I think many commenters here are unaware of exactly how forehead-slappingly WTF it is that these lawyers did. Even if ChatGPT were replaced with a well respected human legal expert saying exactly the same things, they still cited case law that they couldn't verify the existence of, let alone that the context of the ruling was actually helpful to their cause.

Then when a judge told them "hey, we can't find any of these cases, what the hell is going on?" they doubled down. They're basically saying "trust me bro, these rulings totally happened and they totally say we're right".