Judge Wilner expressed dissatisfaction with the lawyers' explanations for errors in their brief, revealing that they had submitted more fabricated citations using AI without proper verification. He admonished the attorneys for acting in bad faith by relying on inaccurate AI-generated content. Their inadequate responses exacerbated the situation, leading Wilner to impose sanctions that dismissed key parts of the plaintiff's case. The incident serves as a cautionary tale against the uncritical use of technology in legal research and writing.
I didn't discover that Plaintiff's lawyers used AI-and re-submitted the brief with considerably more made-up citations and quotations beyond the two initial errors.
No reasonably competent attorney should outsource research and writing to this technology-particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.
[W]hen I contacted them and let them know about my concerns regarding a portion of their research, the lawyers' solution was to excise the phony material and submit the Revised Brief.
Taken together, the lawyers' actions demonstrate reckless conduct with the improper purpose of trying to influence my analysis of the disputed privilege issues.
Collection
[
|
...
]