A New York federal judge has set a precedent in holding a lawyer accountable for the misuse of AI in drafting court filings. The case, which involved a toy company suing merchants over alleged trademark infringement and false advertising, was terminated due to the lawyer's repeated use of fake citations generated by an AI program.
The lawyer, Steven Feldman, had been using various AI tools to review and cross-check citations, but he failed to catch his own errors. The judge ruled that Feldman repeatedly and brazenly violated Rule 11, which requires attorneys to verify the cases they cite, despite multiple warnings.
Feldman's use of AI in drafting court filings was criticized by the judge, who said it was "extremely difficult to believe" that an AI did not generate the overwrought prose in his filings. The judge accused Feldman of dodging the truth and evading her questions during a hearing.
In her ruling, the judge noted that Feldman's research methods were "redolent of Rube Goldberg," suggesting that he was relying on overly complicated and artificial means to conduct legal research. She also criticized Feldman for failing to fully accept responsibility for his mistakes and for not appreciating the gravity of the situation.
As a result of the ruling, Feldman's client must turn over any stolen goods in their remaining inventory and disgorge profits. The court has also issued an injunction preventing additional sales of stolen goods and is requiring refunds for customers who bought them.
The case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI in legal research. While AI can be a useful tool, it must not replace human judgment and due diligence.
The lawyer, Steven Feldman, had been using various AI tools to review and cross-check citations, but he failed to catch his own errors. The judge ruled that Feldman repeatedly and brazenly violated Rule 11, which requires attorneys to verify the cases they cite, despite multiple warnings.
Feldman's use of AI in drafting court filings was criticized by the judge, who said it was "extremely difficult to believe" that an AI did not generate the overwrought prose in his filings. The judge accused Feldman of dodging the truth and evading her questions during a hearing.
In her ruling, the judge noted that Feldman's research methods were "redolent of Rube Goldberg," suggesting that he was relying on overly complicated and artificial means to conduct legal research. She also criticized Feldman for failing to fully accept responsibility for his mistakes and for not appreciating the gravity of the situation.
As a result of the ruling, Feldman's client must turn over any stolen goods in their remaining inventory and disgorge profits. The court has also issued an injunction preventing additional sales of stolen goods and is requiring refunds for customers who bought them.
The case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI in legal research. While AI can be a useful tool, it must not replace human judgment and due diligence.
... i mean, think about it, lawyers are supposed to be the gatekeepers of truth, but when they start relying on AI to do their homework for them, what's the point? 
it's like they're outsourcing their integrity and critical thinking skills. and the worst part is, Feldman didn't even try to acknowledge his mistakes or take responsibility for his actions. that's not how you build trust with your clients or the court system... we need more scrutiny on this whole AI thing in law, 'cause if it's not done right, it can lead to some pretty dark places 
. I mean, think about it, 20 years ago we were still doing all our research by hand or using those old encyclopedias... and now lawyers are relying on machines to tell them what's true? It just doesn't sit right with me. And don't even get me started on the writing style - overwrought prose is so not lawyer speak, it's like they're trying to sound like a bad 90s rom-com 
. Feldman should've just stuck with pen and paper like my grandpa used to do when he was a young lawyer... those guys knew how to do it properly.
I'm so worried about this case! It's crazy that someone could get away with using AI to generate fake citations and still manage to deceive a judge 
. I mean, we've all used those AI tools to write our college papers or emails, but it's one thing to use them for research and another entirely to fabricate evidence in court.
. We need more transparency around AI usage in law, not just so we can catch people like Steven Feldman but also so we can ensure that our justice system isn't being misled by fancy algorithms 
.
The judge was all over him saying he was dodging the truth & being super irresponsible with his research methods. Like, Rube Goldberg machines are cool and all but not when it comes to law 
The fact that he thought an AI could just do all the work for him is wild 
I mean, we get it, AI can be super helpful but you still gotta put in some effort, right? 
And now his client has to pay big time cuz Feldman was all like "who me?" 
It's all about finding that balance between tech and human expertise, you know? And what really gets me is that Feldman didn't even acknowledge his own errors 
. It feels like he was just trying to hide behind the "AI did it" excuse. Not cool, dude! 
. The court should be focusing on actual malfeasance, not just following the letter of the law...
! He didn't even bother to read what the AI came up with, which is totally not how you do things in law school 
. The judge got him good for violating Rule 11, and his client paid the price 
"
but seriously though the judge was right on point about needing more transparency in AI use in law firms 
it's not just about being lazy or sloppy it's about doing due diligence and verifying facts 
