Sometimes a legal controversy begets another legal controversy.
In today’s column, I’ll be examining a kind of spinoff legal hullabaloo that pertains to AI and our courts. Allow me to set the stage by first indicating the original legal controversy. I’ll then showcase the latest legal controversy that seems to have arisen correspondingly.
The spinoff arose as a result of last week’s blaring headlines about two attorneys that overly relied upon generative AI and ChatGPT for their legal case, getting themselves into hot water for how they did so, see my coverage at the link here. In short, the generative AI when used for legal research by the lawyers concocted legal cases that don’t exist or that were misstated by the AI. The lawyers included the material in their formal filings with the court. This is a no-no since attorneys are duty-bound to present truthful facts to the court, but these were contrived and fictional cases. The said lawyers are now facing serious potential court sanctions (I’ll be further covering that evolving story when the upcoming scheduled sanctions hearing takes place).
As an apparent response to that controversy that took place in a New York court, a judge in a Texas court opted to formally post a new rule regarding the use of generative AI for his court. I’ll be taking a close look at the new rule. And along with the new rule comes a requirement that attorneys in that judge’s court are to sign an official certification that they have complied with...
WNBA star Sophie Cunningham has shut down allegations about her supposed falling out with former podcast co-host West Wilson. Cunningham has called out media outlets for spreading false informatio...