitious citations and misrepresentations in a filing by two defense lawyers; one lawyer admitted using ChatGPT to draft and edit the document. A firm associate who filed an uncorrected AI-assisted draft was dismissed while the firm reiterated a strict ban on public AI tools for client work. The judge gave options including monetary sanctions, case removal, bar referral, or writing to law school deans and volunteering to speak about AI and professional conduct. Other judges have issued similar sanctions for AI-related errors.
Read at Futurism
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]