ABA Journal; Prosecutor suspended by state supreme court for artificial intelligence use in court docs
"A Georgia prosecutor who repeatedly filed documents with artificial intelligence-generated citations that referenced cases that were wrong or fictitious during a murder trial has been suspended for six months from practicing before the Georgia Supreme Court.
Law & Crime has the story."
Joe Patrice , Above The Law; Google’s AI Summary Invents State Ethics Rules… And It’s Not A Hallucination Problem
"If you’re a Pennsylvania lawyer wondering whether you need to disclose AI use in your court filings, Google’s AI summary has an authoritative answer for you. It’s a wrong answer, mind you. But authoritative!...
If one opens an incognito window and searches Google for “Pennsylvania AI disclosure lawyers,” the AI-generated summary will explain that “Key developments include mandatory disclosure of Generative AI (GAI) in court filings.” Throw in “August 2024” because you vaguely remember seeing something about AI on that date and the result reads “As of August 2024, Pennsylvania mandates explicit disclosure of AI use in all court submissions, making transparency a mandatory filing requirement.”
None of that is true.
The Legal AI Governance tracker, an invaluable tool maintained by Brian Alenduff of Desired Path Consulting, provides a comprehensive rundown of Pennsylvania’s AI rules. There are standing orders in some courtrooms, and the state supreme court issued a rule governing court personnel only, but as for the state of Pennsylvania writ large, there is no statewide rule as of now. The tracker notes that what Pennsylvania does have is Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, a 2024 advisory ethics opinion from the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association flagging AI as a competence issue under existing rules. But that opinion explicitly states that it is “advisory only and is not binding.” The ABA’s own 50-state survey classifies Pennsylvania as “court dependent.”...
Hallucinations are all the rage right now, but over the long haul the greater AI risk will be an unfailingly credulous bot elevating and validating mistakes until the error gets picked up as reality."
Martin Kaste, NPR; Penalties stack up as AI spreads through the legal system
""Recently we had 10 cases from 10 different courts on a single day," says Damien Charlotin, a researcher at the business school HEC Paris who keeps a worldwide tally of instances of courts sanctioning people for using erroneous information generated by AI...
The numbers started taking off last year, and Charlotin says the rate is still increasing. He counts a total of more than 1,200 to date, of which about 800 are from U.S. courts.
Penalties are also on the rise, he says. A federal court may have set a record last month with an order for a lawyer in Oregon to pay $109,700 in sanctions and costs for filing AI-generated errors.
The professional embarrassments even take place at the level of state supreme courts...
"I am surprised that people are still doing this when it's been in the news," says Carla Wale, associate dean of information & technology and director of the law library at the University of Washington School of Law. She's designing special training in AI ethics for students who are interested. But she also says the ethical rules aren't completely settled...
When lawyers get in trouble for using AI, it's because they've violated the long-standing rule that holds them responsible for the accuracy of their filings, regardless of how they were generated."
AMANDA ROBERT, ABA Journal ; Sanctions ramping up in cases involving AI hallucinations
"The use of monetary sanctions against attorneys is seemingly on the rise as courts continue to address artificial intelligence-generated hallucinations in case documents."
Craig Brodsky, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, JD Supra; Generative AI and Legal Ethics
"In his scathing opinion, Cullen joined judges from New York Massachusetts and North Carolina, among others, by concluding that improper use of AI generated authorities may give rise to sanctions and disciplinary charges...
As a result, on July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional issued Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. The ABA Standing Committee issued the opinion primarily because GAI tools are a “rapidly moving target” that can create significant ethical issues. The committee believed it necessary to offer “general guidance for lawyers attempting to navigate this emerging landscape.”
The committee’s general guidance is helpful, but the general nature of Opinion 512 it underscores part of my main concern — GAI has a wide-ranging impact on how lawyers practice that will increase over time. Unsurprisingly, at present, GAI implicates at least eight ethical rules ranging from competence (Md. Rule 19-301.1) to communication (Md. Rule 19-301.4), to fees (Md. Rule 19-301.5), to confidentiality, (Md. Rule 19-301.6), to supervisory obligations (Md. Rule 19-305.1 and Md. Rule 305.3) to the duties of a lawyer before tribunal to be candid and pursue meritorious claims and defenses. (Md. Rules 19-303.1 and 19-303.3).
As a technological feature of practice, lawyers cannot simply ignore GAI. The duty of competence under Rule 19-301.1 includes technical competence, and GAI is just another step forward. It is here to stay. We must embrace it but use it smartly.
Let it be an adjunct to your practice rather than having Chat GPT write your brief. Ensure that your staff understands that GAI can be helpful, but that the work product must be checked for accuracy.
After considering the ethical implications and putting the right processes in place, implement GAI and use it to your clients’ advantage."
