Judge slams lawyers for ‘bogus AI-generated research’

# ai # law # policy # News # Tech

Judge Penalizes Law Firms for Using AI Without Disclosure

In a recent ruling, California Judge Michael Wilner slapped two prominent law firms with a hefty fine of $31,000 for secretly relying on artificial intelligence during a civil lawsuit. According to Judge Wilner, the firms submitted a brief packed with “false, inaccurate, and misleading legal citations and quotations.” As reported by law professors Eric Goldman and Blake Reid on Bluesky, the judge expressed his frustration over what he deemed a reckless disregard for professional standards. “I trusted the brief I read,” Judge Wilner wrote in his ruling. “I was convinced by the authorities they referenced, so I dug deeper to explore those cases myself. But they didn’t exist. It was terrifying. I nearly signed off on a judicial order based on fake information.” According to court documents, the trouble began when a plaintiff’s legal team hired an AI tool to craft an outline for a supplemental brief. This outline, however, was riddled with fabricated content when it was handed over to K&L Gates, another law firm involved in the case. Unfortunately, neither firm bothered to fact-check or verify the information before submitting it. Judge Wilner discovered that “at least two of the cited authorities were entirely nonexistent.” When pressed for clarification, K&L Gates refiled the brief, only for the judge to uncover even more fabricated references. In response, he issued an Order to Show Cause, prompting both sides to admit the truth under oath. The lawyer responsible for creating the original outline confessed to using Google Gemini and legal research tools like Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel.

A Pattern of Misuse

This isn’t the first instance of lawyers getting into hot water over AI misuse. Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen once cited non-existent court cases after mistakenly treating Google Gemini, then known as Bard, as a regular search engine. Similarly, a judge in Colombia found that attorneys suing an airline had sprinkled their brief with bogus cases generated by ChatGPT. “This whole episode has been nothing short of alarming,” Judge Wilner concluded. “The initial decision to rely on AI without disclosure was unacceptable. Sending such flawed material to other professionals without warning them about its questionable origin put everyone at risk.”

The Broader Implications

The ruling highlights a growing concern among legal professionals about the ethical implications of using AI in court filings. While AI tools promise efficiency and accuracy, they also carry the risk of spreading misinformation if not properly vetted. As Judge Wilner emphasized, “No reasonably competent attorney should outsource their research or writing to an algorithm without verifying its output.” The case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in legal practice. As AI continues to evolve, it remains crucial for practitioners to tread carefully, ensuring that technology enhances—not undermines—the integrity of the justice system.

Related article

Comments (1)