From today's order in Whaley v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., which dismisses the case on the merits but also adds:
Plaintiff admits that he used Artificial Intelligence ("AI") to prepare case filings. [This yielded hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases. -EV] The Court reminds all parties that they are not allowed to use AI—for any purpose—to prepare any filings in the instant case or any case before the undersigned. See Judge Newman's Civil Standing Order at VI. Both parties, and their respective counsel, have an obligation to immediately inform the Court if they discover that a party has used AI to prepare any filing. The penalty for violating this provision includes, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit.
Not all judges take this view, though I'm sure all judges would insist (at least) that if AI software is used to prepare filings, the output be carefully checked by the lawyer or litigant.
Note also that this came in the context of AI being used to actually write a brief, rather than being a tool used for finding material. The Judge's cited Standing Order makes clear that AI search engines may be used:
No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who violate this AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.
The post From Judge Michael J. Newman (S.D. Ohio) on Use of AI to Prepare Filings appeared first on Reason.com.
