"it is unquestionably improper for an attorney to submit a brief with fake cases generated by AI."
"[C]ounsel admitted that he did not read the cases cited. Instead, he relied on his law clerk, a non-lawyer, who also clearly did not read the cases, which were fictitious," the judge scathed. "In our view, this does not satisfy the requirement of competent representation. A competent"
"was not involved directly in the research of the offending citations."
"does very little appellate work."
A Maryland appellate matter revealed that a family lawyer submitted briefs containing AI-generated, fabricated legal citations. Many cited cases did not exist, and some real citations contradicted the brief's arguments. The attorney blamed a law clerk who used ChatGPT to locate citations and edit the brief, and admitted he did not vet the cited cases and performs little appellate work. The clerk allegedly did not understand the risk of AI hallucinations. Maryland appellate Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff called the submission of fictitious cases improper and concluded the conduct failed to meet competent representation standards.
Read at Futurism
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]