ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BURNS A NEW YORK LAWYER

 

One of the first things a student learns in law school is how to research and write a brief.  This is a difficult skill to learn, and writing a good brief can take considerable time and expense.

When I entered law school, two electronic research aids had just appeared: Westlaw and Lexis.  These were electronic databases that saved lawyers considerable time and allowed all of us to write better briefs.

Electronic databases have become so prevalent that many law libraries no longer house "real" books.  the only resource for legal research has been, for the last 10-15 years, the electronic database online.

In the past two years, a major breakthrough has occurred in this area: the use of artificial intelligence in researching and writing legal briefs. Many lawyers have sought to cut their research and writing time significantly through the use of AI services.  One such resource is ChatGPT.

This service not only researches your issue, but it also writes your brief. That saves lawyers a TON of time.

The problem with the service is that it has not provided the level of accuracy that courts absolutely demand when being told why a decision should go one way or another.  Mr. Steven Schwartz of New York discovered this truth the hard way.  

When Mr. Schwartz submitted a brief to a New York court describing how other courts had agreed with his position in his case, he did not check the accuracy of the citations.  the AI source had made up fake cases that supported his position.  The opposing attorney, doing his due diligence to prepare to address why the court should consider his own authorities as outweighing the arguments of opposing counsel, discovered the authorities cited in support of Mr. Schwartz did not even exist.

That is a major ethical violation.  While a lawyer is duty-bound to argue on behalf of his client, he is also duty-bound to be absolutely honest with the court.  Failure to do so can result in paying the other party's attorney fees for having to respond to a fake argument, paying a fine for contempt of court, and in a proceeding very likely to find its way to the attorney's bar association, it could result in the loss of the attorney's license to practice law.

In his defense, Mr. Schwartz told the court he had no idea that an AI research firm would make up fake cases to support a position.  

In all candor, I had no idea that could happen either.  However, Mr. Schwartz took too many shortcuts.  He absolutely should have checked the existence of those cases cited and verified by page and line that his authorities cited actually existed, and that they were not misquoted or taken out of context.

Judge P. Kevin Castel has taken the matter under advisement and will issue a decision concerning what sanctions to impose at a later date.  

I expect the penalties will be severe.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

7 Things Lawyers Can't Tell Jurors

Image
 It is a trial lawyer's job to educate jurors, and tell them what they need to know in order to decide cases. Despite this, there are many things, true things, that lawyers are not allowed to tell jurors directly in statements to the jury or indirectly through testimony of their witnesses. Lawyers know these things, though, and I thought you might like to know some of things. #1. A lawyer can't tell the jurors anything that happened during settlement negotiations. He cannot let the jurors know, when asking them to make the defendant pay his client $100,000 that the defendant agreed to pay him $80,000 prior to the trial. The reason for this is that you want settlement negotiations to be very open. You don't want to damage a negotiation session because someone is afraid that what they say will get repeated to a jury if you don't strike a deal. #2 In Idaho, a lawyer can't tell the jurors that the defendant has insurance. In many other states, he can. Bec...
Read more

OBAMA APPOINTEE DENIES GIULIANI ABILITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, RESULTS IN $148 MILLION JUDGMENT

Image
In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 protests, Rudy Giuliani has been ordered to pay over $148 million in damages to two Georgia election workers named by the former New York mayor.  What has not been explained to the general public is that there was never any trial concerning whether Mr. Giuliani had actually slandered or libeled these two persons.   In the case of Giuliani, the two Georgia election workers listed as plaintiffs in the suit against Giuliani sued him for saying they engaged in what amounted to election fraud.  They are allowed to ask the defendant ex-mayor for documents relevant to their suit and to his defense. These women brought their case against Giuliani in a jurisdiction that is heavily populated with Democrats.  They could have sued in their home state, Georgia, but did not. They wanted a jury pool of anti-Trump democrats, so they sued in Washington, D.C. They managed to get an incredibly biased Barack Obama-appointed, anti-Trump judge....
Read more

Man Framed by Prosecutor Released After 29 Years in Prison Seeking Lawsuit

Image
19 year old, Charise Kamps, was found raped and strangled to death in her apartment in June 1980. Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother. One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw. Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs...
Read more