Attorneys for MyPillow's Mike Lindell accused of using AI to prepare court filing

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

[SSJVegeta]

1. Csn somebody elaborate on how those rules work?

Like can somebody who is pro se use AI to do their filings? Or is that strictly prohibited in most jurisdictions?

[rsdsharp]

2. When I retired five years ago there was no rule prohibiting the use of AI. It didn't really exist in today's form.

I’m still unaware of any ethical or court rule against it. But the judge’s problem wasn’t that they used AI, per se. It’s that their brief was riddled with incorrect citations, incorrect quotes from cases, incorrect legal conclusions from cases, legal conclusions that were never mentioned in the cases cited, and totally made up citations.

Every first year law student learns about legal research and proper citation form. Those skills allow you to find the law, and present it in a manner in which the judge or other side can find it to confirm what you are saying is true.

An attorney has an ethical duty not to mislead the court. I always made sure if I was quoting material, the quote was accurate, word-for-word. The last step in the briefing process was to go through each case cite, and Shepardize them to make sure the party names were spelled correctly, and that the citation to volume number, case reporter, page numbers, court and year of decision were correct. Sometimes errors are made during dictation or transcription. That gives you a last chance to fix them. It goes without saying an attorney shouldn’t make up cases or misrepresent the holdings of cases that actually exist.

[SSJVegeta]

4. Okay so if you use AI to create a legal briefing as a template or something, but actually put it together properly

Proper citations, grammar, etc, that should be okay? Like the person should put in the substance but the AI could theoretically still give you a template to put in the information, right?

[rsdsharp]

5. I'm not really sure how you utilize AI to write a document, as I've never used it.

From what I’ve seen, you say “Write me a paper on XYZ topic”, and off it goes. I think the problem here is that the lawyers didn’t go through the brief, look up the cases, see if they exist, if the holdings were what AI said they were, if the citations were correct, and if the cases were still good law.

Virtually everybody utilizes computer research. Forty years ago you had to formulate a Boolean search in Westlaw. Now you can formulate your search in plain language. “What is the statute of limitations for assault?” “What are the elements of burglary?” I guess that’s a form of AI, and a great timesaver over using the books.

But you still have to pull up the cases to verify things, and having done that, you have to use Shepard’s to make sure the case hasn’t been overturned. Lindell’s problem is they skipped the verification work.

You don’t tell a court “In the seminal case of Smith v. Jones when the case doesn’t exist, or tell the court the case can be found at 353 F.2d 275, when it’s actually 458 F.2d 375, or tell the court the Sixth Circuit held thus and so when it did no such thing.

Apparently, AI made a great argument based on quicksand. It’s always easier to win an argument if you get to make shit up. Unfortunately for them, you’re not allowed to do that.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Lindell cannot afford real lawyers and so is suing people relying on AI

Link to tweet