Showing posts with label due diligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label due diligence. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

Archiving with AI; Library Journal, June 8, 2026

Matt Enis, Library Journal; Archiving with AI

"AI companies are offering some libraries funding for digitization projects, but archives and special collections are working through how to manage projects responsibly

“Imagine a world where you know things but cannot say where you learned them,” begins “Memory Without Origin,” a paper published in April by University of Virginia (UVA) Dean of Libraries and University Librarian Leo S. Lo. This isn’t a hypothetical question, Lo notes, it’s a predictable consequence if libraries allow generative artificial intelligence (AI) to ingest archival materials as training data without requiring provenance conditions. And libraries, which could always use funding for projects involving digitization, special collections, and archives, are being approached by AI companies with deep pockets.

“They’ve been approaching a lot of larger research libraries, including Oxford and many more,” Lo tells LJ. (Oxford’s Bodleian Libraries began a digitization pilot project funded by ChatGPT maker OpenAI last year.) “Usually the offer is: they will pay you to digitize materials—which we want, because we want to make them more accessible—and in return, depending on the deal…they would like to have the data to train their AI models.”

These partnerships can benefit both parties, but for libraries, the consequences of getting these arrangements wrong “are more permanent than anything the profession has previously encountered,” Lo writes. “Once archival materials are absorbed into foundation model weights, no subsequent institutional action can remove them from the model.” If proper care isn’t taken, that information becomes unmoored from its former context within an archive."

Friday, June 12, 2026

More courts are coming down on ‘non-offending counsel’ for AI missteps; ABA Journal, June 10, 2026

AMANDA ROBERT , ABA Journal; More courts are coming down on ‘non-offending counsel’ for AI missteps

"Amid the proliferation of cases involving artificial intelligence-generated hallucinations, more judges are expressing frustration not only at the attorneys who make the mistakes but at opposing counsel for not pointing it out. 

In the past year, courts have admonished attorneys for failing to identify and report fake citations in their opponents’ court filings. In at least two cases, judges refused to award attorney fees or grant relief to counsel who didn’t bring AI-induced errors to their attention."

Federal judge removes 4 plaintiff and defense attorneys over AI errors; ABA Journal, June 10, 2026

AMANDA ROBERT, ABA Journal ; Federal judge removes 4 plaintiff and defense attorneys over AI errors

"A federal judge in Mississippi on Monday disqualified the plaintiff counsel and the defense counsel after both parties filed briefs with artificial intelligence-generated mistakes in a dispute over attorney fees.

“This case presents the court with an unusual scenario—attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,” said Senior U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi in her June 8 order...

Aycock revoked Wilson’s and Williams’ pro hac vice statuses and barred them from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge also ordered all four attorneys to pay monetary sanctions, ranging from $1,000 each for the local counsel to $2,500 for Williams and $3,500 for Wilson."

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

Florida Makes New AI Rule: Check Your Damned Work Or Else!; Above The Law, June 1, 2026

 Chris Williams, Above The Law; Florida Makes New AI Rule: Check Your Damned Work Or Else!

"No matter how much the marketing department leans in on an LLM program being ready to help you with your law practice, you’re still responsible for the work product because you’re the with the actual license to practice. Florida’s Supreme Court made some changes to remind lawyers that the responsibility falls on them, not the black box they’re prompting their legal questions into. ABA Journal has coverage:..

My soft spot for the rule update is for pro se litigants. Despite all of the equality under the law trimmings we pretend to believe, fighting in court is a monied person’s battlefield. Pro se litigants are often in that position because they cannot afford a lawyer due to limited resources. Getting help from Claude could be the closest thing they have to getting a legal opinion. If and when they screw up these rules, I hope that the court shows as much grace as it can toward them. Even the annoying sovereign citizen variety."

Thursday, April 23, 2026

Penalties stack up as AI spreads through the legal system; NPR, April 3, 2026

 , NPR; Penalties stack up as AI spreads through the legal system

""Recently we had 10 cases from 10 different courts on a single day," says Damien Charlotin, a researcher at the business school HEC Paris who keeps a worldwide tally of instances of courts sanctioning people for using erroneous information generated by AI...

The numbers started taking off last year, and Charlotin says the rate is still increasing. He counts a total of more than 1,200 to date, of which about 800 are from U.S. courts.

Penalties are also on the rise, he says. A federal court may have set a record last month with an order for a lawyer in Oregon to pay $109,700 in sanctions and costs for filing AI-generated errors.

The professional embarrassments even take place at the level of state supreme courts...

"I am surprised that people are still doing this when it's been in the news," says Carla Wale, associate dean of information & technology and director of the law library at the University of Washington School of Law. She's designing special training in AI ethics for students who are interested. But she also says the ethical rules aren't completely settled...

When lawyers get in trouble for using AI, it's because they've violated the long-standing rule that holds them responsible for the accuracy of their filings, regardless of how they were generated."

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

A.I. ‘Hallucinations’ Created Errors in Court Filing, Top Law Firm Says; The New York Times, April 21, 2026

 , The New York Times; A.I. ‘Hallucinations’ Created Errors in Court Filing, Top Law Firm Says

Sullivan & Cromwell apologized for submitting a court document that had fake citations created by artificial intelligence.

"An elite Wall Street law firm has apologized to a federal judge for submitting a court filing replete with errors created by artificial intelligence, including “hallucinations” that fabricated case citations.

The A.I.-generated errors came in a recent motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan and were discovered by lawyers from an opposing firm, Andrew Dietderich, a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, wrote in a letter to Judge Martin Glenn on April 18."

Friday, February 13, 2026

Lawyer sets new standard for abuse of AI; judge tosses case; Ars Technica, February 6, 2026

ASHLEY BELANGER , Ars Technica; Lawyer sets new standard for abuse of AI; judge tosses case

"Frustrated by fake citations and flowery prose packed with “out-of-left-field” references to ancient libraries and Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, a New York federal judge took the rare step of terminating a case this week due to a lawyer’s repeated misuse of AI when drafting filings.

In an order on Thursday, District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that the extraordinary sanctions were warranted after an attorney, Steven Feldman, kept responding to requests to correct his filings with documents containing fake citations."

Thursday, January 8, 2026

Judges are identifying suspected AI hallucinations in Pa. court cases — including one at the highest levels; Spotlight PA, January 7, 2026

 

Sarah Boden, Spotlight PA; Judges are identifying suspected AI hallucinations in Pa. court cases — including one at the highest levels


"Veteran attorneys with a track record of arguing high-profile cases submitted an error-filled brief to one of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts, raising questions from a judge about their use of artificial intelligence...

“Your credibility is such an important part of what a lawyer is to bring to the case,” said Vanaskie. “If the lawyer is not verifying what's being submitted, their credibility is shot.”"

Sunday, September 28, 2025

Education report calling for ethical AI use contains over 15 fake sources; Ars Technica, September 12, 2025

BENJ EDWARDS, Ars Technica ; Education report calling for ethical AI use contains over 15 fake sources

"On Friday, CBC News reported that a major education reform document prepared for the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador contains at least 15 fabricated citations that academics suspect were generated by an AI language model—despite the same report calling for "ethical" AI use in schools.

"A Vision for the Future: Transforming and Modernizing Education," released August 28, serves as a 10-year roadmap for modernizing the province's public schools and post-secondary institutions. The 418-page document took 18 months to complete and was unveiled by co-chairs Anne Burke and Karen Goodnough, both professors at Memorial University's Faculty of Education, alongside Education Minister Bernard Davis...

The irony runs deep

The presence of potentially AI-generated fake citations becomes especially awkward given that one of the report's 110 recommendations specifically states the provincial government should "provide learners and educators with essential AI knowledge, including ethics, data privacy, and responsible technology use."

Sarah Martin, a Memorial political science professor who spent days reviewing the document, discovered multiple fabricated citations. "Around the references I cannot find, I can't imagine another explanation," she told CBC. "You're like, 'This has to be right, this can't not be.' This is a citation in a very important document for educational policy.""

Friday, July 25, 2025

Virginia teachers learn AI tools and ethics at largest statewide workshop; WTVR, July 23, 2025

 

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Partner Who Wrote About AI Ethics, Fired For Citing Fake AI Cases; Above The Law, July 23, 2025

Joe Patrice , Above The Law; Partner Who Wrote About AI Ethics, Fired For Citing Fake AI Cases

"Don’t blame the AI for the fact that you read a brief and never bothered to print out the cases. Who does that? Long before AI, we all understood that you needed to look at the case itself to make sure no one missed the literal red flag on top. It might’ve ended up in there because of AI, but three lawyers and presumably a para or two had this brief and no one built a binder of the cases cited? What if the court wanted oral argument? No one is excusing the decision to ask ChatGPT to resolve your $24 million case, but the blame goes far deeper.

Malaty will shoulder most of the blame as the link in the workflow who should’ve known better. That said, her article about AI ethics, written last year, doesn’t actually address the hallucination problem. While risks of job displacement and algorithms reinforcing implicit bias are important, it is a little odd to write a whole piece on the ethics of legal AI without even breathing on hallucinations."

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

MyPillow CEO’s lawyers fined for AI-generated court filing in Denver defamation case; The Colorado Sun, July 7, 2025

Olivia Prentzel, The Colorado Sun ; MyPillow CEO’s lawyers fined for AI-generated court filing in Denver defamation case

"A federal judge ordered two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to pay $3,000 each after they used artificial intelligence to prepare a court filing that was riddled with errors, including citations to nonexistent cases and misquotations of case law. 

Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster violated court rules when they filed the motion that had contained nearly 30 defective citations, Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court in Denver ruled Monday."

Monday, June 2, 2025

Excruciating reason Utah lawyer presented FAKE case in court after idiotic blunder; Daily Mail, May 31, 2025

JOE HUTCHISON FOR DAILYMAIL.COMExcruciating reason Utah lawyer presented FAKE case in court after idiotic blunder

"The case referenced, according to documents, was 'Royer v. Nelson' which did not exist in any legal database and was found to be made up by ChatGPT.

Opposing counsel said that the only way they would find any mention of the case was by using the AI

They even went as far as to ask the AI if the case was real, noting in a filing that it then apologized and said it was a mistake.

Bednar's attorney, Matthew Barneck, said that the research was done by a clerk and Bednar took all responsibility for failing to review the cases.

He told The Salt Lake Tribune: 'That was his mistake. He owned up to it and authorized me to say that and fell on the sword."

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Fake Cases, Real Consequences [No digital link as of 10/1/24]; ABA Journal, Oct./Nov. 2024 Issue

John Roemer, ABA Journal; Fake Cases, Real Consequences [No digital link as of 10/1/24]

"Legal commentator Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law who tracks AI in litigation, in February reported on the 14th court case he's found in which AI-hallucinated false citations appeared. It was a Missouri Court of Appeals opinion that assessed the offending appellant $10,000 in damages for a frivolous filing.

Hallucinations aren't the only snag, Volokh says. "It's also with the output mischaracterizing the precedents or omitting key context. So one still has to check that output to make sure it's sound, rather than just including it in one's papers.

Echoing Volokh and other experts, ChatGPT itself seems clear-eyed about its limits. When asked about hallucinations in legal research, it replied in part: "Hallucinations in chatbot answers could potentially pose a problem for lawyers if they relied solely on the information provided by the chatbot without verifying its accuracy."

Thursday, September 5, 2024

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI; Nature, September 4, 2024

 Amanda Heidt , Nature; Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

"Timothée Poisot, a computational ecologist at the University of Montreal in Canada, has made a successful career out of studying the world’s biodiversity. A guiding principle for his research is that it must be useful, Poisot says, as he hopes it will be later this year, when it joins other work being considered at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in Cali, Colombia. “Every piece of science we produce that is looked at by policymakers and stakeholders is both exciting and a little terrifying, since there are real stakes to it,” he says.

But Poisot worries that artificial intelligence (AI) will interfere with the relationship between science and policy in the future. Chatbots such as Microsoft’s Bing, Google’s Gemini and ChatGPT, made by tech firm OpenAI in San Francisco, California, were trained using a corpus of data scraped from the Internet — which probably includes Poisot’s work. But because chatbots don’t often cite the original content in their outputs, authors are stripped of the ability to understand how their work is used and to check the credibility of the AI’s statements. It seems, Poisot says, that unvetted claims produced by chatbots are likely to make their way into consequential meetings such as COP16, where they risk drowning out solid science.

“There’s an expectation that the research and synthesis is being done transparently, but if we start outsourcing those processes to an AI, there’s no way to know who did what and where the information is coming from and who should be credited,” he says...

The technology underlying genAI, which was first developed at public institutions in the 1960s, has now been taken over by private companies, which usually have no incentive to prioritize transparency or open access. As a result, the inner mechanics of genAI chatbots are almost always a black box — a series of algorithms that aren’t fully understood, even by their creators — and attribution of sources is often scrubbed from the output. This makes it nearly impossible to know exactly what has gone into a model’s answer to a prompt. Organizations such as OpenAI have so far asked users to ensure that outputs used in other work do not violate laws, including intellectual-property and copyright regulations, or divulge sensitive information, such as a person’s location, gender, age, ethnicity or contact information. Studies have shown that genAI tools might do both1,2."

Sunday, December 31, 2023

Michael Cohen used fake cases created by AI in bid to end his probation; The Washington Post, December 29, 2023

 , The Washington Post; Michael Cohen used fake cases created by AI in bid to end his probation

"Michael Cohen, a former fixer and lawyer for former president Donald Trump, said in a new court filing that he unknowingly gave his attorney bogus case citations after using artificial intelligence to create them as part of a legal bid to end his probation on tax evasion and campaign finance violation charges...

In the filing, Cohen wrote that he had not kept up with “emerging trends (and related risks) in legal technology and did not realize that Google Bard was a generative text service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not.” To him, he said, Google Bard seemed to be a “supercharged search engine.”...

This is at least the second instance this year in which a Manhattan federal judge has confronted lawyers over using fake AI-generated citations. Two lawyers in June were fined $5,000 in an unrelated case where they used ChatGPT to create bogus case citations."

Sunday, July 23, 2023

Want to quickly spot idiots? Here are five foolproof red flags; The Guardian, July 23, 2023

, The GuardianWant to quickly spot idiots? Here are five foolproof red flags

"f you want to be successful in this world, you have to develop your own idiot detection system,” the governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, recently told the Northwestern University Class of 2023. Pritzker, a billionaire and self-described “cheugy dad”, clearly knows a thing or two about successful commencement speeches: his talk has gone viral.While the 20-minute speech, which was organized around quotes from characters in The Office series, wasn’t entirely about idiot-spotting, that section of it seemed to resonate the most.

You can see why. We live in a golden age of grifters, bullshitters and scammers. We live in an age where some of the world’s most powerful people threw millions of dollars at Elizabeth Holmes, without doing proper due diligence, because she came from the right background and sounded like she knew what she was talking about. A fantasist like George Santosmanaged to successfully fib his way into government. And Marjorie Taylor Greene has a seat in US Congress despite routinely going on unhinged rants about, inter alia, the “gazpacho police”. Clearly not enough people have functioning idiot detection systems.

So how do you spot an idiot? Well, says Pritzker, it’s not always easy. “I wish there was a foolproof way to spot idiots, but counterintuitively, some idiots are very smart. They can dazzle you with words and misdirection. They can get promoted above you at work,” Pritzker said. “They can even get elected president.”

That said, there are some major signs to watch out for. [Bolds added] The best way to spot an idiot is to “look for the person who is cruel”, Pritzker says. “When someone’s path through this world is marked with acts of cruelty, they have failed the first test of an advanced society. They never forced their animal brain to evolve past its first instinct … Over my many years in politics and business, I have found one thing to be universally true – the kindest person in the room is often the smartest.”"

Thursday, July 13, 2023

Are We Going Too Far By Allowing Generative AI To Control Robots, Worriedly Asks AI Ethics And AI Law; Forbes, July 10, 2023

Dr. Lance B. Eliot , Forbes; Are We Going Too Far By Allowing Generative AI To Control Robots, Worriedly Asks AI Ethics And AI Law

"What amount of due diligence is needed or required on the part of the user when it comes to generative AI and robots?

Nobody can as yet say for sure. Until we end up with legal cases and issues involving presumed harm, this is a gray area. For lawyers that want to get involved in AI and law, these are going to be an exciting and emerging set of legal challenges and legal puzzles that will undoubtedly arise as the use of generative AI becomes further ubiquitous and the advent of robots becomes affordable and practical in our daily lives.

You might also find of interest that some of the AI makers have contractual or licensing clauses that if you are using their generative AI and they get sued for something you did as a result of using their generative AI, you indemnify the AI maker and pledge to pay for their costs and expenses to fight the lawsuit, see my analysis at the link here. This could be daunting for you. Suppose that the house you were cooking in burns to the ground. The insurer sues the AI maker claiming that their generative AI was at fault. But, you agreed whether you know it or not to the indemnification clause, thus the AI maker comes to you and says you need to pay for their defense.

Ouch."

Friday, March 15, 2019

I Almost Died Riding an E-Scooter Like 99 percent of users, I wasn’t wearing a helmet.; Slate, March 14, 2019

Rachel Withers, Slate;

I Almost Died Riding an E-Scooter

Like 99 percent of users, I wasn’t wearing a helmet.


"I’ve been rather flippant with friends about what happened because it’s the only way I know how to deal. It’s laughable that you’d get seriously injured scooting. But this isn’t particularly funny. People are always going to be idiots, yes, but idiot people are currently getting seriously injured, in ways that might have been prevented, because tech companies flippantly dumped their product all over cities, without an adequate helmet solution. Facebook’s “move fast and break things” mantra can be applied to many tech companies, but in the case of e-scooters, it might just be “move fast and break skulls.”"