It's already started. This was filed in, of all places, the Southern District of NY.
I had to delete a lot of the links but she provides them for every instance.
This circus was first flagged on Reddit. I can't add any more links here so that will be in the next post.
Kendra Albert
@
kendraserra@dair-community.social
Are you just catching up on the bonkers story about the lawyer using ChatGPT for federal court filings? This is a thread for you.
Our dramatis personae - some lawyers in federal court, in a lawsuit over a personal injury on an airplane.
Bartholomew Banino (BB) represents the airline.
Peter LoDuca (PL) and Steven Schwartz (SS) represent the injured person.
Here's the docket (via @questauthority)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107
The case is in federal court, and they're arguing over whether it should be there or in state court. The airline has filed its motion to dismiss on Jan. 13. On Jan. 18, the plaintiff asks for more time to reply (#19). The judge gives it to them. (#20).
On March 1st, PL files that reply/opposition to the motion to dismiss.
It cites a bunch of cases in support of its argument! They seem quite convincing - there's some state courts holding that state courts can decide international airline accidents. (See pages 4 and 5).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca
The defendants file their response. In it, there's a footnote where they flag that they can't find the cases that PL cited to, or they don't say what PL said they said.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107
On April 11, the court orders PL to produce copies of the cases.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... ianca-inc/ Likewise, on April 12, the judge asks for another case.
(This is not necessarily so unusual - some judges have local rules requiring litigants to attach unpublished cases to filings to save the court from having to go find them.)
PL asks for an extension. He's on vacation.
Now...this seems a little odd to me. People should be able to take breaks, but really, you need more than a week to produce a copy of cases and an affidavit?
The judge gives PL more time (and apparently rope to hang himself). We're now up to April and docket number 28.
On April 25, PL files a response. It's amazing.
First, he says, he's attached the copies of the cases that he previously cited. (We'll come back to that.)
Second, that he couldn't find one of the cases that was cited by the court in one of those opinions.
Third, that the opinions are excerpts - that the attachments "may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database."
It's notarized by Stephen Schwartz.
PL then attaches the "opinions."
First of all, this doesn't really look like a court opinion, formatting wise. There's no date.
And it's supposedly an 11th Circuit opinion. On page 2, it says "Before Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Higginbotham, *Circuit Judges."
One issue. Higginbotham isn't an 11th Circuit judge. There is a Patrick Higginbotham who is a federal judge. He served on the 5th Circuit, and took senior status before either of the two other judges (who are real) took office.
Now, weird stuff happens in the federal courts, so it's not totally out of the question that someone might sit by designation or something else funky is happening. But still, that's very strange!
(Call back to when I went on @alex and @emilymbender's Mystery AI Hype Theater and talked about how the types of errors that generative AI makes are different in kind from the type that humans make.)
But also, this case is basically perfect. Like tailor made for the fact pattern of PL's case! Amazing that there's circuit level precedent that lines up with the lawyer's argument so cleanly.
The other ones are also pretty weird. There's parts that are in quotes (page 7)? There's a Texas state court referring to an 11th Circuit ruling as if they had made it (page 5)?
So there's some stuff that should make a lawyer curious, in short.
On April 26, the day after the affidavit with he cases is filed, BB, the lawyer for the defendant, files a letter with questions. They literally can't find the cases anywhere else. The docket numbers don't line up. And the federal reporters (sort of like a DOI, for my non-lawyer readers) turn up a different case.
[NB: I did not intend this to be this long but whatever, we're all nerds here.]
On May 4th, the (expletive) really hits the fan. The judge issues an order to show cause why he shouldn't issue sanctions on PL for citing cases that don't exist and then swearing that the copies attached on April 25 are real. (Dkt #31)
This is one pissed off federal judge.
"Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations."
The judge called (or probably had his clerks call) the 11th Circuit and confirmed that the decision wasn't real. He also points out that the internal citations are also to "bogus" cases...
On May 4th, SS admits what happened (which you probably already figured out, even if you missed the header toot). It was ChatGPT. The declaration here is just too amazing not to provide you with it directly.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca
It turns out it was SS, not PL, who prepared the filings. PL just filed them, and in his own declaration, pleads ignorance.
Editor's note: My dude, you did have reason to doubt the authenticity of the case law. These were weirdass print outs that don't look like real cases and if you had literally plugged any of them into Westlaw or Lexis, you wouldn't have found them.
The federal judge...is not mollified. (Nor should he be.) On May 26 (yesterday), he still orders the two lawyers to show cause why they, and their law firm, should not be sanctioned.
I suspect that a significant part of the ire is about the doubling down on the cases in the April 25 filing. If they had come clean then, I feel like the judge might be more lenient.
Oh, and remember how Steven Schwartz notarized the documents back at the end of April? Judge wants him to show cause as to why that wasn't fraudulent.
So first of all, PL basically lied in his affidavit, since SS was the one who produced the cases.
Also I'm no NY notary expert, but I bet you're not supposed to change the date on your stamp by hand.
Edited to add: that may not be
huge issue...
Anyway, hearing is set for June 8th. Popcorn will be a must. Thanks for reading!