Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stephen Fitzpatrick's avatar

This is actually not that shocking (though no less inexcusable). It’s so, so easy to generate enormous amounts of output with AI. Few proofread carefully. But I can’t imagine, especially after the US example of the lawyer who submitted a brief based on a made up case, that there isn’t a dedicated associate whose sole job is to independently verify each and every case cited in legal pleadings. It’s really inexcusable.

Expand full comment
Hannah P.'s avatar

The irony is that AI could be super useful for case summarisation and first drafts if used properly and appropriately. But somehow we keep seeing it misused in high-stakes scenarios like this one. Makes me think we are still in the “copy-paste without thinking” phase of adoption, even in law.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts