I agree. And while the OP did indeed cite a famous case in which non-existenct citations (I presume they mean precedents) were cited in a filing, I was addressing the more general question in the title, “Should lawyers who use AI be severely punished?”. And again my answer is, I don’t care what they use, I care about the results, namely how accurate, relevant, and persuasive the lawyer’s filing is.
On the matter of precedents, the lawyer has a responsibility to ensure that any precedents he cites in support of his case are directly relevant and really do say what he claims they say in a directly comparable situation. That the lawyer didn’t even so much as bother to look up the cites, let alone carefully review them, speaks to a lazy and incompetent lawyer who submitted a filing that was blatantly misleading. It was, in effect, a pack of lies. Of course he should be punished for that. Lawyers don’t get to lie in court and get away with it. But don’t blame the AI, or any other tool he chooses to use as an assistant! Blame the lawyer.
I agree. That’s all that matters. Doesn’t matter if the lawyer on the pleading looked it up themself, assigned it to an associate, a law clerk, a paralegal, some guy in Mumbai, or AI.
For the past several decades, the practice of law (in the US, at least) has become more and more of a bottomline business, with essentially no job security. I would imagine it would be ever more unpleasant to try to establish oneself in the business as a fresh grad.
I agree with all that. We can generalize to all use of AI, which at the moment should be trust (a bit) but verify (a lot.) Anyone who doesn’t verify should be severely punished.