Michael Cohen's Lawyer Cited Three Fake Cases in Possible AI-Fueled Screwup
Freeman writes:
A lawyer representing Donald Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen filed a court brief that cited three cases that do not exist, according to a federal judge.
[...] "On November 29, 2023, David M. Schwartz, counsel of record for Defendant Michael Cohen, filed a motion for early termination of supervised release," US District Judge Jesse Furman wrote in an order to show cause yesterday. "In the letter brief, Mr. Cohen asserts that, '[a]s recently as 2022, there have been District Court decisions, affirmed by the Second Circuit Court, granting early termination of supervised release.'"
Schwartz's letter brief named "three such examples," citing United States v. Figueroa-Florez, United States v. Ortiz, and United States v. Amato. The brief provided case numbers, summaries, and ruling dates, but Furman concluded that the cases are fake.
[...] "If he is unable to do so, Mr. Schwartz shall, by the same date, show cause in writing why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to (1) Rule 11(b)(2) & (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) 28 U.S.C. 1927, and (3) the inherent power of the Court for citing non-existent cases to the Court," Furman wrote.
Assuming he can't turn up those cases, Schwartz must also provide "a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed."
[...] In Texas, one federal judge imposed a rule banning submissions written by artificial intelligence unless the AI's output is checked by a human. In another federal court in the District of Columbia, convicted rapper Prakazrel "Pras" Michel argued that he should get a new trial because his lawyer "used an experimental AI program to write" a "frivolous and ineffectual closing argument."
[...] In the Cohen case, Furman's order to show cause said that one of the three apparently bogus citations "refers to a page in the middle of a Fourth Circuit decision that has nothing to do with supervised release." A second "corresponds to a decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals," and the third "appears to correspond to nothing at all."
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.