CONSTRUCTION DEFECT JOURNAL

"News and Information for Construction Defect and Claims Professionals"

CONSTRUCTION DEFECT JOURNAL - ISSUE 242749 - THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2025

¡AI Caramba!

AI Technology

Counsel for the defendant in the case pointed up in a reply brief that the opposition brief of the plaintiff cited two purported – and as it turned out, nonexistent – unpublished decisions.

January 7, 2025
Daniel Lund III - Lexology

You can’t make this up.

That’s what a federal judge in Texas told an attorney whom it was sanctioning for impermissible reliance on artificial intelligence in preparing a brief to the court.

“Pending before the court is the question of whether Plaintiff's counsel… should be sanctioned for submitting a response brief to the court that includes case cites generated by artificial intelligence that refer to nonexistent cases as well as to nonexistent quotations.”

Counsel for the defendant in the case – pursuing summary judgment for a tire manufacturer in a wrongful termination lawsuit – pointed up in a reply brief that the opposition brief of the plaintiff cited two purported – and as it turned out, nonexistent – unpublished decisions: Roca v. King's Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App'x 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2012) and Beets v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 94-10034, 1994 WL 714026, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 1994), and quotations from as many as six other apparently-existing cases but which were unable to be found within the reported decisions.

Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com


Use the form below to search the CDJ Archives: Search by topic, name, keywords, etc...

CDJ ARCHIVES-NEWS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED