5 ms·

> Judge Castel said in an order that he had been presented with “an unprecedented circumstance,” a legal submission replete with “bogus judicial decisions, with

> Judge Castel said in an order that he had been presented with “an unprecedented circumstance,” a legal submission replete with “bogus judicial decisions, with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations.” He ordered a hearing for June 8 to discuss potential sanctions. Disbarment should be a no-brainer and a minimum. Just “Southern China Airlines” should have raised eyebrows. This lawyer has shown obvious disrespect to the court, the court time, and to his client.

paul_f 3y ago
The lawyer should lose his license. Imagine they had turned in this brief and follow up and ChatGPT had not been involved. Instant disbarment. ChatGPT is not an excuse for a professional to produce nonsense in front of the court. Bye bye.
- psychphysic 3y ago
  Disbarment seems excessive to me. I don't think this is indictiative of a wider issue. Or likely to be repeated substantially. In terms of severity it's painfully foolish but then again ChatGPT is a totally new tool and a lot of people will be caught off guard. I am stunned the lawyer didn't at least look up the case notes or even prepare a pocket brief if he believed they were real but hard to find
  - unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
    Yeah, interestingly, being bad at lawyering isn't a typical reason for discipline. Discipline is integrity and process-based, things like stealing client funds and failing to communicate promptly and reasonably with the client. Arguably the leading goof was using a technology the lawyer didn't understand and failing to inform the client of the risks of using it. Between that and citing garbage precedent-- half the bar might be eligible for discipline on any given day. The judge might issue sanctions but bar discipline is a different ball of wax.
    - filoleg 3y ago
      The way I see it, AI cannot claim legal ownership of the output produced, it belongs to the human that generated it (e.g., an example of someone using generative AI to produce a painting that can be copyrighted by them). Which makes me think that this case should be treated just as if the lawyer wrote it on their own. If the lawyer enters output of chatGPT they generated into court records as if it was their own, it was their own. The lawyer wrote those made up cases into the documents, and the entire matter should be treated as such. It blows my mind the lawyer didn't double-check the fake cases cited by chatGPT, but had the idea to ask chatGPT whether those citations were legit (and then got his concern satisfied with a simple "yes").
not_a_shill 3y ago
If disbarment is the minimum, what's the maximum? I'm unfamiliar with other cases in which lesser offenses have led to disbarment.
- bombcar 3y ago
  I wouldn’t be surprised if prison is on the table. Intentionally filing bullshit to the court can get you some penalties indeed.
  - zapdrive 3y ago
    He swore under oath that everything in the affidavit is correct. So he lied under oath, means he committed perjury. Where I live, perjury has a 3 year jail sentence. However it is very rarely enforced.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      The standard for perjury is (generally) a standard of belief, which is much stronger than factuality. Ignorance of what ChatGPT is, even shocking ignorance, may not clear that bar. In other words: I would be very surprised if perjury was on the table here. This falls under the kind of basic competence and client obligation that the Bar exists to address.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Without malicious intent it’s highly unlikely he will get a perjury charge but he may be made an example of.
        woodruffw 3y ago
        I don’t think disbarment is out of the question (and that would indeed send a very strong message), but I disagree that this comes anywhere close to a serious risk of prison for this lawyer.
  - 3y ago
eastbound 3y ago
I suspect a lot of lawyers should be disbarred, GPT aside. They don’t always care about their customers. I’ve often been more expert than my lawyers in France, and I’ve seen at least one guy going to prison where the lawyer, publicly shamed by a dozen of youtubers for not actioning the various correct levers, told the excuse that he “only had an hour to review the case”. What are we paying for, if the guy spends 4 months in prison before the faulty judgement being overruled, if the lawyer says he didn’t even work on the file. When you hire a lawyer, you have no guarantee he will work for you.
- LelouBil 3y ago
  Do you have a name or links for the incident you mention ?
  - eastbound 3y ago
    The guy’s Youtube name was “Marvel Fitness”, if you search you’ll find dozens of videos pointing at (among the guy’s mistakes) the lawyer’s mistake (in French): https://youtu.be/M9tRXzGmkK4 https://youtu.be/M9tRXzGmkK4 https://youtu.be/5RkgTEpfrA4 https://youtu.be/5RkgTEpfrA4 https://youtu.be/Gkz0JMJIB8c https://youtu.be/Gkz0JMJIB8c
raverbashing 3y ago
The title of the made up case seems to be "China Southern Airlines", which is correct. But it is misquoted on Document 31 (Order to Show Cause) as China South Airlines

paul_f 3y ago

The lawyer should lose his license. Imagine they had turned in this brief and follow up and ChatGPT had not been involved. Instant disbarment. ChatGPT is not an excuse for a professional to produce nonsense in front of the court. Bye bye.

psychphysic 3y ago
Disbarment seems excessive to me. I don't think this is indictiative of a wider issue. Or likely to be repeated substantially. In terms of severity it's painfully foolish but then again ChatGPT is a totally new tool and a lot of people will be caught off guard. I am stunned the lawyer didn't at least look up the case notes or even prepare a pocket brief if he believed they were real but hard to find
- unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
  Yeah, interestingly, being bad at lawyering isn't a typical reason for discipline. Discipline is integrity and process-based, things like stealing client funds and failing to communicate promptly and reasonably with the client. Arguably the leading goof was using a technology the lawyer didn't understand and failing to inform the client of the risks of using it. Between that and citing garbage precedent-- half the bar might be eligible for discipline on any given day. The judge might issue sanctions but bar discipline is a different ball of wax.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    The way I see it, AI cannot claim legal ownership of the output produced, it belongs to the human that generated it (e.g., an example of someone using generative AI to produce a painting that can be copyrighted by them). Which makes me think that this case should be treated just as if the lawyer wrote it on their own. If the lawyer enters output of chatGPT they generated into court records as if it was their own, it was their own. The lawyer wrote those made up cases into the documents, and the entire matter should be treated as such. It blows my mind the lawyer didn't double-check the fake cases cited by chatGPT, but had the idea to ask chatGPT whether those citations were legit (and then got his concern satisfied with a simple "yes").

not_a_shill 3y ago

If disbarment is the minimum, what's the maximum? I'm unfamiliar with other cases in which lesser offenses have led to disbarment.

bombcar 3y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if prison is on the table. Intentionally filing bullshit to the court can get you some penalties indeed.
- zapdrive 3y ago
  He swore under oath that everything in the affidavit is correct. So he lied under oath, means he committed perjury. Where I live, perjury has a 3 year jail sentence. However it is very rarely enforced.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    The standard for perjury is (generally) a standard of belief, which is much stronger than factuality. Ignorance of what ChatGPT is, even shocking ignorance, may not clear that bar. In other words: I would be very surprised if perjury was on the table here. This falls under the kind of basic competence and client obligation that the Bar exists to address.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Without malicious intent it’s highly unlikely he will get a perjury charge but he may be made an example of.
      - woodruffw 3y ago
        I don’t think disbarment is out of the question (and that would indeed send a very strong message), but I disagree that this comes anywhere close to a serious risk of prison for this lawyer.
- 3y ago

eastbound 3y ago

I suspect a lot of lawyers should be disbarred, GPT aside. They don’t always care about their customers. I’ve often been more expert than my lawyers in France, and I’ve seen at least one guy going to prison where the lawyer, publicly shamed by a dozen of youtubers for not actioning the various correct levers, told the excuse that he “only had an hour to review the case”. What are we paying for, if the guy spends 4 months in prison before the faulty judgement being overruled, if the lawyer says he didn’t even work on the file. When you hire a lawyer, you have no guarantee he will work for you.

LelouBil 3y ago
Do you have a name or links for the incident you mention ?
- eastbound 3y ago
  The guy’s Youtube name was “Marvel Fitness”, if you search you’ll find dozens of videos pointing at (among the guy’s mistakes) the lawyer’s mistake (in French): https://youtu.be/M9tRXzGmkK4 https://youtu.be/M9tRXzGmkK4 https://youtu.be/5RkgTEpfrA4 https://youtu.be/5RkgTEpfrA4 https://youtu.be/Gkz0JMJIB8c https://youtu.be/Gkz0JMJIB8c

raverbashing 3y ago

The title of the made up case seems to be "China Southern Airlines", which is correct. But it is misquoted on Document 31 (Order to Show Cause) as China South Airlines