Morgan & Morgan, a top U.S. plaintiffs law firm, is facing sanctions for referencing eight nonexistent cases in a court motion, with some citations allegedly generated by ChatGPT. U.S. District Judge Kelly H. Rankin highlighted this issue, stating only one of the nine cited cases could be verified. The cited motion also incorrectly asserted Wyoming caselaw applicability, emphasizing the necessity for accurate legal references, especially by seasoned litigators. This incident illustrates potential pitfalls of AI technology in legal contexts and raises concerns about professional standards and oversight in law practice.
"Notwithstanding this slight inconsistency, experienced litigators like plaintiffs' counsel should know that this court is a federal court, and therefore federal procedural law governs evidentiary issues."
"The brief had cited nine cases, but Rankin could locate only one of them. Some of the citations did lead to cases under different names."
Collection
[
|
...
]