Lawyer fined $15,000 for using fake AI-generated legal precedents
A lawyer who used AI to generate documents in a lawsuit, resulting in him citing a non-existent legal precedent, has been ordered to pay a total of $15,000 in fines.
sanctionsrr.pdf
(PDF file)
Texas Atty Dinged For AI-Generated Fake Citations In Briefs - Law360 Pulse
https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/2301530/texas-atty-dinged-for-ai-generated-fake-citations-in-briefs
Lawyer faces $15,000 fine for using fake AI-generated cases in court filing | TechSpot
https://www.techspot.com/news/106915-lawyer-faces-15000-fine-using-ai-generated-fake.html
In October 2024, attorney Rafael Ramirez, who represented a company called HooserVac LLC in a lawsuit over severance pay, filed three briefs in opposition to the court's decision.
However, it appears that some of the past court cases cited in the document did not actually exist.
When the court was unable to verify the case reference and asked Ramirez for an explanation, he admitted to using a generative AI tool to draft the document and apologized, saying he was unaware that AI could generate false information and believed the generated text to be reliable.
Federal District Judge Mark J. Dinsmore found Ramirez negligent because Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 require that an attorney attest to the accuracy of the information he or she presents. He recommended a fine of $5,000 for each brief, totaling $15,000, stating, 'Citing legal precedents appropriately in a brief is a fundamental duty of an attorney, and failure to fulfill this duty is unjustifiable.'
The amount of $5,000 per letter was based on a similar case that occurred in the past. In 2023, lawyer Stephen Schwartz, who represented passengers on an airplane, used ChatGPT to prepare documents and submitted them to the court without reviewing the contents. Schwartz was ordered to pay a fine of $5,000 in this case.
In recommending a total penalty of $15,000, Judge Dinsmore wrote, 'While these are among the largest penalties ever imposed, I am forced to conclude that the existing sanctions were insufficient given Mr. Ramirez's publicly-declared ignorance about the properties of AI.'
Judge Dinsmore added, 'I am not saying that AI is inherently bad, or that lawyers should be banned from using it. Just as a handy chainsaw can be potentially dangerous, one must understand the tools they are using and use them with care. It goes without saying that AI must be used in accordance with a lawyer's ethical and professional obligations.'
Ramirez has since taken legal education courses on the use of AI and continues to use AI tools.
Related Posts:
in Software, Posted by log1p_kr