Ready to cross another milestone on the legal profession’s march into slop? Too bad! Because we’re already here. We’ve had lawyers citing fake cases excreted from generative AI without ever learning their lesson for a while now, but these errors get quickly caught by opposing counsel. The problem jumped the firebreak when a Georgia judge signed off on an order based on fake cases that didn’t get fixed until it reached a very grumpy appellate court. Now, for the first time, we have a federal judge clawing back his own opinion over fake citations.
The words “AI” aren’t being used, but… you know.
Bloomberg Law’s Justin Henry reported yesterday that Judge Julien Xavier Neals of the District of New Jersey — fresh off replacing Alina Habba and triggering a nascent constitutional crisis — withdrew his June 30 order in the CorMedix securities lawsuit after lawyers pointed out a few case cites that were just plain wrong:
Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Andrew Lichtman, who represents CorMedix, wrote Neals on Tuesday, telling the judge he may want to “consider whether amendment or any other action should be taken” in regard to errors he made in his June 30 decision. Lawyers in a separate case earlier this month also pointed out flaws in Neals’ CorMedix opinion, saying it “contains pervasive and material inaccuracies.”
It doesn’t seem as though there are any fake cases or even necessarily wrong conclusions of law. But there are mistakes and misquotes. The judge quoted Dang v. Amarin Corp. calling executives’ behavior “classic evidence of scienter.” And while that case does delve into scienter, the precise quote isn’t there. Same with a quote about an Intelligroup case, citing “false statements in their own right” despite that line not being present either. Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v. Verizon is cited as a Southern District of New York case even though it’s from New Jersey.
Ah, Jersey people… always trying to pretend they’re from New York.
Lichtman’s letter also noted that the opinion attributes two quotes to CorMedix the company is not alleged to have made. He noted in his letter to Neals, however, that he was not requesting reconsideration of the opinion.
But, like, he was requesting reconsideration of the opinion.
Unfortunately, the mistakes have already broken contain. Outlook Therapeutics shareholders litigating a different, related case already cited the now-withdrawn order as persuasive precedent. The hallucinations are burrowing their way into the record. Common law gets messy when mistakes are allowed to compound across the system. We can’t have district court judges just making up fake stuff… that’s expressly reserved for the Supreme Court.
Judge Withdraws Pharma Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up Quotes [Bloomberg Law News]
Earlier: For The Love Of All That Is Holy, Stop Blaming ChatGPT For This Bad Brief
Trial Court Decides Case Based On AI-Hallucinated Caselaw
Mike Lindell Lawyers Earn Pillow-Soft Sanction After Letting AI Do The Thinking