It’s
a
day
that
ends
in
“y”
so
we
have
another
story
about
a
lawyer
filing
fake
citations
with
a
court
after
Skynet
trolled
him
with
phony
research.
The
first
public
hallucination
humiliation
should’ve
nipped
this
in
the
bud
and
yet
—
somehow
—
the
problem
seems
to
be
accelerating.
The
latest
out
of
New
York
is,
in
a
lot
of
ways,
par
for
the
course.
Some
non-existent
case
citations
and
misattributed
quotations,
but
no
wrong
legal
theories.
And
the
lawyer
responded
swiftly
upon
learning
of
the
mistake.
We’ve
said
before
that
sanctions
need
to
keep
ratcheting
up
to
reflect
that
as
these
stories
become
more
pervasive,
lawyers
still
making
these
mistakes
are
running
out
of
excuses.
Still,
if
a
lawyer
responds
quickly
and
contritely,
they
can
enjoy
some
grace
if
only
to
draw
a
line
between
boneheaded
errors
and
doubling
down
and
citing
more
fake
cases
to
defend
the
first
set
of
fake
cases.
So
this
story
should
sit
comfortably
in
the
“oops,
my
bad”
category.
But
then
he
decided
to
write
his
apology
straight
out
of
the
deleted
scenes
from
Dead
Poets
Society:
My
professional
practice
has
always
been
guided
by
the
principle
that
legal
advocacy
is
not
mere
mechanical
execution,
but
a
craft
that
demands
the
gardener’s
touch—a
careful,
lasting
engagement
that
leaves
something
of
oneself
behind.
Each
citation,
each
argument,
each
procedural
decision
is
a
mark
upon
the
clay,
an
indelible
impression
that
may
one
day
be
studied,
critiqued,
or
serve
as
a
cautionary
tale.
My
eyes
rolled
so
hard
that
I’m
dizzy.
Come
on,
man!
The
profession
is
pretentious
enough
as
it
is
without
calling
every
citation
an
indelible
mark
upon
the
clay.
In
this
spirit,
I
recognize
that
the
work
we
do
as
advocates—our
filings,
our
citations,
our
choices—are
not
ephemeral.
They
endure,
shaping
the
legal
landscape
and,
in
their
own
way,
becoming
part
of
the
record
of
our
professional
lives.
My
aspiration
is
always
to
be
the
gardener,
not
the
lawn-cutter:
to
leave
a
mark
that
is
careful,
thoughtful,
and
lasting,
even
as
I
acknowledge
and
learn
from
my
errors.
Ephemeral?
You’re
not
a
goth
kid
trying
to
score
a
spot
in
the
8th
grade
literary
magazine
—
you
can
just
say
“sorry”
without
going
all
Albert
Camus.
There’s
a
reason
no
one’s
writing:
“Verily,
my
failure
to
comply
with
the
court’s
page
limit
has
left
me
in
a
state
of
deep
despondence
not
unlike
that
of
the
majestic
black
swan….”
Thankfully,
the
brief
gets
back
on
track
to
recount
the
steps
that
led
to
the
error,
noting
that
he
had
employed
cross-verification
tools
but
that
those
had
failed.
He
also
identifies
a
breakdown
in
the
legal
technology
landscape
itself:
The
primary
source
of
citation
inaccuracies
stems
from
database
migration
complications
wherein
(i)
many
problematic
citations
originated
from
research
conducted
in
December
2024
using
Casetext
with
CoCounsel,
(ii)
when
Casetext
was
subsequently
acquired
by
Thomson
Reuters
and
integrated
into
Westlaw,
I
discontinued
my
subscription
due
to
prohibitive
cost
constraints,
thereby
losing
verification
access
to
previously
compiled
authorities,
and
(iii)
this
technological
disruption
created
a
verification
gap
that
my
alternative
research
methods
failed
to
adequately
bridge.
There’s
a
lot
of
grumbling
out
there
about
Casetext’s
final
absorption
into
Thomson
Reuters.
Multiple
small
and
solo
lawyers
have
expressed
frustration
about
TR’s
pricing
structure
and
it
touches
on
access
to
justice
issues
if
legal
AI
becomes
a
force
multiplier
only
accessible
to
the
deepest
Biglaw
pockets.
On
the
other
hand,
AI
is
expensive
—
or
at
least
all
the
work
required
to
keep
the
product
from
hallucinating
up
fake
cases
is
expensive
—
and
companies
have
to
get
that
money
somewhere.
TR
paid
over
$600M
for
Casetext
and
they’re
going
to
have
to
get
that
money
back.
But
all
that
aside,
this
explanation
should
raise
red
flags
—
see
what
I
did
there
—
because
if
the
Casetext/TR
migration
issue
tripped
up
“Michelangelo
of
the
Motion”
over
here,
it’s
going
to
happen
to
someone
else
too.
Casetext
was
too
beloved
of
a
platform
for
this
to
be
an
isolated
situation.
Then
the
response
outlines
the
attorney’s
plans
for
the
future:
Note
how
there’s
a
plan
that
doesn’t
run
away
from
AI.
It’s
too
trite
and
almost
definitely
bad
policy
to
say,
“I
promise
I’ll
never
use
AI
again.”
It’s
basically
a
high
school
abstinence
pledge:
noble,
doomed,
and
going
to
involve
gratuitous
Bible
quotes.
That
analogy
might’ve
gotten
away
from
me,
but
I’m
sticking
by
it.
First
of
all,
it’s
a
lie
because
AI
will
weasel
its
way
into
everything
before
too
long
so
there’s
no
way
to
avoid
it.
And
second,
it’s
actually
a
useful
tool
as
long
as
lawyers
understand
what
it
can
and
can’t
accomplish.
The
legal
profession
is
going
to
use
AI…
figure
out
how
to
do
it
without
injecting
ethical
disasters
into
the
workflow.
Honestly,
attorneys
who
find
themselves
on
the
wrong
end
of
a
hallucination
matter
should
look
to
this
response
as
a
template.
Take
immediate
action,
apologize,
explain
the
problem
so
future
lawyers
know
exactly
what
happened,
and
proactively
forge
an
AI
plan
for
the
future.
The
substance
of
this
response
should
be
taught
in
CLEs.
OK,
maybe
don’t
follow
everything
from
this
template:
Your
Honor,
in
the
ancient
libraries
of
Ashurbanipal,
scribes
carried
their
stylus
as
both
tool
and
sacred
trust—understanding
that
every
mark
upon
clay
would
endure
long
beyond
their
mortal
span.
As
the
role
the
mark
(x)
in
Ezekiel
Chapter
9,
that
marked
the
foreheads
with
a
tav
(x)
of
blood
and
ink,
bear
the
same
solemn
recognition:
that
the
written
word
carries
power
to
preserve
or
condemn,
to
build
or
destroy,
and
leaves
an
indelible
mark
which
cannot
be
erased
but
should
be
withdrawn,
let
it
lead
other
to
think
these
citations
were
correct.
Oh
my
GOD,
STOP!
If
the
case
isn’t
about
repatriating
an
archaeological
find,
the
word
“Ashurbanipal”
should
not
be
in
the
brief.
It’s
a
court
filing,
not
lore
for
the
next
Assassin’s
Creed.
But
hey…
the
gratuitous
Biblical
citation
made
it
in
there!
(Full
brief
on
the
next
page…)
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.