Court Kicks Lawyers Off Case After Finding Fake AI Cases In Filings

 As more and more cases of fake citations, and faulty use of AI in lawyering pile up, judges may be ready to start imposing stronger sanctions.  Read the story here.

Yet another case of sanctions for relying on AI to write briefs (resulting in cites to cases that do not exist)

Two attorneys who were representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation case in Denver have been fined $3,000 each as sanctions for submitting an inaccurate, AI-generated brief to the court in April.  Go here for the story.  

Above the Law has more on the story here, arguing the sanction was too low.

NPR has a comment here arguing that the case serves as a stark warning.

How not to practice law, Trump lawyers edition - UPDATED

 It has been a long time since I posted an entry into the long running series of "how not to practice law" featuring stories illustrating dumb things lawyers do that they should know better not to do...  So here we are today with a Trump edition, courtesy of the team of lawyers representing [sic] Trump in a case in Iowa against a pollster.  

In a nutshell, aside from the fact that the case is almost certainly frivolous, the story of the litigation reads like a script for a law related blooper reel.  You can read the details of the story in Above the Law here.

UPDATE, July 6: TechDirt has an update on the lastest details on this developing story here.

How not to practice law: AI edition

After a long absence from the blog today we have the second day in a row with a "how not to practice law' entry!  Today's story features a lawyer using AI hallucinated cases in support of a claim who, when called out on it, then cited more hallucinated cases.  That is bad enough, but the article also focuses on the fact that the trial judge issued an order based on the hallucinated cases... You can read the full story here,

Comment on Puerto Rico's newly adopted rule on technological competence

 As you probably know, paragraph 8 of the comment to Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) states, among other things, that "to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."  This statement has since been adopted and integrated into the comments of the rules in about 40 states.

Puerto Rico, however, recently adopted new rules (based on a translation of the Model Rules) and the notion of technological competence appears in a specific rule rather than in a comment to the rule on competence.  

In a comment posted in Above the Law, the author argues that "the Puerto Rico Supreme Court came out with a much more realistic and impactful definition of a lawyer’s technological competence obligations than that promulgated by some 40 states" and that "the Puerto Rican rules are a stronger statement about competence and suggest why it is so important."

You can read the full comment here.

A lawyer’s duties in response to a data breach

 Over at Ethical Grounds, the unofficial blog of Vermont's bar counsel, Michael Kennedy reminds us of a lawyer’s duties in response to a data breach.

Comment on recent ABA Opinion on generative AI

 Back in July I posted that the ABA had recently issued an ethics opinion on generative Ai and the practice of law. I am writing about it again today to let you know that just recently The Law for Lawyers Today published a comment on the opinion here.

Breaking Down the ABA’s Guidance on Using Generative AI in Legal Practice

A recent article breaking Down the ABA’s guidance on using generative AI in legal practice is available here.

ABA issues Formal Opinion on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools -- UPDATED

July 29, 2024

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued a new formal ethics opinion (ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 512) on ethical duties related to the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.  The summary states: 

To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.

You can access the full opinion here. 

UPDATE 8/5/24:  Here are a couple of comments on the new Ethics Opinion:

LawSites

Ethical Grounds

Emerging Trends in Legal Tech

 The Legal Talk Network has a new article with links to podcasts on emerging trends in legal tech here.

New Legal Ethics Opinion Cautions Lawyers: You ‘Must Be Proficient’ In the Use of Generative AI

 As I am sure you know by now, the ABA amended the comment to Model Rule 1.1 some years ago to include a new paragraph [8] that says "To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject."

And thus the duty to be competent about "technology" was born.  Now adopted by a majority of jurisdictions, as the comment says, lawyers have a duty to learn about and to stay up to date with developments in "technology" that relates to the practice of law.  

Accordingly, there are a number of ethics opinions out there on this matter and LawSites is now reporting (here) on a new one specifically on the use of generative AI.  

The opinion was issued by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association and it makes one point very clear: lawyers are required to maintain competence across all technological means relevant to their practices, and that includes the use of generative AI.

You can read the opinion here.

On the duty to inform another party of the fact that the other party inadvertently disclosed documents... and more

 Suppose Lawyer A is in litigation and, in response to a request for documents, opposing counsel (Lawyer B) sends a link to a file stored in a service like Dropbox.*  When Lawyer A opens the file using the link, he or she discovers the link provides access to B's client's documents which were not expected to be disclosed and are likely to be considered confidential.

This is what happened in a recent case in New York called Pursuit Credit Special Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Krunchcash, LLC (May 30, 2024), in which the lower court determined that Lawyer A was required to notify Lawyer B that the link contained folders that "counsel knew or should have known were confidential or privileged."  The court imposed a sanction on defendants and their counsel for accessing and downloading the folders from Dropbox.

The order was affirmed in an opinion (available here) that is about seven sentences long.  It cites, among other things, NY's rule 4.4(b) which is based on the equivalent Model Rule which states that "[a] lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that the document or electronically stored information was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender."  

So, going back to our initial question:  in those circumstances, Lawyer A had a duty to inform Lawyer B that Lawyer B had inadvertently disclosed documents.  That much is clear.  But nothing else is, and the incident raises a number of interesting question not addressed by the court.

First of all, why does the court refer to the documents as privileged?  The court refers to the documents in question as "corporate files."  What were these documents?  If they were corporate records that the client gave the lawyer to store, there is no reason to believe that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege, so calling them so would be a mistake.  But I am willing to proceed on the assumption that even if not privileged, they could be considered confidential.

Next, in addition to the duty to inform the other side of their mistake, did Lawyer A have a duty to delete the link immediately or could Lawyer A have looked at the documents to confirm they were privileged before doing anything else?  The rule does not address that, and the comment to the Model Rule explicitly states that the rule does attempt to decide whether the lawyer who receives the information has a duty to return (or in this case delete) the document (or link to it). 

The court's opinion suggests that the lawyer had a duty "to sequester the inadvertently disclosed files" (which I guess means the lawyer could keep them but not look at them) but the court does not cite anything in support of this suggestion.

And then there are the questions related to the conduct of the lawyer who sent the link to begin with, which the court does not discuss.  It can be argued that this lawyer violated their duty of confidentiality and their duty of competence by disclosing protected information by mistake.  Could the lawyer be subject to discipline for this?  In theory, Yes; absolutely.  But. as you know, the reality is that an isolated act of negligence will not likely lead to discipline.  

Could the lawyer be liable in tort for negligence?  Again, in theory yes since the conduct is clearly a breach of duty, but whether there is an actionable cause of action depends on whether the conduct caused an injury and it does not sound that that was the case in this instance.  Lucky for the lawyer!

 I am willing to bet that the ABA has issued an ethics opinion exploring some of the issues that arise out of a situation like this and the application of a rule like Model Rule 4.4(b) but I have not searched for it.

________________

* If you don't know what Dropbox is, this post is for you because you may be in violation of the rule regarding competence since competence requires you to at least "keep abreast of . . . the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology" and Dropbox is pretty old technology.

Generative AI and the practice of law

As reported by Ethical Grounds, last month, the D.C. Bar issued Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys’ Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters, which discusses many different issues and the Rules of Professional Conduct most likely implicated by a legal professional’s use of generative AI (GAI).  You can read the opinion here.

Based on this opinion, Michael Kennedy (of Ethical Grounds), has posted two new comments on issues related to generative AI and the practice of law.  In the first one, available here, he discusses why it is not necessary to amend or change current rules of professional conduct in response to the effects of generative AI in the practice of law.  In the second one, available here, he begins to address issues related to the professional duties most likely to be implicated by a legal professional’s use of GAI by discussing the duty of confidentiality.  I expect he will address other duties in future posts, so stay tuned.  

How not to practice law: when caught, try to alter the evidence in your computer

 April 27. 2024

As reported in Above the Law:  Confronted with an ethics investigation zeroing in on a number of different types of conduct that justified discipline, a lawyer in New Hampshire apparently thought he could get out of his troubles by destroying or altering evidence stored in his computer.  He could not; and got disbarred.  

Above the Law has the full story here. 

UPDATE 5/1/2024:  The ABA Journal has the story here.

More on AI: recent articles

1. Jenny Brobst (Memphis Law) recently posted an article offering a look at the role of technology and ethical competency rules, vis-a-vis how tech has rolled out unevenly in the United States. You can take a look at it here.

2. Above the Law: Maybe We've Got The Artificial Intelligence In Law 'Problem' All Wrong

California standing committee on professional responsibility and conduct practical guide for the use of generative artificial intelligence in the practice of law

 I missed this report when it came out, but better late than never...  Here it is.

How not to practice law: Show up drunk

 This is not the first time we have seen this example of "how not to practice law," but there are two interesting questions.  In this particular instance, discussed in the Legal Profession Blog, the lawyer was charged with "attempting" to violate rule 1.1 on competence.  So my first question is:  why charge with attempt to violate a rule?  Can't we argue that appearing drunk before the court in and of itself constitutes incompetence?  

The second question is common to many cases: what should be the proper sanction?  Is it a mitigating factor if the lawyer has a health problem, mental health problem or issues with alcohol?  Is it an aggravating factor?  In this case, the lawyer also had a history of disciplinary sanctions; yet, the sanction was reduced from 90 days to 30 days.  

How to reply to negative online reviews

 The issue of how to reply to negative online reviews is not new.  If you go to the "internet" section of this blog and scroll down you will find a number of stories on it.  The most recent one is from October of last year on an Arizona Ethics Opinion that concludes lawyers can disclose confidential information when replying to negative online reviews.

Today I am writing to link to a recent post over at LexBlog that again provides basic tips on the subject.  Here it is.

Guide on best practices for using AI

 A couple of days ago I reported that the Florida Bar recently issued an ethics opinion on using generative AI technology in the practice of law.  

Meanwhile, noted law blogger Carolyn Elefant has published a short guide on best practices on using AI in the practice of law.  You can see her post on it here and you can download the guide here.

A lawyer’s duties when using artificial intelligence

We start the new year with a story about what is likely to be one of the most debated topics of 2024: the use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law.  Over at Ethical Grounds, Michael Kennedy has published a very short post on "a lawyer's duties when using artificial intelligence."  You can read the full story here.