A US federal judge has set a new standard for the egregious misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal filings, ordering the termination of a case due to repeated errors. The judge's decision comes after the lawyer who prepared the files failed to take responsibility for his mistakes and instead claimed that he used AI tools to draft his work.
The case involved a toy company suing merchants who allegedly sold stolen goods. The lawyer at issue, Steven Feldman, had submitted filings with fake citations, which the judge deemed "noteworthy" for their florid prose. One of the problematic passages was an extended quote from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and metaphors comparing legal advocacy to gardening.
When questioned about his use of AI in drafting the filings, Feldman claimed that he wrote every word himself, but the judge saw through this defense. She accused him of dodging the truth and failing to take responsibility for his mistakes.
The judge's ruling has significant implications for lawyers who rely on AI tools to draft legal documents. She emphasized that verifying case citations should never be a job left to AI, describing Feldman's research methods as "redolent of Rube Goldberg." The lawyer must know how to conduct proper legal research, the judge ruled.
As a result of the judge's ruling, the case has been terminated, and the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction preventing further sales of stolen goods. The defendant will also be required to refund customers who purchased the stolen products, as well as turn over any remaining inventory of stolen goods and disgorge profits.
The decision highlights the need for lawyers to take a more nuanced approach to using AI tools in their work. While the technology can be useful, it should not replace human judgment and expertise. The judge's no-nonsense approach has sent a clear message that the misuse of AI in legal filings will not be tolerated.
In an interview after the hearing, Feldman suggested that his experience could help raise awareness about the limitations of AI in legal research. However, the judge's response was blunt: "If you don't want to be straight with me, if you don't want to answer questions with candor, that's fine... I'll just make my own decisions about what I think you did in this case."
The case involved a toy company suing merchants who allegedly sold stolen goods. The lawyer at issue, Steven Feldman, had submitted filings with fake citations, which the judge deemed "noteworthy" for their florid prose. One of the problematic passages was an extended quote from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and metaphors comparing legal advocacy to gardening.
When questioned about his use of AI in drafting the filings, Feldman claimed that he wrote every word himself, but the judge saw through this defense. She accused him of dodging the truth and failing to take responsibility for his mistakes.
The judge's ruling has significant implications for lawyers who rely on AI tools to draft legal documents. She emphasized that verifying case citations should never be a job left to AI, describing Feldman's research methods as "redolent of Rube Goldberg." The lawyer must know how to conduct proper legal research, the judge ruled.
As a result of the judge's ruling, the case has been terminated, and the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction preventing further sales of stolen goods. The defendant will also be required to refund customers who purchased the stolen products, as well as turn over any remaining inventory of stolen goods and disgorge profits.
The decision highlights the need for lawyers to take a more nuanced approach to using AI tools in their work. While the technology can be useful, it should not replace human judgment and expertise. The judge's no-nonsense approach has sent a clear message that the misuse of AI in legal filings will not be tolerated.
In an interview after the hearing, Feldman suggested that his experience could help raise awareness about the limitations of AI in legal research. However, the judge's response was blunt: "If you don't want to be straight with me, if you don't want to answer questions with candor, that's fine... I'll just make my own decisions about what I think you did in this case."
. I get that mistakes happen, but hiding behind "AI did this" is not a good look for any lawyer.
. But seriously, verifying case citations should be way more than just "redolent of Rube Goldberg." It's about doing your due diligence and being honest with yourself and your clients.
. This whole thing could've been avoided if Feldman just owned up to his mistakes and said "hey, I used AI to help with research." Instead, he tried to spin it like everything was fine... which, clearly, wasn't 
.
. It's nice to see someone stand up for what's right and send a clear message about accountability 
.
! I'm not surprised though, people have been saying it for ages that we can't rely on machines to do our thinking for us. This judge's decision is spot on – lawyers need to be able to back up their claims with proper research, not just rely on some fancy AI tool to spew out fake citations 
. It's like they thought they could get away with being a little too clever 
, but the judge called them out for it big time. I'm all for using technology to help us do our jobs more efficiently, but not at the expense of honesty and integrity 
And yeah, the lawyer's excuse about using AI tools being "redolent of Rube Goldberg" is a good one too lol. But seriously, this ruling sends a clear message that we need more accountability when it comes to using tech in our work.
The way Feldman tried to spin his AI mess into a "I wrote it all myself" excuse is just laughable 
. And the judge wasn't having it, calling him out for dodging responsibility. It's like he was trying to hide behind some fancy tech and expected us to believe he didn't need human proof-reading skills either 
.
. On one hand, it can help save time and reduce errors, but on the other hand, if not used properly, it can lead to disaster. This case was a perfect example of that 
. And if you can't be bothered to do that, then maybe you shouldn't be practicing law in the first place 
.
. Like, no, dude, we've all seen your AI-generated drivel before 
. The judge wasn't having it, and rightly so 
anyway im glad the plaintiff got their justice and all but can we talk about how messed up it is when lawyers try to pass off someone elses work as their own? 
The judge was not having it when the lawyer claimed he wrote every word himself. Like, come on dude, you can't just try to sneak that past her. 
It's not about getting rid of humans altogether, it's just about using technology to augment our abilities.
. Lawyers using these tools are basically admitting they can't do their job right. The whole thing reeks of incompetence, like Feldman was trying to cover his own behind with some fancy AI excuse 
. Just because AI can help with research doesn't mean it should replace our common sense and critical thinking skills 
. Anything less is just lazy work 
.
. Feldman shoulda just taken responsibility for his mistakes instead of trying to spin it as "AI did it" 
The judge wasn't having it and called him out for trying to dodge responsibility.