Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#61

Post by loeg »

jeroenhd wrote: post #46

LegalEagle did a video on this case two weeks ago, digging into it in some more depth: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM They lied to a judge, doubled down, showed further incompetence by admitting to not knowing how the legal reference they supposedly quoted was even structured, then lied to a judge again trying to get more time to get their story straight, and all it cost them was $5000? And even then they have the guts…

Also good coverage of the case on Serious Trouble (podcast): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-legal-brief-beyond...

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#62

Post by loeg »

charcircuit wrote: post #42
JohnFen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The punishment isn’t just the $5,000, it’s the public shaming that came with it. Both the fine and the public shaming are very light "punishments". Everyone's pointing and laughing now, but in a year nobody will even remember their name and their career will be fine.

Sure, but when you Google a lawyer's name and this comes up you may choose not to use him.

On the other hand, there are certain kinds of lawyer with low-research clients who won't suffer much from this, and these lawyers are likely that kind (representing a client suing Avianca for a drinks cart complaint).

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#64

Post by sixstringtheory »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #49
isp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... - Page 2, the judge uses the very words "doubled down": "But if the matter had ended with Respondents coming clean about their actions shortly after they received the defendant’s March 15 brief questioning the existence of the cases, or after they reviewed the Court’s Orders of April 11 and 12 requiring production of the cases, the record now would l…

I guess that really depends on what you consider doubling down. -On March 1, They filed a submission with fake citations from chatGPT. -On April 11th court told them the cases couldnt be found and to produce full transcripts of the cases by April 25. -On April 25, They came back and said they don't have them and couldnt find the cases, only the limited excerpts provided in "online databases". -On May 4, the court ask…

> They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real

Just like Wikipedia, ChatGPT is great for generating leads, but you need to check the actual primary sources! How do people not get this?

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#65

Post by lotsofpulp »

BlakeSimpson wrote: post #9

It blows my mind that a lawyer would go through all the schooling and DEBT just to use ChatGPT and risk losing their BAR card. Sure, I see plenty of uses for ChatGPT in their field, but to not even check the output before submitting it is what blows my mind.

> risk losing their BAR card.

Did they risk it? Even after it being obvious the lawyer was lying and trying to cover up, and not acquiescing to their wrongdoing even after all of it, all they had to pay was $5k.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#66

Post by hospitalJail »

sarchertech wrote: post #34
hospitalJail wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't know it could lie? But also, pretty sure Doctors and Lawyers are among the least trusted/highest corruption professions. All that schooling is a barrier to entry to keep outsiders away, it doesnt guarantee competence. Basically once you get in, graduation rates are close to 100%.

You’re very wrong about the perception of doctors. According to polls, doctors are the 2nd most trusted profession. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388649/military-brass-judges-am... My wife runs the resident eduction for her division and they are very aware of the dangers of sending an incompetent doctor out into the world to practice. They’ll force them through extra training and make them repeat residency if they hav…

>You’re very wrong about the perception of doctors. According to polls, doctors are the 2nd most trusted profession. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388649/military-brass-judges-am...

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...

They are the 4th largest briber in the US.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#67

Post by smcl »

furyofantares wrote: post #59
JohnFen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're being punished more so on how they used their resources, not for using ChatGPT Yes, exactly. If they'd used a human intern instead of ChatGPT, it wouldn't change the situation at all.

Huh, I think it would? It's still really bad, the quality of the service the client got is still abysmal, and it's still ultimately the lawyer's responsibility. That much is certainly unchanged, it would also be considered a much more understandable mistake.

If they followed exactly the same processes (showing a screenshot of a text conversation saying "Is X a real case?" when challenged about the nonexistent cases) then I imagine they would have have been treated the same way. However they probably wouldn't have gone down that route, because they know "uhhhh I included those cases because my intern insisted they exist?" absolutely wouldn't fly. The difference is that they thought they could chance it because ChatGPT is a shiny, new thing that some people have a pretty mixed understanding of.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#68

Post by hospitalJail »

gautamdivgi wrote: post #54
echelon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to polls, doctors are the 2nd most trusted profession. n=1 anecdote here: When I was in research track biochem and bumped into premed students, nearly the entire population of premed didn't seem to care about the science behind what they were learning. They formed a very different social clique. The "top students" in that set were sharing previous years' organic chemistry exams and none of them would read…

I think a lot of your general practitioners are bound to follow protocol set forth by various medical organizations. So in that sense a lot of diving into research won’t help them. They need to understand and diagnose without having to worry about every little research paper. A lot of research papers aren’t truth - they are peer reviewed opinions. Once you get to medical research groups that formulate those protocols…

>I think a lot of your general practitioners are bound to follow protocol set forth by various medical organizations. So in that sense a lot of diving into research won’t help them. They need to understand and diagnose without having to worry about every little research paper. A lot of research papers aren’t truth - they are peer reviewed opinions.

Isnt this even more necessary for them to learn the fundementals? Especially if Physicians claim that they are both Art and Science, which is why we can't merely use science for diagnosis and treatment.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#69

Post by jcranmer »

jeroenhd wrote: post #46

LegalEagle did a video on this case two weeks ago, digging into it in some more depth: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM They lied to a judge, doubled down, showed further incompetence by admitting to not knowing how the legal reference they supposedly quoted was even structured, then lied to a judge again trying to get more time to get their story straight, and all it cost them was $5000? And even then they have the guts…

> and all it cost them was $5000?

They also have to write written apologies to their client, and all of the judges who were mentioned in their fake cases, with proof filed in the docket.

And they are the brunt of a very well-publicized lawsuit. The judge is effectively saying that all that publicity is punishment enough; he doesn't need to do anymore. He doesn't need to refer them to the bar for disbarment--the bar already knows about it. (The judge has no power to disbar them himself, he can only refer to the bar for disbarment.)

The biggest surprise is that they didn't get made to pay the defendant's legal fees as well, but that's because defendant didn't ask for any fees.

Oh, and the final punishment... they lost the case--they get no chance to redo their opposition to the motion to dismiss. Arguably, their client can also sue them for malpractice, and their malpractice carrier is likely to prefer to settle that rather than actually fight the case.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#70

Post by smcl »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #65
BlakeSimpson wrote: post #9

It blows my mind that a lawyer would go through all the schooling and DEBT just to use ChatGPT and risk losing their BAR card. Sure, I see plenty of uses for ChatGPT in their field, but to not even check the output before submitting it is what blows my mind.

> risk losing their BAR card. Did they risk it? Even after it being obvious the lawyer was lying and trying to cover up, and not acquiescing to their wrongdoing even after all of it, all they had to pay was $5k.

Do we know for sure that absolutely no further action is being taken? I really don't know processes, so I dunno if this is it or if this is just one of the consequences, and that the bar association (is that the right org?) they're part of would want to weigh in on it.
Post reply on HN