5 ms·
Penalty?! He should be disbarred.
by dimmke 3y ago
Penalty?! He should be disbarred.
- jstummbillig 3y agoWhy?
- SanderNL 3y agoHe didn’t check his work and delivered literally pure bullshit.
- drdeca 3y agoLiterally?
- snapcaster 3y agoIt's a correct use of literally, the actual dictionary definition has been changed. You'll have to find a new thing to be pedantic about
- dllthomas 3y agoIt's a correct use of literally, but I think the change to the dictionary definition is in error. It's simply an example of hyperbole, which is a thing you can do with any word.
- meghan_rain 3y agoLmao, you got caught erroneously trolling somebody and now double down?
- dllthomas 3y agoDid you respond to the wrong comment, or confuse me for someone else? The comment you replied to was my only one in this thread, so if neither of those then I have (ahem) literally no idea what you're on about.
- snapcaster 3y agoIt's not a hyperbole lmao. Now you get to be the one who is pedantically corrected for no reason
- dllthomas 3y agoI wasn't correcting you. I was agreeing with you. I was correcting the dictionaries that have (IMO) got it wrong. Now, in this paragraph, I am correcting you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > It's not a hyperbole lmao. I disagree, obviously, but perhaps an explanation is in order so that we can be sure we're talking about the same thing (and give you something more specific to argue against if you still disagree). The difference between "X is Y" and "X is literally Y", when both expressions are figurative, is that the latter is meant to be strengthened by overstating the degree to which X is in fact Y. I contend that this is a hyperbolic use of "literally".
- drdeca 3y agoI’m not making a claim that it is “objectively incorrect”. I am merely attempting to discourage this kind of usage, because I this it is a better course for language for it to not be used in this way. (Also, whether it is included in dictionaries doesn’t really matter as to “correctnesss”. All words are real words.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- weatherlite 3y agoYour comment made my day, literally!
- biorach 3y agoI wish you the best of luck tilting at that windmill
- SanderNL 3y agoThis discussion really brightens my day. Only on HN. Edit: I remember I’m (literally) supposed to be annoyed at this. You all dare to question my intelligence, don’t you?
- LiquidInsect 3y agoeven being pedantic, it's literally bullshit: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bullshit https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bullshit bullshit noun nonsense, lies, or exaggeration.
- circuit10 3y agoI think it makes some sense to avoid this specific thing though because it can cause confusion
- snapcaster 3y agoIt confused nobody, it's not actually confusing it just triggers a certain type of person to be pedantic and annoying
- dllthomas 3y agoIt makes sense to avoid it when there's any chance of confusion, much like any other construction. I don't see that that meaningfully motivates avoiding it in circumstances where there is no chance of confusion.
- leephillips 3y agoDefending an obviously incorrect usage by pointing to “the” “dictionary” is rather more pedantic.
- SanderNL 3y agoI guess I meant to emphasize the fact that while they usually bullshit, they do so in a structured and generally acceptable way. In this case he (literally) rolled the dice and delivered what the tea leaves (literally) told him to.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- WestCoastJustin 3y agoBecause he used AI to fabricate case law. Imagine if you're on the other end of this case, and the opposing lawyers are creating citations to help support their case and create a strong argument (or worse, use a fabricate case as precedent). This has real-world impact. Sure, use AI to assist but check the work!
- distortedsignal 3y agoIf I'm a lawyer, I hope that my opponent fabricates cases. Judges don't generally take kindly to that kind of thing, and that is only going to help my side. Aside from that, it seems pretty trivial to prove that the cases don't exist. Here's a guy on YouTube talking about the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExSDY6Wz9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExSDY6Wz9Y
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jstummbillig 3y agoI was aware of the mechanical reason, thanks. What I am interested in is: Errors will be made by any professional, and so, lawyers. Why would this one justify a call for disbarment? I was hoping for a little more than the hobbyist lawyer tv show vibes I was getting.
- TX81Z 3y agoA head on a stick has a way of sending a message that the villages idiot sitting in the stocks doesn’t.
- code_runner 3y agoFraudulent court filings?
- misnome 3y agoIt’s “Qualified Immunity” for lawyers. Your literal job is to know not to do this, “Oops got caught don’t do this again” basically means zero consequences. I look forward to everyone else going through this courtroom get benefits from the “your first time caught lying to this court is free” policy.
- sigstoat 3y agowhat sorts of errors do you think a lawyer should be able to make without risking disbarment?
- sidewndr46 3y agoI would like to be assured that when I hire a lawyer they do not send obvious bullshit to the court on my behalf.
- JohnFen 3y agoWhat this lawyer did was simply to not do his job. It doesn't even rise to the level of incompetence.
- gamblor956 3y agoFor a lawyer, not doing the job one has been paid for is not just incompetence, it's considered malpractice. In this case, the original malpractice of failing to check the falsified cites was compounded by submitting falsified opinions to the court (in support of the falsified cites), which is fraud and would be criminal in most states. It's blatantly obvious that he used ChatGPT to generate falsified opinions to try and cover up his original fuck-up after traditional means of verification (i.e., using a legal database like LexisNexis or Westlaw) failed to substantiate any of the ChatGPT cites he originally submitted. In most states, this lawyer would be disbarred, or at the very least suspended for many months, for this sort of conduct. This lawyer should consider himself lucky that the court hasn't yet entertained referring this case to the NY DOJ for criminal prosecution.
- dimmke 3y ago"Causes of disbarment may include: a felony involving moral turpitude, forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to clients, alcoholism or drug abuse which affect the attorney's ability to practice" This was definitely an attempt at forgery and fraud. It might not be something that can be prosecuted as a felony, but it's close enough that if I was a member of the bar I would want to draw a firm line.