133
New Mexico lawyer fined for using AI-generated brief containing fabricated testimony (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

You didn't read the article.

He's being referred to a disciplinary committee. He will probably get a suspension for a period.

Also why should the defendant of the case have the case thrown out because of the attorney's conduct?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (11 children)

    Because they hired that attorney? They should have to start over and hire a different attorney. They can sue the original attorney if they didn’t know anything about the deception.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    lol, you: he should have to suffer grave criminal punishment because his lawyer showed a lack of ethical behavior

    You really have not thought this through

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Starting over because you had flawed representation is hardly a punishment.

    He should start over because he can hire someone who is actually competent this time. It's basically a do-over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

    You really understand nothing but act so confidently. Learn to experience empathy and read deeply into subjects before commenting. You know, like Chairman Mao says to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    I think someone who accidentally hires a shitty lawyer should get a do-over. What's wrong with that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    You pay for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    So your solution is that he doesn't get a second chance?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Why is it my responsibility to remake the legal system? What is you plan to make it more just?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    Giving him a second chance makes it more just!

    And he can sue his bad lawyer for bad representation too, since this is legal malpractice.

    But you seem to want... what? That he doesn't get a second chance? He's just fucked?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I don’t want anything. That’s a strange assertion.

    The fact is that he has lost a ton of money here and the judges will be prejudiced against him. This is all the fault of the lawyer but the case will continue. Whatever damages he can get later he’s still fucked now and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    And he can sue his own lawyer for bad representation. That's allowed.

    Yet you seem to be against this, but are offering literally no alternative. Yeah, hiring a lawyer costs money. You know what costs more money? Being legally liable because your lawyer was disbarred for malpractice and you couldn't replace him!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •