Large language models were one reason multiple pro se trials where people believe they can represent themselves with the help of artificial intelligence. For actual lawyers, you’d expect better, but it turns out you’d be wrong. As 404 Media first reported, a Mississippi judge recently dropped a case and sanctioned lawyers Presenting court documents filled with artificial intelligence from both sides.
The case was a dispute between attorney Tom Withers and the city of Aberdeen, Mississippi, which Withers claimed was owed unpaid attorney fees. Withers wasn’t representing himself, but maybe he was in his hindsight, because his representation decided to use artificial intelligence to research the case and create the documents presented to the judge. According to a court documentTwo attorneys representing Withers admitted they did not verify any AI-generated data before submitting theirs.
It’s not great, but it gets worse because the lawyers representing the city of Aberdeen also used artificial intelligence, meaning professional lawyers basically wasted everyone’s time by forcing LLMs to argue against each other.
As you can imagine, the judge in the case wasn’t exactly thrilled with the whole situation. US Chief Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi took the dramatic step of suspending the proceedings altogether and canceling the trial for the time being, while firing all four attorneys involved in the case. Two of those lawyers — one from each side, both of whom admitted to using artificial intelligence tools to prepare their documents — will be barred from appearing in court for two years. All of the lawyers involved faced fines ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 for simply failing to verify the information in the application or for producing documents with AI hallucinated quotes.
“This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario – attorneys for both plaintiffs engaging in similarly sanctionable conduct,” Aycock said. wrote in the sanction order. “This court is again burdened with dealing with court cases involving ‘artificial intelligence hallucinations.'”
The AI problem has hit courts across the country hard, troubling judges who find themselves tasked with scrutinizing lawyers’ work to make sure some completely hallucinatory quotes aren’t accidentally incorporated into actual legal precedent. Legal researcher Damien Charlotin took it upon himself to track down every instance of AI-generated citations in legal documents, and so far documented a staggering 1,598 cases until now. If you’re a lawyer, help Charlotin by not using AI in your work. It’s the least you can do.
