A plaintiff's law firms were sanctioned and ordered to pay $31,100 after submitting fake AI citations that nearly ended up in a court ruling. Michael Wilner, a retired US magistrate judge serving as special master in US District Court for the Central District of California, admitted that he initially thought the citations were real and "almost" put them into an order.

These aren't the first lawyers caught submitting briefs with fake citations generated by AI. In some cases, opposing attorneys figure out what happened and notify the judge. In this instance, the judge noticed that some citations were un-verifiable but was troubled by how close he came to including the bogus citations in an order.

"Directly put, Plaintiff's use of AI affirmatively misled me," Judge Wilner wrote in a May 5 order . "I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them—only to find that they didn't exist. That's scary. It almost led to the scarier outcome (from my perspective) of including those bogus materials in a judicial order. Strong deterrence is needed to make sure that attorneys don't succumb to this easy shortcut."

Read full article

Comments

A plaintiff's law firms were sanctioned and ordered to pay $31,100 after submitting fake AI citations that nearly ended up in a court ruling. Michael Wilner, a retired US magistrate judge serving as special master in US District Court for the Central District of California, admitted that he initially thought the citations were real and "almost" put them into an order.

These aren't the first lawyers caught submitting briefs with fake citations generated by AI. In some cases, opposing attorneys figure out what happened and notify the judge. In this instance, the judge noticed that some citations were un-verifiable but was troubled by how close he came to including the bogus citations in an order.

"Directly put, Plaintiff's use of AI affirmatively misled me," Judge Wilner wrote in a May 5 order . "I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them—only to find that they didn't exist. That's scary. It almost led to the scarier outcome (from my perspective) of including those bogus materials in a judicial order. Strong deterrence is needed to make sure that attorneys don't succumb to this easy shortcut."

Read full article

Comments

A plaintiff's law firms were sanctioned and ordered to pay $31,100 after submitting fake AI citations that nearly ended up in a court ruling. Michael Wilner, a retired US magistrate judge serving as special master in US District Court for the Central District of California, admitted that he initially thought the citations were real and "almost" put them into an order.

These aren't the first lawyers caught submitting briefs with fake citations generated by AI. In some cases, opposing attorneys figure out what happened and notify the judge. In this instance, the judge noticed that some citations were un-verifiable but was troubled by how close he came to including the bogus citations in an order.

"Directly put, Plaintiff's use of AI affirmatively misled me," Judge Wilner wrote in a May 5 order . "I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them—only to find that they didn't exist. That's scary. It almost led to the scarier outcome (from my perspective) of including those bogus materials in a judicial order. Strong deterrence is needed to make sure that attorneys don't succumb to this easy shortcut."

Read full article

Comments