Courts are starting to impose punishment of sorts not just on the lawyer who submits a brief with AI hallucinations, but also the non-offending lawyer who failed to point out out the hallucinations. In a recent case in the California Court of Appeals, the court sanctioned a lawyer $10,000 for his AI hallucinations. And it denied an award of attorney’s fees to the non-offending lawyer. The non-offending lawyer had asked for the costs of responding to a frivolous appeal. But, the California Court of Appeals said no. It pointed to coursel’s failure to point our fabricated authorities in the plaintiff’s brief.
Another court in Minnesota found it “troubling” that the opposing counsel did not check his opponent’s citations, which turned out to be fictional. The Minnesota court said courts should not be the only line of defense regarding fabricated citations.
See ABA Bar Journal report here.