Call us now:
Well worth reading if you use AI as your golden source of knowledge, especially as in this instance, you are in the legal profession. Demonstrated by the enclosed court document filled by Judge Nia Wang last week against lawyers from law firm McSweeney Cynkar and Kachouroff, who are defending My Pillow CEO.Judge Wang identified nearly ‘thirty defective citations in the Opposition, including but are not limited to misquotes of cited cases; misrepresentations of principles of law associated with cited cases, including discussions of legal principles that simply do not appear within such decisions; misstatements regarding whether case law originated from a binding authority such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; misattributions of case law to this District; and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist.’The attorneys who signed the filling, were unable to answer why the filing was so full of errors. In one instance citing a case that did not exist. One is not a lawyer, but it appears that by presenting the document the lawyer signed it under obligations to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (quoted in the article), AKA it is factually correct. (https://lnkd.in/e49WztDU)The case will be one to watch to see if the court can be convinced that the number of errors can be explained, and what the court decide to do about it.Here in lies the challenge with using AI. AI is not yet good enough to replace human beings for complex tasks. There’s always a need to have a person in the process to validate its output (for which the AI will reason and learn). A requirement that the legal industry is grappling with as this is not the first case (it won’t be the last) when AI is used for filings that are picked up as being inaccurate.@Thaddeus Dziekanowski Brian D. McCarthy Faisal Khan Rachel V. Rose, JD, MBA https://lnkd.in/eCrw9U62
View Original Post
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3AugcPost%3A7322593408202510336