This time, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Wilner in California found himself reading a legal brief packed with citations and quotations that—surprise!—didn’t exist. The culprits? Two law firms, including BigLaw heavyweight K&L Gates, collectively earned themselves $31,000 in court-imposed sanctions for filing a brief that relied on generative AI without fact-checking the results.
In a sharply worded ruling, Judge Wilner condemned the “undisclosed outsourcing” of legal research to tools like Google Gemini and Westlaw Precision’s AI. His reaction captured the gravity of the situation: “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist… That’s scary.”
The AI-generated citations first appeared in a draft created by one firm using Gemini and Westlaw’s CoCounsel feature. K&L Gates filter that unverified draft in court—apparently without anyone checking the references. When the judge requested clarification, the resubmitted brief only contained more fake citations. Cue the Order to Show Cause and a parade of sworn statements admitting to the AI reliance.
Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. We’ve seen similar cases with lawyers in New York and even former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who famously cited bogus case law after mistaking Bard (now Gemini) for a legal search engine.
The lesson is clear: AI might be shiny and fast, but it’s not a substitute for competent legal research. As Judge Wilner bluntly put it: “No reasonably competent attorney should outsource research and writing” to an AI without careful review.
And yet, here we are—again.
source: The Verge
Leave a Reply