Should’ve fined both lawyers for this bullshit.
There were actually 4 lawyers, and all 4 were fined and 2 of them barred from presenting to the Court for several years.
Judge wasn’t fucking around.
Judge wasn’t fucking around.
Just one of many such stories, and yet more lawyers keep thinking it’s a good idea to bring unverified AI into a courtroom…
Sure, use AI to generate your documents and filings … but then take the time to verify it manually! Make sure the cited cases and laws actually exist and are actually relevant. Scan it for errors or ‘AI speak’. At least fucking read it.
I have no idea how people can be so confident in a LLM that they’d use it for something so high-stakes without checking its work!
Never, ever use AI for legal review for a client.
Inviting an AI into the threads removes privilege.
lol, that too. Who knows what kind of private legal information you’re freely feeding to the AI company.
It’s worse than that. The AI isn’t part of the attorney/client relationship, so anything shared with it isn’t covered by privilege and is discoverable.
Disbarment should follow after the leak soon, for violating privilege
Enterprise usage of AI tools, at least those I have seen, is entirely private
Supposedly.
I wouldn’t trust anything to be truly private in the hands of these AI companies, though – they’re always scraping training data from wherever they can get it (legality be damned), and requests from enterprise clients are extremely valuable training data. They’ll make promises about how everything stays in-house … but then your chat history gets integrated into the new public model through its training, and maybe it’s now able to reproduce your private information when asked.
That would be a massive legal dispute that would probably end up sinking them. There’s legal agreements they can’t train or use the data. Would blow reputation and be legal volcano
You could use a local AI… that’s only running on your computer… that’s specifically trained on dumps of old cases and such…
But I guess lawyers are not known for their tech savvy.
Maybe you could say their heads are in the cloud.
I litteraly just went through this shit about 3hrs ago. I needed to install a flange gasket for a 2.5" pipe flange hydraulic return. A.I tells me I can’t use this particular multi layer gasket type I have because I have a flat flange.
Lo and behold I find the the manufacturer data sheet. Perfectly suitable for my application.
Like it’s one thing for a.i to fail at making shit up. But it’s a hole other fuck up when it can’t even regurgitate information correctly.
Why did you try to use AI for that in the first place? Are you not part of the problem? Glad you figured it out
Isn’t the rule of thumb that you can use it for things you can verify? They were able to verify.
It gave them bad advice
The barring part makes me happy. The fining might make me happy…how much was the fine? Do you know?
Between 1100 and 3500. It’s in the artiblcle before the paywall kicks in.
Ok. Given Lawyers general salaries, that’s really not that much. That’s like a slap on the wrist. I was hoping it was like $20,000.
But the barring still makes me happy.
It’s more about the barring and the official censure. A couple grand doesn’t mean much A judicial beatdown is professionally damaging.
And since it’s federal court, being barred from that courtroom is a real blow. It’s not like they can just focus on the next city or county over.
Couldn’t they just go to other courtrooms in that courthouse? There’s going to be a few to a few dozen
They’re barred from presenting federal cases in the Northern District of Mississippi. That covers all federal cases for 36 counties - half the state.
If the other room is not federal maybe? They mean being barred from the federal courtroom the lawyers can’t practice law in federal court.
I mean, he was sort of fucking around. A lawyer that is fine using AI for a case should never be allowed to work as a lawyer after that. That’s a gigantic moral flaw.
A judge can’t revoke a law license. But they can issue a fine and bar them from their courtroom.
The judge’s action in this case was brutal. It’s the legal equivalent of a public caning.
How ? Typically the law society is the group to remove a lawyers license to practice. He could perhaps refer them but this is different the world over.
My fear is that we may lose the older judges to the people who pull stunts like this, and then it’ll be an unqualified and ignorant judge listening to lawyers citing imaginary evidence
Nah, better to disbar them
That’s not a decision a judge can make in this context.
Nah, they can drink alcohol if they want to.
“you get what you pay for” is not even a thing anymore. Lazy people will just use an LLM and charge you as if they did the actual thinking.
No thinking was involved then
Yes, that was the implication.
Thinking they can get away with it was involved.
That was the only logical thing to do
So if bots talking to bots is the dead internet, does AI arguing in court against other AI means that we are now seeing the beginning of dead law?
Not in that judge’s courtroom 👨⚖️
Wait till you learn that the lobbyists that wrote the laws for the legislators used AI.
So it’s still AI in that judge’s courtroom.
The well is poisoned
I, <insert name here>, congressional representative for <insert state here>, hereby attest to the matters herein.
The well was poisoned long before LLMs existed. AI just takes it up yet one more notch, but it seems to me to be merely increased quantity not new quality of fuck-uppery. We shall see.
No. Dead law began with the supreme court (which I shall no longer capitalise) hand-waving presidential crime. Law has been broken ever since in the US, and it’s been getting worse.
We have a pedophile for president, the entire legal system is a joke anyway.
let’s execute people or jail them for 10000 year. MURICA 🤡
DOGE and Stephen Miller considered declaring over 2.7 million living people as dead to deny them benefits and deport them and deprive them of all other rights. MURICA 🤡
Meanwhile the legislators are writing laws with AI, so it’s fucked before it gets to the courts
Can’t wait for the first law containing emojis…
☺️ As of 2026, humans and organic life will be concentrated into cities. 🫡 AI will take over and run the systems human depend on for living. 😷 AI already has taken over the healthcare system to provide humans care. 🤠 In perpetuity, humans abdicate their rights and serve AI.
This is disappointing. I would not want to be the judge on a case that nobody respects.
“I get you’re frustrated 🧨. That’s perfectly legitimate. 👍 Here are five ways to make your concerns heard: …”
should follow up with general bar reviews, need to hammer out this behavior.
Accountwall
I’ve been telling my students that only lazy people use AI. Work email about the upcoming end of term staff party has a fully AI generated poster. (Like, YOU designed our school logo. Why is the logo on the invite completely different?)
And the worst part (unrelated to above, but still hurts)
Staff are willingly adding students names into the prompts. Sure, you can give your personal data to the machine, but the kids? Who have no choice? That hurts.
Unpopular opinion, but I can see the utility of well-trained LLMs in legal preparation.
Not for writing arguments, obviously, but preliminary searches are one of the best uses I’ve found for AI. It could be pretty effective to sift through mountains of case law for relevant precedent, granted that you actually evaluate your results manually.
There are explicit published guidelines for using AI in the legal field.
No court is actually against the use of LLM-generated text.
The problem is lazy lawyers. They just accept what is written on the screen in front of them. They do not rewrite it. They do not verify any quotes or legal briefs or opinions that it spits out at them.
And that is expressly forbidden. Everything that is submitted under a lawyer’s name has to be either written by or directly reviewed and approved by that lawyer.
Even lawyers know 80% of any legal brief is just stuff put in there to meet the text requirements for review.
If you use an LLM to fill in that 80% with some manual guidance, then it can allow you to focus on the 20% of the legal brief that actually matters.
Less unpopular than you might think.
LLMs are an interesting and potentially useful tool; however, as it does with most things, capitalism is ruining it for everyone.
I also use it for writing arguments, as it can come up with some creative ideas. However, they do not just blindly end up in the final document. In every letter, there is at least one major mistake, probably due to the token limit.
