There needs to be a rule that anyone who does this should be immediately disbarred
post
Last I checked, submitting false testimony was a crime. If these lawyer stop getting slaps on the wrist, the slop legal work will stop.
It seems whatever actions courts are taking, it's not enough if it keeps happening.
Aarons was sanctioned $5,000
How much do lawyers charge to defend a murder charge? I'm guessing a lot more than that.
This is before the Bar association does something to him.
I did some digging, and it looks like the courts are the ones issuing all the fines. Couldn't find much in the way of disbarrments.
Probably because State Bar actions are currently happening
“It's little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon,” New Mexico attorney Stephen D. Aarons said in a hearing last month before five judges. He “assumed” ChatGPT would generate a “bulletproof summary of proceedings.” Instead, ChatGPT generated false testimony from “wholly fabricated witnesses,” according to an order of direct contempt from the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Aarons’ reasoning for trusting ChatGPT, he said in the August hearing, was that he’d heard of doctors using AI for medical research.
Some people are smart enough to be a lawyer yet still really fucking stupid.
I had to check the date of the article to make sure it was recent. How a lawyer hasn't heard of the several times other lawyers have had issues with ChatGPT I have no idea. There's no way this guy didn't perjure himself be feigning ignorance. I feel like the bar needs to send out a written notice requiring some kind of acknowledgment to all lawyers so they can no longer claim ignorance if this happens to them.
In a quote in the article, one of the judges even points this out to him rather harshly.
“So, Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world?” one of the judges asked Aarons. “Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day.”
....
“So, either you buried your head in the sand. And that's a choice to do that. An intentional choice to be uninformed,” the judge continued to Aarons. “Or, you took a gamble. And neither of those are consistent with the code of conduct. So I'm really struggling with your response, saying, ‘Well, I didn't understand. I didn't know about hallucinations.’ My 13-year-old nephew knows about hallucinations. My 75-year-old stepmother knows about hallucinations. So, either you made a decision not to be aware of what's happening in the world in using this tool appropriately, which is a willful choice. Or you decided to roll the dice.”
The article also provides links to five other cases where lawyers used an LLM and filed AI hallucinations as fact. This bozo is clearly in the find out phase.
You can claim ignorance for breaking the law?
If you’re one of the people tasked with enforcing the law, then yes you are not expected to know it. If you are a mere citizen, then you are expected to know the law inside and out.
In theory, no. In practice, yes. I think it's generally fine for people to be able to use discretion in a lot of cases. That discretion is not always evenly applied, but there are plenty of laws that the average person doesn't know and has no reason to even think about. I'd rather live in a world where the justice system is able to give people leniency and the benefit of the doubt than otherwise. If one of your brake lights is out it's possible you have no idea. Technically it's illegal to be driving. Most people would agree that it's a good thing that you can be given a warning or something instead of have to face the same penalty as a person knowingly driving with the same issue.
You very explicitly cannot. The judge may take it into account when sentencing though.
Yeah I heard of a case like this at least a year ago. I was wondering if we were reposting an old article, but no. That makes it worse, and explains the judge's reaction.
Using AI for medical research probably doesn't mean using a publicly available chat bot.
AI is already being used for writing faux papers in journals, stem and medical ones. its just now they are getting caught. even using it for "medical scans" is highly suspect and likely wont see the light of day. a version of its being used in dental scans already by some.
There are ways that LLMs are being used in science, AND a human mind needs to vet those findings for validity. smh.
Aarons’ reasoning for trusting ChatGPT, he said in the August hearing, was that he’d heard of doctors using AI for medical research.
I don't think the AI being used in medical research is ChatGPT (or any LLM for that matter), but if they are then that's concerning... He's still a dumbass though.
According to the order, the judges found Aarons to be in direct contempt of court, referred him to the Disciplinary Board for further consideration, and barred from appearing before the court pending the outcome of the board’s investigation. They also threw him off the case in question and assigned a public defender to his former client.
If they don't feel the consequences themselves, lawyers will just continue to use LLMs to do their research.
This is another example why we need LLMs to be required to cite sources.
In the past, I've advocated for people to not use AI. I think I've changed my mind just now.
Everyone should be required to use AI - that way, we can see how stupid they are when they don't check it.
Aarons said he hadn’t told his client directly that he was caught using ChatGPT on the case because he’s currently serving life in prison.
He got called out on this by the judge, too.
I use AI for some of the documents i create
I also read and iterate on what it writes
Don't trust the hallucination machine
Think he saw this ai summary and got all excited like, look at all this evidence in support of reasonable doubt for my client's guilt! Guess the previous defense just ignored all this obviously helpful witness testimony for some reason...
At least he was only using it for a low stakes case: the guy was found guilty of murder and is now in prison for life.
Just wait till the judges also run AI for their end of it. The AI slop might get green lit / rubber stamps.
Legal Eagle - Law Slop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTi3IZDrZC4
Judges already are. Some of them are putting out case law that's just as bad. Judges, cops, lawyers, anyone putting AI slop into the legal system need to be sanctioned, disbarred, or jailed. This is going to destroy an already weak legal system.
I understand using LLMs or other machine learning tools to help summarize or write documents. It's just another way of making your work easier. But ultimately, the human using it is responsible for the output. If the human isn't at least making sure all of the facts are real, then they obviously don't know enough about the tools to use them properly, and that is malpractice.
Lawyers obviously need to read journals and continuing education to keep up on changes in the law. How have they not heard about this type of thing before? It started day one with these LLMs.
I think it's even dangerous and irresponsible even to use them as summarisation and document "assist" tools, especially where someone's life could literally be on the line. No matter how careful you think you are, these things do not understand anything and will inject hallucinations or incorrect interpretations into summaries, influencing the user's judgement in ways they can't predict. And because they present their output in a seemingly professional, neutral way, the user won't know when they're being misled.
It really depends on how you use it.
If you say "give me all the page numbers that use violent language" in a huge library of texts, then that'll likely get you some good information. You can also skim the document yourself before or after to see if anything else needs to be looked for.
If you say "what does this stack of documents say?" that will likely get you bad information.
There's also other types of Machine Learning that is used in document review for lawyers, some of them are trained to look for very specific items.
I cerainly hope he is removed from the bar for this. I'm shocked he wasn't held in contempt.
Lawyers getting caught using AI and submitting errors to the court has been a big problem for years
It wouldn't be a big problem if the unreliability of LLMs were part of ongoing professional development, use of LLMs without thorough fact checking was clearly barred by professional ethics, and lawyers were immediately disbarred for presenting false evidence if it came from an LLM.
It remains a "big" problem because it isn't big enough for anyone to do anything about it, beyond criticizing and ridiculing lawyers who do it.
no comments (yet)