David Kluft4d ago

#LegalEthics Tidbit: Can the court sanction a contract attorney who drafted a brief with #AI hallucinations, but who never appeared in the case?

An IL immigration attorney submitted a brief to the 7th Circuit. Over half the cases cited did not exist or were falsely labeled as 7th Cir. case, and almost every quotation was incorrect. It also cited fake facts – for instance claiming the client’s children were “deeply integrated into local ... (cont.)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca7.54134/gov.uscourts.ca7.54134.46.0.pdf
#law #lawfedi

Show threadDavid Kluft

... schools” when in fact they were all adults and out of school.

The lawyer claimed he had “no input” into the brief and blamed the errors on a contract attorney who did not appear in the case. The contract attorney swore she did not use AI for legal research but claimed that the errors were caused by a “grammar check run through ChatGPT,” after which she did not review the brief for accuracy. The attorney of record later submitted a revised brief, also created by the ... (cont.)

Jun 24 at 1:35pmWeb
Show threadDavid Kluft4d ago

... contract attorney, but that had some hallucinations too.

The Court found that sanctions of $5,000 were appropriate against the attorney of record in light of the severity of the hallucinations and his failure to review either brief before filing them. As to the contract attorney, the Court stated that “it is not clear that merely writing a brief qualifies [the contract attorney] as someone who “practice[d] before” us in
this matter” and was thus subject to sanctions under the ... (cont.)

Show threadDavid Kluft4d ago
... federal appellate rules. The court found that it could sanction her under its inherent power, but declined to do so. However, it did refer her to disciplinary authorities because she provided an unsatisfying explanation for how she missed the gigantic factual hallucinations, and it was unclear whether the lawyers engaged in an impermissible fee sharing arrangement.