Ready
to
cross
another
milestone
on
the
legal
profession’s
march
into
slop?
Too
bad!
Because
we’re
already
here.
We’ve
had
lawyers
citing
fake
cases
excreted
from
generative
AI
without
ever
learning
their
lesson
for
a
while
now,
but
these
errors
get
quickly
caught
by
opposing
counsel.
The
problem
jumped
the
firebreak
when
a
Georgia
judge
signed
off
on
an
order
based
on
fake
cases
that
didn’t
get
fixed
until
it
reached
a
very
grumpy
appellate
court.
Now,
for
the
first
time,
we
have
a
federal
judge
clawing
back
his
own
opinion
over
fake
citations.
The
words
“AI”
aren’t
being
used,
but…
you
know.
Bloomberg
Law’s
Justin
Henry
reported
yesterday
that
Judge
Julien
Xavier
Neals
of
the
District
of
New
Jersey
—
fresh
off
replacing
Alina
Habba
and
triggering
a
nascent
constitutional
crisis
—
withdrew
his
June
30
order
in
the
CorMedix
securities
lawsuit
after
lawyers
pointed
out
a
few
case
cites
that
were
just
plain
wrong:
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher
partner
Andrew
Lichtman,
who
represents
CorMedix,
wrote
Neals
on
Tuesday,
telling
the
judge
he
may
want
to
“consider
whether
amendment
or
any
other
action
should
be
taken”
in
regard
to
errors
he
made
in
his
June
30
decision.
Lawyers
in
a separate
case earlier
this
month
also
pointed
out
flaws
in
Neals’
CorMedix
opinion,
saying
it
“contains
pervasive
and
material
inaccuracies.”
It
doesn’t
seem
as
though
there
are
any
fake
cases
or
even
necessarily
wrong
conclusions
of
law.
But
there
are
mistakes
and
misquotes.
The
judge
quoted
Dang
v.
Amarin
Corp.
calling
executives’
behavior
“classic
evidence
of
scienter.”
And
while
that
case
does
delve
into
scienter,
the
precise
quote
isn’t
there.
Same
with
a
quote
about
an
Intelligroup
case,
citing
“false
statements
in
their
own
right”
despite
that
line
not
being
present
either.
Stichting
Pensioenfonds
Metaal
en
Techniek
v.
Verizon
is
cited
as
a
Southern
District
of
New
York
case
even
though
it’s
from
New
Jersey.
Ah,
Jersey
people…
always
trying
to
pretend
they’re
from
New
York.
Lichtman’s
letter
also
noted
that
the
opinion
attributes
two
quotes
to
CorMedix
the
company
is
not
alleged
to
have
made.
He
noted
in
his
letter
to
Neals,
however,
that
he
was
not
requesting
reconsideration
of
the
opinion.
But,
like,
he
was
requesting
reconsideration
of
the
opinion.
Unfortunately,
the
mistakes
have
already
broken
contain.
Outlook
Therapeutics
shareholders
litigating
a
different,
related
case
already
cited
the
now-withdrawn
order
as
persuasive
precedent.
The
hallucinations
are
burrowing
their
way
into
the
record.
Common
law
gets
messy
when
mistakes
are
allowed
to
compound
across
the
system.
We
can’t
have
district
court
judges
just
making
up
fake
stuff…
that’s
expressly
reserved
for
the
Supreme
Court.
Judge
Withdraws
Pharma
Opinion
After
Lawyer
Flags
Made-Up
Quotes
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
Earlier:
For
The
Love
Of
All
That
Is
Holy,
Stop
Blaming
ChatGPT
For
This
Bad
Brief
Trial
Court
Decides
Case
Based
On
AI-Hallucinated
Caselaw
Mike
Lindell
Lawyers
Earn
Pillow-Soft
Sanction
After
Letting
AI
Do
The
Thinking