Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeroenhd | Hacker News Reader

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 to say they disagree with the judge?

Levidow, Levidow & Oberman must either be run by fools or take the rest of the world for fools.

I can understand how the rubber stamping lawyer signing all the paperwork got off easy; he was just signing documents because the lawyer who supposedly did all the work for the case couldn't operate in the court the case was transfered to.

The other lawyer, the one who did the AI equivalent from copy pasting from the summary page of Google, should not be deemed fit to practice law.

View on HN

> 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.

The real punishment is this decision, laying out a record of Keystone-Cops-level buffoonery, dishonesty, and lying. Laying all that out in a published decision, in a case that's receiving a fair amount of interest, which means that the decision will be all over the internet.

This isn't going to go away. This decision will dog them for the entire rest of their careers.

> This isn't going to go away. This decision will dog them for the entire rest of their careers.

I get the impression from the events leading up to the use of GPT this is not the first time their competence led to outcomes that will "dog them for the entire rest of their careers."

> 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.

I thought the judge said he couldn't force them to do that because it wouldn't be sincere.

Whether or they choose to apologize, they do have to send letters that include a copy of the transcript of the hearing on sanctions and the sanctions order.

"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."

They'll probably just have ChatGPT write their apologies for them.

Dear Client,

As an AI language model...

You have been a bad lawyer.

I have been a good Bing.

What is even better is this attorney - who relied on ChatGPT for research - when called to task to provide the legal opinions....couldn't even get the affidavit right.

"The April 25 affidavit was filed in response to the Orders of April 11 and 12, 2023, but is sworn to before a Notary Public on the 25th of January 2023. Mr. LoDuca should be prepared to address this anomaly on June 8, 2023 and bring with him a wet-ink signed copy of the affidavit with the notary’s signature and stamp."

> 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.)

a reference from the judge and the bar just knowing about it are very different.

No one is going to be disbarred over this, disbarment is a very high bar to clear. You have to extort your client or take some other brazenly malicious or illegal action.

> 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?

Well, no, they also have to right letters and attach the sanctions order, and the transcript of the sanctions hearing to:

(1) their client in the case, and

(2) each of the real judges to whom they (on the basis of ChatGPT “research”) falsely attributed a decision.

But, yes, sanctions are fairly light (particularly the absence of a disciplinary referral).

> I can understand how the rubber stamping lawyer signing all the paperwork got off easy; he was just signing documents because the lawyer who supposedly did all the work for the case couldn't operate in the court the case was transfered to.

> The other lawyer, the one who did the AI equivalent from copy pasting from the summary page of Google, should not be deemed fit to practice law.

They both failed their duty in nearly identical ways; passing of someone else’s work to which they did not apply independent professional analysis as their professional work. If anything, the one doing so directly to the court should be more, not less, liable to outside sanction (if the issue was sanctions within the firm, that’s a different story, maybe.)

I don’t the the absence of a formal disciplinary referral means much when the judge understands the amount of publicity from this is itself a referral.

>They both failed their duty in nearly identical ways

Once they showed up in court, one of them was unable to explain how to interpret a very basic "you should know this to practice law" case citation ("F.3d"[1]). Not only did they not "apply independent professional analysis" it seems they were woefully unprepared to even produce such a thing.

[1]: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM?t=1526

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

Leonard French does a pretty good breakdown too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YaGACnJpg

> 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

Sorry to be cynical, but this sounds like they delegated their defense to AI as well... in the near future this kind of argument will probably work in a lot of contexts.

God help us when it helps in court.

Imagine if your only responsibility is to check the work of someone deemed untrustworthy, to protect everyone else from their malice or incompetence, and you just skip doing that and lie and say you did it.

Why should you get off easy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com