Најди сличен содржај

🇺🇸AI Avatars in Court? An unusual legal experiment came to a swift halt when Jerome Dewald, founder of an AI startup, tried to let a computer-generated avatar argue his case before a New York appellate court. Dewald, representing himself in an employment dispute, played a pre-recorded video of an AI-generated speaker—without prior disclosure to the court. The panel’s response was immediate: “You are not going to use this courtroom as a launch for your business, sir,” said Associate Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, visibly displeased with the surprise substitution. Dewald cited a medical condition for his decision, but the court was unconvinced, pointing to prior verbal appearances. This case underscores a growing tension in legal ethics and AI: innovation must respect courtroom norms, especially when trust, transparency, and legal protocol are at stake. AI may be redefining access to justice, but judicial trust is not yet programmable. #AI#LegalEthics

🇺🇸U.S. Court Sanctions Attorney for Submitting AI-Fabricated Legal Citations (Again) United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama has issued formal sanctions against attorney James A. Johnson after discovering that he used an AI tool to draft a legal motion containing fabricated case citations. The false references were identified by opposing counsel, confirmed by the Court, and ultimately acknowledged by Johnson. The Court concluded that his conduct was “tantamount to bad faith.” Under the order, Johnson is formally reprimanded, required to file the reprimand in every active and future case for 12 months, and must report the decision to all jurisdictions where he is licensed. The Court also directed the Clerk to publish the order in the Federal Supplement and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar. In addition, Johnson faces a $5,000 fine and potential removal from the CJA panel. #AI#LegalEthics#AIRegulation

🇺🇸AI Misuse in Legal Briefs, Again A U.S. judge has sanctioned two law firms—K&L Gates and Ellis George—after AI-generated fake citations nearly made their way into a judicial order. Special Master Michael Wilner called it a “collective debacle” and imposed $31,100 in sanctions, warning that “no reasonably competent attorney should outsource research and writing to this technology” without verification". Wilner admitted the hallucinated citations almost persuaded him. “That’s scary,” he wrote. The firms failed to cite-check material drafted by AI tools and resubmitted a revised brief that still contained multiple errors—even after being alerted. Wilner ultimately struck all supplemental briefs and denied the plaintiff’s requested discovery relief. #AI#LegalEthics#LegalTech#AIRegulation

🇺🇸⚖️SDNY: AI-Generated Client Documents Not Covered by Privilege Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that documents created by defendant Bradley Heppner using Anthropic’s Claude and later sent to his lawyer were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Heppner had generated reports outlining defense strategy after receiving a grand jury subpoena, acting on his own initiative rather than at counsel’s direction. Federal agents seized about 31 such documents from his devices following his arrest on securities and wire fraud charges. The court held that privilege did not apply because the communications were shared with a third-party AI tool that did not ensure confidentiality. It also rejected work product protection, finding the materials were not prepared by or at the direction of legal counsel and did not reflect counsel’s legal strategy. The AI provider’s disclaimer that users should not expect confidentiality further undermined the claim. The ruling applies traditional privilege principles to generative AI use in legal preparation. #AIandLaw#GenerativeAI#LegalEthics

US: 5th Circuit Drops Plans for AI Regulation Rule After Lawyer Opposition The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has decided against adopting a rule to regulate the use of generative AI by lawyers. The proposed rule, which would have been a first at the appellate level, aimed to ensure that AI-generated filings were accurate and verified. Public comments from lawyers, which were largely negative, influenced the court's decision. The proposed rule required lawyers using AI tools, like OpenAI's ChatGPT, to certify the accuracy of citations and legal analysis. Non-compliance could lead to sanctions and the striking of filings. Despite the rejection, the court emphasized that current rules already mandate truthfulness and accuracy in filings, and AI use will not be an excuse for any violations. #AI#LegalTech#GenerativeAI#LegalEthics

AI Misstep in the Courtroom: A Melbourne Lawyer Faces Investigation A Melbourne lawyer is facing scrutiny from the Victorian legal complaints body after using AI-generated case citations in a family court hearing, resulting in the submission of inaccurate information. During a July 19 hearing, the lawyer presented a list of prior cases in response to a request from Justice Amanda Humphreys. However, when the judge and her associates could not verify the existence of the cited cases, the lawyer admitted that the list had been prepared using the legal software Leap, which included an AI element, but without human verification. Despite offering an “unconditional apology” and compensating the other party’s legal costs, the solicitor was referred for investigation by Justice Humphreys. She highlighted the importance of this review due to the growing use of AI tools in legal practice and the lack of existing guidelines for AI use in family court. The situation underscores the need for legal professionals to fully understand and verify AI-generated content before relying on it in court proceedings. #AIGovernance#LegalEthics#AIinLaw

🇺🇸⚖️Case Terminated Over Lawyer’s Repeated AI Misuse A New York federal judge terminated a case after attorney Steven Feldman repeatedly submitted filings containing fake citations generated through AI-assisted research. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that case-ending sanctions were warranted after Feldman continued to file erroneous documents despite requests to correct them. The judge found it “extremely difficult to believe” that AI had not drafted sections featuring unusually florid prose and literary references, while Feldman maintained he wrote the text himself but relied on AI tools, including Paxton AI, vLex’s Vincent AI, and Google’s NotebookLM, to review and cross-check citations, allowing hallucinated references to enter the filings. The court held that verifying legal citations is a professional duty that cannot be delegated to AI. Failla concluded Feldman violated Rule 11 by failing to confirm cited cases and by submitting inaccurate filings even after warnings. His explanations, including limited access to legal databases and reliance on AI instead of manual research, did not justify the errors. The ruling entered default judgment for the plaintiffs and may require Feldman to cover opposing counsel’s fees. The decision underscores judicial intolerance for unverified AI-assisted legal work and clarifies that use of emerging technology does not excuse failures in legal research obligations. #AIandLaw#LegalEthics#AIGovernance#LegalTech#AIRegulation

🇺🇸Oregon Court Addresses AI-Generated Fake Citations Without Formal Sanctions A federal judge in Oregon has declined to impose formal sanctions on attorneys from the U.S. law firm Buchalter after they submitted a filing containing AI-generated fake case citations. In his order, Judge Michael Simon noted that the firm’s remedial steps were sufficient: a $5,000 donation to a local organization supporting legal aid providers, an internal review of safeguards to prevent future AI misuse, and an offer to reimburse any legal fees incurred by both their client and opposing counsel. This outcome highlights a growing expectation in the legal sector: when AI errors emerge, firms must demonstrate concrete accountability measures, not only to correct the immediate mistake but to strengthen internal governance around AI-assisted legal work. #AI#Law#LegalEthics#AIGovernance#LegalTech

🇺🇸NYC Bar: Ethical Limits on AI Recording of Client Conversations The New York City Bar Association has issued Formal Opinion 2025-6 on the use of AI tools to record, transcribe, and summarize attorney-client conversations. The opinion analyzes how the New York Rules of Professional Conduct apply to audio and video calls where either party uses AI for capture and post-processing. While lawyers may choose not to use such tools, opting in triggers specific ethical duties. The Opinion states that attorneys should obtain client consent before recording a conversation and assess whether recording, transcription, or summarization is tactically appropriate in the circumstances, particularly in light of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. Where AI-generated transcripts or summaries may be retained or relied upon, lawyers must review them for accuracy. If a lawyer knows that a client is using AI to record a call, the lawyer should advise the client of the potential disadvantages of doing so. The Opinion positions AI recording tools not as neutral utilities, but as practices that require active ethical judgment and informed consent. #AIandLaw#LegalEthics#ProfessionalResponsibility#AttorneyClientPrivilege#AICompliance

Проблема «фейковых» ссылок из плоскости курьёзов окончательно перешла в институциональную повестку. Civil Justice Council создал рабочую группу по использованию AI при подготовке судебных документов и прямо допустил возможность корректировки процессуальных правил. Повод понятен. В судах Англии и Уэльса уже всплывали случаи, когда в документах появлялись «галлюцинированные» прецеденты. То есть ссылки на дела, которых просто не существует. И ключевой тезис, который прозвучал из уст Lord Justice Birss, предельно жёсткий: проблема не в технологии, а в юристах, которые не проверяют то, что подают от своего имени. Персональная ответственность никуда не делась. Если документ подписан вами, он ваш. Независимо от того, писал ли его стажёр, AI или вы сами в три часа ночи. Интересно, что судьи уже получили доступ к large language model инструментам на своих рабочих компьютерах. Более того, обновлены гайдлайны для судебной власти: в них прямо объясняются понятия вроде «hallucination» и «AI agent», а также даются советы, как распознать тексты, сгенерированные машиной. Это важный сигнал. Судебная система не собирается отставать, но хочет контролировать процесс. В ходе дискуссии на London International Disputes Week прозвучала ещё одна показательная мысль. AI может быть полезен, например, для суммаризации документов. Но только при одном условии: вы сами прочитали исходный текст. Использовать AI для краткого изложения документа, который вы даже не открывали, Birss назвал безумием. И в этом, по сути, вся философия будущего регулирования. Рабочая группа должна в ближайшее время опубликовать terms of reference. Уже сейчас предполагается, что могут потребоваться «некоторые корректировки» правил, в том числе в части practice direction по свидетельским показаниям. Это логично: если AI вмешивается в формирование фактического нарратива, вопрос уже не только в удобстве, а в достоверности доказательства. Практический вывод для практикующих юристов очевиден. Эра, когда можно было относиться к AI как к безобидному черновику, закончилась. В английском процессе ключевой фильтр остаётся прежним: готов ли ты поставить своё имя под этим текстом и защитить каждую ссылку в нём перед судом. Если нет, проблема не в алгоритме. Системно это начало большого сдвига. Судебная власть берёт на себя лидерство в формировании стандартов обращения с AI. И, скорее всего, нас ждёт не запрет, а тонкая настройка правил с усилением персональной ответственности и процессуальной прозрачности. #EnglishLawReport#CivilProcedure#AIandLaw#FakeCitations#CJC#LitigationStrategy#LegalEthics