AI didn’t create the problems we’re now seeing in the legal profession. It revealed them.
Last month, Reuters reported on an order out of a Florida appellate court that instructed the attorney to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for filing a 41-page omnibus motion in a family law case with at least 14 separate issues that bore telltale signs of AI slop, such as gibberish and convoluted, frivolous arguments. In a meandering 84-page response, the attorney defended her filing, emphasizing that none of the many citations had been hallucinated. But the attorney misunderstood the assignment. Given an opportunity to show the court that she’d done quality legal work, the attorney instead proved the opposite by submitting a lengthy, dense tome twice the length of the original offending pleading. A decision is pending. Read more here…