"It also noted that numerous out-of-state and federal courts have confronted attorneys for citing fake legal authority. We therefore publish this opinion as a warning, it continued. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations whether provided by generative AI or any other sourcethat the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified."
"The opinion, issued 10 days ago in California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, is a clear example of why the state's legal authorities are scrambling to regulate the use of AI in the judiciary. The state's Judicial Council two weeks ago issued guidelines requiring judges and court staff to either ban generative AI or adopt a generative AI use policy by Dec. 15."
A California appellate court imposed a significant fine after finding 21 of 23 case quotes in an opening brief were fabricated. The court observed that other out-of-state and federal courts have confronted attorneys for citing fake legal authority and issued a stern warning that no filing should contain citations from generative AI or other sources unless the submitting attorney has personally read and verified them. The Judicial Council issued guidelines requiring judges and staff to ban or adopt AI-use policies by Dec. 15. The State Bar is considering strengthening its code of conduct. The fined attorney said he used ChatGPT to revise an appeal and did not read the AI-generated text; the panel found the appeal frivolous and cited waste of court and taxpayer resources.
Read at www.mercurynews.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]