AI Hallucination: Cook County Treasurer – 773 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014) – You guessed it doesn’t exist
Spotted by Jeff Bazinet Civil Litigator in the US ( Linked In)
He writes…
The next-level of discipline in fake AI cite cases is here.
(Cue Ice Cube’s “Check Yo Self.”)
It seems like all I write about lately is cases involving AI-generated legal case cites.
This is the latest.
Indiana.
Federal court.
Cook County Treasurer , 773 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014)
Doesn’t exist.
(You knew that.)
A magistrate judge caught it.
And told the attorney to explain.
The attorney apologized and withdrew the cite.
The judge did a “non-exhaustive review” of 2 other filings.
And found 2 other non-existent cites.
The attorney admitted fault.
(Rule #1: “Own it.”)
The attorney’s explanation was he had used AI for document drafting and didn’t know AI could “hallucinate” case cites.
The attorney reported taking CLE on AI.
Quoting the Court:
“Courts have consistently held that failing to check the treatment and soundness—let alone the existence—of a case warrants sanctions.”
“The arrival of modern legal research tools implementing features such as Westlaw’s KeyCite and Lexis’s Shephardization has enabled attorneys to easily fulfill this basic duty. There is simply no reason for an attorney to fail to fulfill this obligation. Such has been the view for decades: ‘It is really inexcusable for any lawyer to fail, as a matter of routine, to Shepardize all cited cases (a process that has been made much simpler today than it was in the past, given the facility for doing so under Westlaw or LEXIS).’
It is one thing to use AI to assist with initial research, and even non-legal AI
programs may provide a helpful 30,000-foot view. It is an entirely different thing, however, to rely on the output of a generative AI program without verifying the current treatment or validity—or, indeed, the very existence—of the case presented. Confirming a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something to be expected from a practicing attorney. As noted in the case of an expert witness, an individual’s ‘citation to fake, AI-generated sources . . . shatters his credibility.'”
??? ?????????
The magistrate judge recommended a $15,000 fine ($5,000 per cite), which is subject to objection, rejection, modification, etc.
The magistrate judge also referred the attorney to the Court’s Chief Judge for consideration of further discipline. (That appears to be a “done” deal, not a recommendation.)
??? ??????
This appears to be the first case in which an attorney who “owned” filing a brief with un-checked AI-hallucinated cites has been referred for consideration of discipline.
The situation just got serious.
? What do you think?
*****
? I’m Jeff Bazinet, lawyer by day, soccer coach by night.
This post is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.
I am not your lawyer (unless we have a signed retainer agreement).
The next-level of discipline in fake AI cite cases is here.
(Cue Ice Cube’s “Check Yo Self.”)
It seems like all I write about lately is cases involving AI-generated legal case cites.
This is the latest.
Indiana.
Federal court.
Cook County Treasurer , 773 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014)
Doesn’t exist.
(You knew that.)
A magistrate judge caught it.
And told the attorney to explain.
The attorney apologized and withdrew the cite.
The judge did a “non-exhaustive review” of 2 other filings.
And found 2 other non-existent cites.
The attorney admitted fault.
(Rule #1: “Own it.”)
The attorney’s explanation was he had used AI for document drafting and didn’t know AI could “hallucinate” case cites.
The attorney reported taking CLE on AI.
Quoting the Court:
“Courts have consistently held that failing to check the treatment and soundness—let alone the existence—of a case warrants sanctions.”
“The arrival of modern legal research tools implementing features such as Westlaw’s KeyCite and Lexis’s Shephardization has enabled attorneys to easily fulfill this basic duty. There is simply no reason for an attorney to fail to fulfill this obligation. Such has been the view for decades: ‘It is really inexcusable for any lawyer to fail, as a matter of routine, to Shepardize all cited cases (a process that has been made much simpler today than it was in the past, given the facility for doing so under Westlaw or LEXIS).’
It is one thing to use AI to assist with initial research, and even non-legal AI
programs may provide a helpful 30,000-foot view. It is an entirely different thing, however, to rely on the output of a generative AI program without verifying the current treatment or validity—or, indeed, the very existence—of the case presented. Confirming a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something to be expected from a practicing attorney. As noted in the case of an expert witness, an individual’s ‘citation to fake, AI-generated sources . . . shatters his credibility.'”
??? ?????????
The magistrate judge recommended a $15,000 fine ($5,000 per cite), which is subject to objection, rejection, modification, etc.
The magistrate judge also referred the attorney to the Court’s Chief Judge for consideration of further discipline. (That appears to be a “done” deal, not a recommendation.)
??? ??????
This appears to be the first case in which an attorney who “owned” filing a brief with un-checked AI-hallucinated cites has been referred for consideration of discipline.
The situation just got serious.
? What do you think?
*****
? I’m Jeff Bazinet, lawyer by day, soccer coach by night.
This post is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.
I am not your lawyer (unless we have a signed retainer agreement).