4 ms·

They doubled down on their original mistake rather than admit what they did, even when it was quite clear the judge and opposing council was on to them. They s

They doubled down on their original mistake rather than admit what they did, even when it was quite clear the judge and opposing council was on to them. They should be disbarred.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Where is this doubling down? It certainly isn't in this article.
- isp 3y ago
  See https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0_5.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... - Page 2, the judge uses the very words "doubled down": "But if the matter had ended with Respondents coming clean about their actions shortly after they received the defendant’s March 15 brief questioning the existence of the cases, or after they reviewed the Court’s Orders of April 11 and 12 requiring production of the cases, the record now would look quite different. Instead, the individual Respondents doubled down and did not begin to dribble out the truth until May 25, after the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why one of the individual Respondents ought not be sanctioned."
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I guess that really depends on what you consider doubling down. -On March 1, They filed a submission with fake citations from chatGPT. -On April 11th court told them the cases couldnt be found and to produce full transcripts of the cases by April 25. -On April 25, They came back and said they don't have them and couldnt find the cases, only the limited excerpts provided in "online databases". -On May 4, the court asked them why they ought not be sanctioned for citing non-existent cases to the Court. -On May 25, They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real. I guess the more transparent response on April 25 would have been to say "We weren't able to find the full cases and we now believe they probably dont exist ". Im not sure if the latter part is material if they already admitted they cant find the cases. If you cant produce the cases, is the reason relevant at that point?
    - sixstringtheory 3y ago
      > They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real Just like Wikipedia, ChatGPT is great for generating leads, but you need to check the actual primary sources! How do people not get this?
- jaclaz 3y ago
  >Where is this doubling down? It certainly isn't in this article It is mentioned also in the article: >then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question.”
- hartator 3y ago
  It is: > then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Did they?
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Here’s a longer video with more explanation: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM&pp=ygUOQ2hhdGdwdCBsYXd5ZXI%3D https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM&pp=ygUOQ2hhdGdwdCBsY... At first it was just generated citations. The opposing lawyers and judges could not find the cases, and so they then asked chatGPT for them, and it generated them, and they were submitted to the court. (One of the lawyers notarized the other’s filings.) There are even transcripts of chatGPT telling the accused that it is not an authoritative or up-to-date legal database. —- The punishment could arguably be more severe, since it demonstrated that these lawyers do not read their cases, particularly the one that notarized everything.
mindcrime 3y ago
They should be disbarred. I just can't agree. To my way of thinking there are very few (if any) things that should be "career ending" the first time they happen. And the main guy involved here, as I recall, has a long career with what has been a spotless record until now. I just can't see the justification for ending that career over one fuck-up. But, again... the punishment does seem lighter than I expected. I was thinking that any fine associated with this should be enough to hurt a bit. Something like $250,000 or something. This amounts to a slap on the wrist. Just to clarify my position here: I do think this is a major fuck-up. Like, really major. To the extent that I think the punishment should not be "career ending" it's just a reflection of my seeing "career ending" punishments as something of a "nuclear option" that should be avoided in all but the absolute most extreme cases. I guess I would say that if punishments spanned a scale from 1-10 with "10" being "disbarment" then this should probably be about an 8 or 9 in my mind.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  An officer of the court notarized that they had reviewed the imaginary citations and that those imaginary citations were material to the case. This is a gross breach of ethics and, given how easy it is to look up cases and verify them, grossly incompetent and lazy. These people should not be practicing law.
djur 3y ago
The judge cannot disbar them, but the opinion provides all of the evidence necessary.

They doubled down on their original mistake rather than admit what they did, even when it was quite clear the judge and opposing council was on to them. They should be disbarred.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Where is this doubling down? It certainly isn't in this article.

isp 3y ago
See https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0_5.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... - Page 2, the judge uses the very words "doubled down": "But if the matter had ended with Respondents coming clean about their actions shortly after they received the defendant’s March 15 brief questioning the existence of the cases, or after they reviewed the Court’s Orders of April 11 and 12 requiring production of the cases, the record now would look quite different. Instead, the individual Respondents doubled down and did not begin to dribble out the truth until May 25, after the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why one of the individual Respondents ought not be sanctioned."
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I guess that really depends on what you consider doubling down. -On March 1, They filed a submission with fake citations from chatGPT. -On April 11th court told them the cases couldnt be found and to produce full transcripts of the cases by April 25. -On April 25, They came back and said they don't have them and couldnt find the cases, only the limited excerpts provided in "online databases". -On May 4, the court asked them why they ought not be sanctioned for citing non-existent cases to the Court. -On May 25, They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real. I guess the more transparent response on April 25 would have been to say "We weren't able to find the full cases and we now believe they probably dont exist ". Im not sure if the latter part is material if they already admitted they cant find the cases. If you cant produce the cases, is the reason relevant at that point?
  - sixstringtheory 3y ago
    > They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real Just like Wikipedia, ChatGPT is great for generating leads, but you need to check the actual primary sources! How do people not get this?
jaclaz 3y ago
>Where is this doubling down? It certainly isn't in this article It is mentioned also in the article: >then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question.”
hartator 3y ago
It is: > then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Did they?
bobthepanda 3y ago
Here’s a longer video with more explanation: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM&pp=ygUOQ2hhdGdwdCBsYXd5ZXI%3D https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM&pp=ygUOQ2hhdGdwdCBsY... At first it was just generated citations. The opposing lawyers and judges could not find the cases, and so they then asked chatGPT for them, and it generated them, and they were submitted to the court. (One of the lawyers notarized the other’s filings.) There are even transcripts of chatGPT telling the accused that it is not an authoritative or up-to-date legal database. —- The punishment could arguably be more severe, since it demonstrated that these lawyers do not read their cases, particularly the one that notarized everything.

mindcrime 3y ago

They should be disbarred. I just can't agree. To my way of thinking there are very few (if any) things that should be "career ending" the first time they happen. And the main guy involved here, as I recall, has a long career with what has been a spotless record until now. I just can't see the justification for ending that career over one fuck-up. But, again... the punishment does seem lighter than I expected. I was thinking that any fine associated with this should be enough to hurt a bit. Something like $250,000 or something. This amounts to a slap on the wrist. Just to clarify my position here: I do think this is a major fuck-up. Like, really major. To the extent that I think the punishment should not be "career ending" it's just a reflection of my seeing "career ending" punishments as something of a "nuclear option" that should be avoided in all but the absolute most extreme cases. I guess I would say that if punishments spanned a scale from 1-10 with "10" being "disbarment" then this should probably be about an 8 or 9 in my mind.

Ensorceled 3y ago
An officer of the court notarized that they had reviewed the imaginary citations and that those imaginary citations were material to the case. This is a gross breach of ethics and, given how easy it is to look up cases and verify them, grossly incompetent and lazy. These people should not be practicing law.

djur 3y ago

The judge cannot disbar them, but the opinion provides all of the evidence necessary.