The use of fake cases generated by AI remains problematic in legal filings, as showcased by Shahid v. Esaam where a trial judge's order relied on non-existent cases. Despite previous embarrassments like Mata v. Avianca, lawyers and litigants still cite fake cases, risking serious implications. The system has, so far, intercepted many such mistakes, often through vigilant judges and opposing counsel. However, reliance on unverified citations could lead to irreversible errors, particularly if self-represented litigants fail to recognize fabricated cases, as demonstrated in this troubling incident.
In Shahid v. Esaam, a trial judge issued an order based on fake cases included in the husband's brief, demonstrating the potential dangers of unverified citations.
Despite public embarrassment from past incidents, courts continue to encounter fake cases due to negligence from lawyers and the risk of apathetic judges.
Collection
[
|
...
]