Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, made headlines when he inadvertently provided his attorney with AI-generated false case citations in an official court filing. Cohen took full responsibility for this oversight in a sworn statement to the federal court in Manhattan, noting that Google Bard produced the citations and he wasn’t aware then of the tool’s potential for misinformation, or hallucinations. This issue came to the attention of US District Judge Jesse Furman when he realized three of the cited legal cases were non-existent. Judge Furman questioned Cohen’s lawyer, David Schwartz, as to why he should not face disciplinary action for citing these imaginary cases. Cohen, who had lost his legal license five years prior due to convictions of financial and election fraud, expressed his deep regret for any issues the filing may have caused. He also accepted responsibility for a lack of understanding of recent developments in legal technology, specifically the ability of tools like Google Bard to generate plausible but non-existent legal citations.
This is not the first time AI-generated false research has been used by a US lawyer. Earlier this year, Steven Schwartz, a New York lawyer, faced repercussions for using ChatGPT to research bogus legal cases for a client’s legal complaint. Schwartz and his colleague Peter LoDuca appeared in court to explain their use of AI-generated false cases, which they admitted to referencing in their legal work. US District Judge Kevin Castel described the legal brief containing false cases as “Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations.”
AI users now have to be more aware of the technology’s capacity to deceive and generate fake information. Although it is highly unlikely we have heard the last of these kinds of situations, with increased understanding and caution, lawyers and their clients can use AI in a responsible manner to avoid any legal repercussions. AI-generated research is a powerful tool that can be used to more efficient and accurate legal work, but only if its users understand its potential for misinformation.
