687
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] StillAlive@piefed.world 130 points 2 months ago

Should've fined both lawyers for this bullshit.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 228 points 2 months ago

There were actually 4 lawyers, and all 4 were fined and 2 of them barred from presenting to the Court for several years.

Judge wasn't fucking around.

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 76 points 2 months ago

Judge wasn’t fucking around.

Just one of many such stories, and yet more lawyers keep thinking it's a good idea to bring unverified AI into a courtroom...

Sure, use AI to generate your documents and filings ... but then take the time to verify it manually! Make sure the cited cases and laws actually exist and are actually relevant. Scan it for errors or 'AI speak'. At least fucking read it.

I have no idea how people can be so confident in a LLM that they'd use it for something so high-stakes without checking its work!

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 72 points 2 months ago

Never, ever use AI for legal review for a client.

Inviting an AI into the threads removes privilege.

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 19 points 2 months ago

lol, that too. Who knows what kind of private legal information you're freely feeding to the AI company.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago

It's worse than that. The AI isn't part of the attorney/client relationship, so anything shared with it isn't covered by privilege and is discoverable.

[-] crandlecan@mander.xyz 15 points 2 months ago

Disbarment should follow after the leak soon, for violating privilege

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -5 points 2 months ago

Enterprise usage of AI tools, at least those I have seen, is entirely private

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Supposedly.

I wouldn't trust anything to be truly private in the hands of these AI companies, though -- they're always scraping training data from wherever they can get it (legality be damned), and requests from enterprise clients are extremely valuable training data. They'll make promises about how everything stays in-house ... but then your chat history gets integrated into the new public model through its training, and maybe it's now able to reproduce your private information when asked.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -5 points 2 months ago

That would be a massive legal dispute that would probably end up sinking them. There's legal agreements they can't train or use the data. Would blow reputation and be legal volcano

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 11 points 2 months ago

Are you and I seeing the same AI companies? They have 10 legal volcanoes per week ... all part of 'moving fast and breaking things'.

[-] BehindetheClouds@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

Agreed. They literally pirated and in some cases stole their early training data and basically nothing has come of it.

It seems the other part of their motto is "don't get caught"

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

You could use a local AI... that's only running on your computer... that's specifically trained on dumps of old cases and such...

But I guess lawyers are not known for their tech savvy.

Maybe you could say their heads are in the cloud.

[-] Mpatch@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

I litteraly just went through this shit about 3hrs ago. I needed to install a flange gasket for a 2.5" pipe flange hydraulic return. A.I tells me I can't use this particular multi layer gasket type I have because I have a flat flange.

Lo and behold I find the the manufacturer data sheet. Perfectly suitable for my application.

Like it's one thing for a.i to fail at making shit up. But it's a hole other fuck up when it can't even regurgitate information correctly.

[-] YawningNostalgia 3 points 2 months ago

Why did you try to use AI for that in the first place? Are you not part of the problem? Glad you figured it out

[-] wabasso@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Isn’t the rule of thumb that you can use it for things you can verify? They were able to verify.

[-] YawningNostalgia 4 points 2 months ago

It gave them bad advice

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

The barring part makes me happy. The fining might make me happy....how much was the fine? Do you know?

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

Between 1100 and 3500. It's in the artiblcle before the paywall kicks in.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Ok. Given Lawyers general salaries, that's really not that much. That's like a slap on the wrist. I was hoping it was like $20,000.

But the barring still makes me happy.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's more about the barring and the official censure. A couple grand doesn't mean much A judicial beatdown is professionally damaging.

And since it's federal court, being barred from that courtroom is a real blow. It's not like they can just focus on the next city or county over.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago

Couldn't they just go to other courtrooms in that courthouse? There's going to be a few to a few dozen

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

They're barred from presenting federal cases in the Northern District of Mississippi. That covers all federal cases for 36 counties - half the state.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Oh. Then they're not barred from just "that courtroom"

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

They're barred from that court, which is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

They're not barred from State, County, or Municipal courts, or from other federal courts because the judge only has control over their District.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

If the other room is not federal maybe? They mean being barred from the federal courtroom the lawyers can't practice law in federal court.

[-] Solumbran@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

I mean, he was sort of fucking around. A lawyer that is fine using AI for a case should never be allowed to work as a lawyer after that. That's a gigantic moral flaw.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago

A judge can't revoke a law license. But they can issue a fine and bar them from their courtroom.

The judge's action in this case was brutal. It's the legal equivalent of a public caning.

[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago

How ? Typically the law society is the group to remove a lawyers license to practice. He could perhaps refer them but this is different the world over.

[-] YawningNostalgia 3 points 2 months ago

My fear is that we may lose the older judges to the people who pull stunts like this, and then it'll be an unqualified and ignorant judge listening to lawyers citing imaginary evidence

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 5 points 2 months ago

That's not a decision a judge can make in this context.

[-] StillAlive@piefed.world 3 points 2 months ago

Nah, they can drink alcohol if they want to.

this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
687 points (99.1% liked)

Not The Onion

22177 readers
241 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS