Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 12/04/2025 9:49:02 AM PST by aimhigh
An Oregon attorney accused of relying' on the totally plausible — and often totally erroneous — output of so-called artificial intelligence was slapped with a fine by the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday.
The appellate court determined that Portland civil attorney Gabriel A. Watson filed briefs citing two made-up cases and used a fabricated quote that was attributed to a real piece of case law.
In a first for Oregon, the Courts of Appeals ordered Watson to pay $2,000 to the state judicial department, charging him $500 for each baloney citation and $1,000 for the bogus quote.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
It’s OK to use AI but you better check It’s references.
I use AI all the time, but always pull the journal articles and references it cites to verify.
This attorney was just lazy.
AI is good for a first draft.
$2000 isn’t a very significant penalty for a lawyer.
He like!y used ChatGPT. My best friend is a real estate attorney and she uses it too for creating letters etc but she says you have to go back and double check any quotes of case law because the AI makes mistakes.
AI is a tool. As with any tool the user is responsible for the results of the tool’s usage. If the tool is defective somehow it still does not relieve the user of any liability for damages.
If your tire blows out on the highway you are responsible for any damages. If the blowout was reasonably unforeseen then you are negligent but your are still liable. If you knew the tire was bad and likely your fail you could be held criminally liable.
AI should be no different. Liable for all damages and criminally liable if you do not exercise reasonable care in its usage.
So, does the AI have access to any and all information behind every pay wall? Is AI programmed to defeat pay walls?
I use Grok AI and have found known mistakes and had them corrected. I have ahd grok go back and self correct. I know it has limitation and ultimately I am responsible for output, not Grok. I have stated before, AI is a very quick compilier of information—faster than one can go through a search engine and that is pretty fast as compared to going to the library and working through the card system or periodical system. (remember those headaches?)
AI is much faster—an d perhaps Grok is better than Chat GP, or vice versa.
Ask AI to tell you what's behind the paywall.
Summary: The OregonLive article titled “‘Very grave situation’: Oregon court slaps attorney with $2,000 fine for AI errors” reports on a recent disciplinary action taken by an Oregon federal judge against an attorney who used artificial intelligence—specifically ChatGPT—to draft a court filing that contained false citations.
According to the report, the lawyer submitted a legal filing that included multiple nonexistent cases, all apparently generated by the AI tool. When the opposing side and the court reviewed the briefing, they were unable to locate the cited cases, prompting the judge to investigate. The court determined that the attorney failed to verify whether the AI-generated citations were real before submitting the document. Judge Michael McShane called it a “very grave situation,” stressing that attorneys have a professional and ethical duty to fact-check any sources used in court filings, regardless of whether artificial intelligence had been involved. The court imposed a $2,000 fine as a sanction for negligence and also ordered the attorney to notify their client of the mistake.
The article notes that this case mirrors several others across the U.S. in which lawyers have been reprimanded or sanctioned for unwittingly submitting “hallucinated” citations from AI chatbots. Experts interviewed by OregonLive say the incident reflects growing concerns about the reliability and responsible use of generative AI in legal work.
The court’s decision serves as a warning to legal practitioners that while AI tools can be valuable research aids, they must be used with caution and human verification remains essential.
Good. I am an attorney and if you are too bloomin’ lazy to do your own research, turn in your license.
$2000 isn’t a very significant penalty for a lawyer.
*******
The hell you say.
To me, AI is good for a teaching outline. Everything after that - the substance - should be the attorney’s own work and research.
I use Grok a lot for a variety of analytical tasks and the basic arithmetic errors it makes on almost every request are horrific. I fed it my 2025 hiking log from Excel a couple days ago. I’ve climbed about 33,000 vertical feet this spring, summer and fall. It came up with more than 500,000 feet!
In a related story, Crockfull and Ocrazio-Cortex have launched investigations into acquiring this new hallucinogenic substance for their Friday girls night out parties.
“I axed it a question, but I’m not feeling anything yet.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.