Posted on 01/30/2024 12:41:49 PM PST by nickcarraway
From Park v. Kim, decided today by the Second Circuit (Judges Barrington Parker, Allison Nathan, and Sarah Merriam); this is the 13th case I've seen in the last year in which AI-hallucinated citations were spotted:
We separately address the conduct of Park's counsel, Attorney Jae S. Lee. Lee's reply brief in this case includes a citation to a non-existent case, which she admits she generated using the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT. Because citation in a brief to a non-existent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel, we refer Attorney Lee to the Court's Grievance Panel, and further direct Attorney Lee to furnish a copy of this decision to her client, Plaintiff-Appellant Park….
Park's reply brief in this appeal was initially due May 26, 2023. After seeking and receiving two extensions of time, Attorney Lee filed a defective reply brief on July 25, 2023, more than a week after the extended due date. On August 1, 2023, this Court notified Attorney Lee that the late-filed brief was defective, and set a deadline of August 9, 2023, by which to cure the defect and resubmit the brief. Attorney Lee did not file a compliant brief, and on August 14, 2023, this Court ordered the defective reply brief stricken from the docket. Attorney Lee finally filed the reply brief on September 9, 2023.
The reply brief cited only two court decisions. We were unable to locate the one cited as "Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep't 2014)." Appellant's Reply Br. at 6. Accordingly, on November 20, 2023, we ordered Park to submit a copy of that decision to the Court by November 27, 2023. On November 29, 2023, Attorney Lee filed a Response with the Court explaining that she was "unable to furnish a copy of the decision." Although Attorney Lee did not expressly indicate as much in her Response, the reason she could not provide a copy of the case is that it does not exist—and indeed, Attorney Lee refers to the case at one point as "this non-existent case."
What the ....? I’d like to click on it, but I’m also afraid to...
I’ve done legal citations, and they are a pain, but it isn’t rocket science, for what is important to you.
Disbar all such attorneys!
So Lee literally committed a fraud on the court...it seems to me any attorney engaging in such conduct should be immediately referred for criminal charges in addition to discipline by the state bar.
Another Chat thing oopsie.
I could see an attorney using AI to research case cites, but there is no excuse to not actually check on them to make sure they are not only real but that they actually benefit your case.
I have friends who work in Hollywood and I teased them about the writer’s strike demanding that no AI be used by producers to generate content... as if the writers themselves wouldn’t be using AI to generate or sketch basic plot-lines and plot twists and dialogue prompts etc? They may ultimately write the script themselves, but they will surely be using AI as an idea factory at a minimum.
Not to mention the risk to the client. The client paid for services, expertise, experience and perhaps timely resolution of the case (sometimes not that last bit). This lawyer billed the client - it’s fraud. It jeopardizes his client’s case. It wastes the courts time.
“Hallucinated Case” because it doesn’t exist?
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.