Could UK Lawyers Face Life in Prison for Citing Fake AI-Generated Cases? (apnews.com) 35
The Associated Press reports that on Friday, U.K. High Court justice Victoria Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson ruled on the possibility of false information being submitted to the court. Concerns had been raised by lower-court judges about "suspected use by lawyers of generative AI tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked."
In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist. The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain. But Sharp said it was "extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around."
In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant's housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had "not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened." The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action.
Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the "most egregious cases," perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant's housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had "not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened." The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action.
Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the "most egregious cases," perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:3)
And this is a particularly stupid example.
Re: (Score:3)
It's always fun when the summary - let alone the article - demonstrates the headline to be bullshit.
No. (Score:2)
But they should lose whatever license they have until they sweat to get one themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
They should just be permanently struck off, and get other careers.
There's multiple problems with what the lawyers in these cases are doing that means their attitude towards advocating for their client reflects long term issues with their professionalism. They're willing to take short cuts, they aren't checking verifiable facts, they're putting themselves in a position where they can easily mislead the court despite having the ability to avoid it. In the UK (as I suspect is the case elsewhere, though everyon
Re: (Score:2)
They should just be permanently struck off, and get other careers.
That's also fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd propose grinding the first million of them into Soylent Green, at least then humanity would get something of value out of them.
Re: (Score:1)
In the UK (as I suspect is the case elsewhere, though everyone assumes otherwise) a lawyer, yes, has to stand up for their client, but they can't misrepresent what they know. At best they can get away with sophistry or avoid emphasis on things they don't think helps their case, but issues as simple as a client confessing to them cannot be covered up (if you go to a UK lawyer and say "They caught me stealing a priceless Rembrandt, can you get me found not-guilty?" the answer is "Not anymore I can't, find another lawyer and don't mention the fact you were actually stealing")
As I understand it in the United States, past crimes may be covered by attorney client privilege. Part of the job of the an attorney is to ensure that the process is carried out correctly, evidence can be inadmissible if gathered incorrectly. You can admit that you are guilty to your lawyer, some lawyers prefer not to know. https://www.richardpdavieslaw.com/criminal-defense-attorney/can-a-criminal-defense-attorney-ask-you-if-you-are-guilty/#:~:text=Defending%20You%20Regardless%20of%20Guilt,just%20outc [richardpdavieslaw.com]
Uhh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What does the current US president have to do with the UK postal scandal?
Was he a post master in Llanelli? I don't remember that from his many rantings.
Re: (Score:2)
Certain ideas and behaviors pervade across humanity, not being constrained by borders.
I do hope so. (Score:3)
Failing that, a permanent disbarment from practicing law... and a mandatory year working retail, because they need to learn some humility, damn it!
Unfortunately, what I suspect will happen is firms will engage "sarcraficial interns" who'll be there only to be thrown under the bus to preserve these bastards.
Official judgment (Score:2)
Official judgment [judiciary.uk]
The referrals arise out of the actual or suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial
intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are
not then checked, so that false information (typically a fake citation or quotation) is put
before the court. The facts of these cases raise concerns about the competence and
conduct of the individual lawyers who have been referred to this court. They raise
broader areas of concern however as to the adequacy of the traini
But see also (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like an overly emotional response to demand life imprisonment. I don't know how the brits do it, but a criminal contempt of court over here.. https://www.findlaw.com/crimin... [findlaw.com].
Seems like a 12 month sentence could be about right, along with disbarment.
Maybe I am soft on crime (Score:2)
But I think disbarment (permanent) is enough. This is a professional failing, probably not criminal except at the level of negligence, and the correct response is for this lawyer to lose his career and try again at something easier like working in a Genius Bar or driving the Geek Squad bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce Hyman [theguardian.com] was a barrister (he also produced an episode of Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and may have been a speech writer for a UK Prime Minister). Representing a client in a divorce case, he forged an email and sent it to his client's husband, expecting it to then be produced in court. He then accused him of submitting a faked judgment to the court. It all unravelled and he was sentenced to 12 months in jail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://legalfamily.wordpress.... [wordpress.com]
A new source of billing for lawyers (Score:2)
All judgements cited will need to be checked by the other side's lawyers. More work, and more pay, for lawyers.
RESULT
Re: (Score:2)
All judgements cited will need to be checked by the other side's lawyers. More work, and more pay, for lawyers.
RESULT
You mean that judges just accepted any old Bull in the past?
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the past, that's what the majority of them still do. Few professions are more adverse to modernization than lawyers and judges, that's why Word Perfect is still used by a large percentage (if not the majority) of legal offices. If your shyster submits 20 items as evidence the judge is not going to check out more than the first few and assume the rest are more of the same, and in the legal profession there is no automated way to check the rest for validity. If your lawyer doesn't check them (pr
I don't know about life in prison (Score:2)
Things are going to get pretty fucking crazy out there in the near future. I don't think folks realize what's coming because it's a huge transformation and nobody likes to think about changes on that sca
obvious solution (Score:2)
Obviously, the stuff being submitted needs to be checked for veracity using AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost certainly would be more accurate.
https://www.superlegal.ai/blog... [superlegal.ai]
In the AI vs lawyers study, twenty lawyers reviewed five NDAs alongside the AI.
US lawyers with decades of experience in corporate law and contract review were pitted against the AI algorithm to spot issues in five Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). . .
Results:
On average, the lawyers took 92 minutes to finish reviewing the contracts compared to the AI taking 26 seconds.
The AI fini
Clickbait question on AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
false information was possibly AI, but the lawyers will not admit that is what happened.
No, that is not what is going to happen: They will try to use AI as an excuse for submitting fake documents to a court case and get way with it. And they definitely should not be allowed to get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
They will try to use AI as an excuse for submitting fake documents to a court case and get way with it.
The point you are missing is that somehow courts will allow AI as an excuse for false statements. They will not. Whether it was generated by AI or a lawyer making up false a statements, that is the same to the court. Second, the hard part of citations is finding the cases that support an argument. The citations are easy to check whether they exist which makes the lawyers look incredibly lazy or dumb. Lastly, there are lawyers on the opposite side that will check as they have to counter any arguments made.
IN the USA the role of judges is... (Score:1)
Swear Jar (Score:4, Interesting)
The solution to most of these "in court" problems is fining counsel:
Insult opposing counsel? Fine
Misbehave? Fine
Not prepared? Fine
Make up citations? Fine
Delay proceedings? Fine
Phoenix Wright impression? Fine
Surprise Witness? Fine
Then use the fines to fund the court's end-of-fiscal-year party.
Jail time and disbarment should be left for serious criminal behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the fine that will harm the lawyer. It is the formal sanction. That follows a lawyer for their entire career. In the US when a lawyer is applying for admission to a state bar even to practice one case, many if not all states will ask if the lawyers has ever been sanctioned previously and provide details. The court can refuse an attorney to appear on a case if it has reasons.
For example, the infamous Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org] was removed from a case in Alabama as the court said he lied on his application. When
While I am all for reducing the number of lawyers (Score:2)
That seems a bit excessive. Fine them a year's salary and ban them for a year from practiving law. Of course, if they repeat that crap, ban them from practicing law for life.
The lawyer is responsible (Score:2)
The lawyer is responsible for everything he submits to a court case. He may use "AI" go help generate these, but it is still his responsibility to check whether everything is correct. If it is not, that should be handled in the same way as if he on purpose filed fake documents.
Make an example or two... (Score:2)
Make an example or two, let the news spread and everyone will start doing their due dilligence again; the problem with resolve itself.
ANY fake submission should be punished (Score:2)
...why focus on just AI? Liars have been around since the dawn of speech, and long before that if we include creatures who mock sounds and looks to trick prey.
UK "Life Sentence" may be only 15 years in prison (Score:2)
See this random example from yesterday, top of Duck Duck Go's News search
A Cambridge man who strangled a former flatmate to death over an argument about a passport has been handed a life sentence.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.... [cambridge-news.co.uk]
On Friday (June 6) he was jailed for life at the same court, and told he will serve a minimum of 16 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art... [bbc.co.uk] ... sentenced to at least 15 years in prison
A man who stabbed a teenager to death