Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Remote
  • Global
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Remote
  • Global
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Wandering Adventure Party Logo
  1. Home
  2. General Discussion
  3. "Artificial intelligence (AI)" and the law thread 🧵

"Artificial intelligence (AI)" and the law thread 🧵

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
1 Cross-posts 22 Posts 1 Posters 3 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • JonathanJ Jonathan

    _CEO Asks ChatGPT How to Void $250 Million Contract, Ignores His Lawyers, Loses Terribly in Court_
    https://www.404media.co/ceo-ignores-lawyers-asks-chatgpt-how-to-void-250-million-contract-loses-terribly-in-court/

    JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
    JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
    Jonathan
    wrote on last edited by
    #13

    Third case about a lawyer reprimanded for fake cases in their factum, likely because of the use of artificial intelligence.

    https://www.crookston.ca/wp/2026/03/12/false-quotes-fake-citations-and-artificial-intelligence/

    JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • JonathanJ Jonathan

      Third case about a lawyer reprimanded for fake cases in their factum, likely because of the use of artificial intelligence.

      https://www.crookston.ca/wp/2026/03/12/false-quotes-fake-citations-and-artificial-intelligence/

      JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
      JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
      Jonathan
      wrote on last edited by
      #14

      Added a fourth to that page.

      Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285.

      JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • JonathanJ Jonathan

        Added a fourth to that page.

        Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285.

        JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
        JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
        Jonathan
        wrote on last edited by
        #15

        Wait a second, I may have just taken on a second job.

        i just searched "artificial intelligence" and hallucination, and 138 results popped up.

        The majority are not articles about the topic but actual cases where the decision maker has made comments that the cases before it are hallucinated.

        Edit: Upon review, the vast majority are self-represented people using AI. That they do so is not helpful, but at least understandable. I won't be focussing on these cases here.

        JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • JonathanJ Jonathan

          Wait a second, I may have just taken on a second job.

          i just searched "artificial intelligence" and hallucination, and 138 results popped up.

          The majority are not articles about the topic but actual cases where the decision maker has made comments that the cases before it are hallucinated.

          Edit: Upon review, the vast majority are self-represented people using AI. That they do so is not helpful, but at least understandable. I won't be focussing on these cases here.

          JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
          JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
          Jonathan
          wrote on last edited by
          #16

          It is very clear from the sheer volume of such decisions that the courts and tribunals are getting absolutely PUMMELLED with this garbage.

          JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • JonathanJ Jonathan

            It is very clear from the sheer volume of such decisions that the courts and tribunals are getting absolutely PUMMELLED with this garbage.

            JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
            JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
            Jonathan
            wrote on last edited by
            #17

            A federal judge just disqualified both parties' lawyers from practicing before the courts for 2 years. They were also each fined about $3,000.

            Each side had used "artificial intelligence" to generate their materials and the materials were full of fake cases. Good times.

            https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-rules-both-sides-lawsuit-misused-ai-disqualifies-lawyers-2026-06-09/

            JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • JonathanJ Jonathan

              A federal judge just disqualified both parties' lawyers from practicing before the courts for 2 years. They were also each fined about $3,000.

              Each side had used "artificial intelligence" to generate their materials and the materials were full of fake cases. Good times.

              https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-rules-both-sides-lawsuit-misused-ai-disqualifies-lawyers-2026-06-09/

              JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
              JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
              Jonathan
              wrote on last edited by
              #18

              "Aycock barred the lawyers on each side who either used AI for legal research or for drafting the filings at issue — Kathleen Wilson and Kathryn Williams — from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. Wilson was fined $2,500, and Williams was fined $3,500."

              JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • JonathanJ Jonathan

                "Aycock barred the lawyers on each side who either used AI for legal research or for drafting the filings at issue — Kathleen Wilson and Kathryn Williams — from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. Wilson was fined $2,500, and Williams was fined $3,500."

                JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
                JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
                Jonathan
                wrote on last edited by
                #19

                We just tested* a legal LLM and at least about 1 3rd of the cases it returned were not relevant to the question or the cases did not exist.

                I tested it filing in citations only and it seemed to do that reasonably well but it still got two wrong. This was just looking up the actual citations of a case with a given name.

                (Edit: *I should clarify that this thing came bundled in another service we already have. So this is not a service we sought out. It was shoved into my face.)

                JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • JonathanJ Jonathan

                  We just tested* a legal LLM and at least about 1 3rd of the cases it returned were not relevant to the question or the cases did not exist.

                  I tested it filing in citations only and it seemed to do that reasonably well but it still got two wrong. This was just looking up the actual citations of a case with a given name.

                  (Edit: *I should clarify that this thing came bundled in another service we already have. So this is not a service we sought out. It was shoved into my face.)

                  JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  Jonathan
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #20

                  This appears to be a huge waste of time and money and energy and this isn't anything I would pay for.

                  I think I've pointed out elsewhere that when I ran a search in the AI search box versus the regular search box, I basically got the same results back.

                  I presume the tests that they run these things against are tailored to produce great results and that's how they conclude that they're operating at a PhD level. Because it's giving me garbage.

                  JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • JonathanJ Jonathan

                    This appears to be a huge waste of time and money and energy and this isn't anything I would pay for.

                    I think I've pointed out elsewhere that when I ran a search in the AI search box versus the regular search box, I basically got the same results back.

                    I presume the tests that they run these things against are tailored to produce great results and that's how they conclude that they're operating at a PhD level. Because it's giving me garbage.

                    JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    Jonathan
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #21

                    I just asked CoPilot to check names of cases and provide me with links as a test. After six queries, it made two lists, one “confirmed CanLII links” and the second unconfirmed but likely links.

                    The very first item on the “confirmed” link was incorrect.

                    Its output:

                    "Clean master list of CanLII links

                    Confirmed CanLII URLs

                    Animal House Investments Inc. v. Lisgar Development Ltd. (2007), 2007 CanLII 82794 (ON SC): https://canlii.ca/t/1x827"

                    JonathanJ 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • JonathanJ Jonathan

                      I just asked CoPilot to check names of cases and provide me with links as a test. After six queries, it made two lists, one “confirmed CanLII links” and the second unconfirmed but likely links.

                      The very first item on the “confirmed” link was incorrect.

                      Its output:

                      "Clean master list of CanLII links

                      Confirmed CanLII URLs

                      Animal House Investments Inc. v. Lisgar Development Ltd. (2007), 2007 CanLII 82794 (ON SC): https://canlii.ca/t/1x827"

                      JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      JonathanJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      Jonathan
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #22

                      Of the about 9 cases it said it could not find citations for, I found 6.

                      This is basic, basic work right here. Not even research. And this thing cannot do it.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      0
                      • Pteryx the Puzzle SecretaryP Pteryx the Puzzle Secretary shared this topic on
                      • KichaeK Kichae crossposted this topicto General on
                      • KichaeK Kichae moved this topic from World

                      Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                      Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                      With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                      Register Login
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post