Hacker News Reader

Comment by dimmke | Hacker News Reader

Penalty?! He should be disbarred.

what sorts of errors do you think a lawyer should be able to make without risking disbarment?

Missing a deadline, failing to realize that a case existed that was applicable, misreading forms, etc... Mistakes/errors are one thing.

But submitting cases that don't exist, and then doubling down and saying that they do? There's layers of incompetence and apathy that had to happen here to get to this point, from using a tool without researching it at all (any research into ChatGPT as a legal aid would bring up warnings), to ignoring the warnings that OpenAI itself provides, to not checking the work that tool spit out (seriously, it's not hard to validate that these rulings don't exist), to being told that the cases don't exist and then repeating the entire process...

It's not just they made a mistake, the way they made the mistake reveals how little care they are putting into the research they're doing. The only way this could happen is if ChatGPT was the only source this lawyer was using. Because any other source: fact checker, Internet search, etc... should have noticed either that the cases didn't exist or should have at least prompted "why is it that these cases only show up in ChatGPT and not in any of the other sources I'm looking at?"

I don't know that they should obviously be disbarred, but I would have thought that it should at least be on the table. Massive levels of incompetence can be grounds for disbarment I believe. Whether this lawyer acted incompetently enough? :shrug: But we are talking about incompetence here, not just a mistake/error. If the takeaway for this lawyer from the penalties is just "now I know not to rely on ChatGPT", then that's not really addressing the problems that led to this situation in the first place.

I would like to be assured that when I hire a lawyer they do not send obvious bullshit to the court on my behalf.

What this lawyer did was simply to not do his job. It doesn't even rise to the level of incompetence.

For a lawyer, not doing the job one has been paid for is not just incompetence, it's considered malpractice.

In this case, the original malpractice of failing to check the falsified cites was compounded by submitting falsified opinions to the court (in support of the falsified cites), which is fraud and would be criminal in most states. It's blatantly obvious that he used ChatGPT to generate falsified opinions to try and cover up his original fuck-up after traditional means of verification (i.e., using a legal database like LexisNexis or Westlaw) failed to substantiate any of the ChatGPT cites he originally submitted.

In most states, this lawyer would be disbarred, or at the very least suspended for many months, for this sort of conduct. This lawyer should consider himself lucky that the court hasn't yet entertained referring this case to the NY DOJ for criminal prosecution.

"Causes of disbarment may include: a felony involving moral turpitude, forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to clients, alcoholism or drug abuse which affect the attorney's ability to practice"

This was definitely an attempt at forgery and fraud. It might not be something that can be prosecuted as a felony, but it's close enough that if I was a member of the bar I would want to draw a firm line.

Surely in order to be an attempt at forgery and fraud the lawyer would have to have known the cases were fake?

First of all, I think it's reasonable to start with the assumption that a case is fake until you validate that it is real.

Secondly, that's a ridiculous place to put the goal post. He didn't write the argument he submitted. He didn't even do basic vetting of it. It's fraudulent because he submitted work as his own that he didn't do, it's negligent because he didn't verify that the work was actually good before submitting it on behalf of his client.

He was put on notices that the citations (and thus the cases) were fake when the opposing counsel informed him they couldn't substantiate any of the citations.

Why?

Because he used AI to fabricate case law. Imagine if you're on the other end of this case, and the opposing lawyers are creating citations to help support their case and create a strong argument (or worse, use a fabricate case as precedent). This has real-world impact. Sure, use AI to assist but check the work!

If I'm a lawyer, I hope that my opponent fabricates cases.

Judges don't generally take kindly to that kind of thing, and that is only going to help my side.

Aside from that, it seems pretty trivial to prove that the cases don't exist. Here's a guy on YouTube talking about the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExSDY6Wz9Y

I was aware of the mechanical reason, thanks.

What I am interested in is: Errors will be made by any professional, and so, lawyers. Why would this one justify a call for disbarment? I was hoping for a little more than the hobbyist lawyer tv show vibes I was getting.

It’s “Qualified Immunity” for lawyers. Your literal job is to know not to do this, “Oops got caught don’t do this again” basically means zero consequences.

I look forward to everyone else going through this courtroom get benefits from the “your first time caught lying to this court is free” policy.

It wasn’t intentional so it’s not exactly lying

Bullshit. If it is your job to check these things and get it right, “Not looking into it” is just laundering responsibility for not checking, especially when caught and then doubling down.

He didn’t check his work and delivered literally pure bullshit.

Literally?

It's a correct use of literally, the actual dictionary definition has been changed. You'll have to find a new thing to be pedantic about

It's a correct use of literally, but I think the change to the dictionary definition is in error. It's simply an example of hyperbole, which is a thing you can do with any word.

It's not a hyperbole lmao. Now you get to be the one who is pedantically corrected for no reason

I wasn't correcting you. I was agreeing with you. I was correcting the dictionaries that have (IMO) got it wrong. Now, in this paragraph, I am correcting you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> It's not a hyperbole lmao.

I disagree, obviously, but perhaps an explanation is in order so that we can be sure we're talking about the same thing (and give you something more specific to argue against if you still disagree).

The difference between "X is Y" and "X is literally Y", when both expressions are figurative, is that the latter is meant to be strengthened by overstating the degree to which X is in fact Y. I contend that this is a hyperbolic use of "literally".

I’m loving this.

Happy to entertain! Obviously some people are annoyed by the whole thing but I find it interesting picking apart what's going on with our words.

Lmao, you got caught erroneously trolling somebody and now double down?

Did you respond to the wrong comment, or confuse me for someone else? The comment you replied to was my only one in this thread, so if neither of those then I have (ahem) literally no idea what you're on about.

even being pedantic, it's literally bullshit:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bullshit

bullshit

noun

nonsense, lies, or exaggeration.

I’m not making a claim that it is “objectively incorrect”. I am merely attempting to discourage this kind of usage, because I this it is a better course for language for it to not be used in this way.

(Also, whether it is included in dictionaries doesn’t really matter as to “correctnesss”. All words are real words.)

This discussion really brightens my day. Only on HN.

Edit: I remember I’m (literally) supposed to be annoyed at this. You all dare to question my intelligence, don’t you?

I wish you the best of luck tilting at that windmill

Your comment made my day, literally!

Defending an obviously incorrect usage by pointing to “the” “dictionary” is rather more pedantic.

I think it makes some sense to avoid this specific thing though because it can cause confusion

It makes sense to avoid it when there's any chance of confusion, much like any other construction. I don't see that that meaningfully motivates avoiding it in circumstances where there is no chance of confusion.

It confused nobody, it's not actually confusing it just triggers a certain type of person to be pedantic and annoying

I guess I meant to emphasize the fact that while they usually bullshit, they do so in a structured and generally acceptable way. In this case he (literally) rolled the dice and delivered what the tea leaves (literally) told him to.

Fraudulent court filings?

A head on a stick has a way of sending a message that the villages idiot sitting in the stocks doesn’t.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com