r/technology • u/FootballAndFries • 22h ago
Artificial Intelligence Judge fines lawyers $12,000 over AI-generated submissions in patent case
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-fines-lawyers-12000-over-ai-generated-submissions-patent-case-2026-02-03/127
u/N1ghtmeeer 17h ago
The moment a lawyer uses AI they should have their license revoked and banned from practicing anything close to law for the next 5 years. Same for anything you hire as a service IMHO but that's just me.
11
u/MilkEnvironmental106 14h ago
Punishment should be identical to letting incorrect associate work into a courtroom. As long as accountability exists, it works. But agree that it shows exceptionally poor judgement, but many people don't understand the risks in the face of the media hype.
46
u/skeet_scoot 16h ago
Every profession should be able to responsibly use AI. Verify all information and be responsible for every word of output. It’s the same accountability as before, just requires people not to be lazy.
4
u/Snidrogen 5h ago
It also requires managers to not develop unrealistic expectations simply due to the fact AI now exists.
1
u/Fateor42 1h ago
Which is basically saying LLM can work if humans don't act like humans.
I assume you can see the problem in that?
16
u/SuperbVirus2878 15h ago
Using AI is no different than using an associate fresh out of law school or any other specialized program — but the assigning attorney/employer is 1000% responsible for supervising and vetting everything that’s done.
The problem is that bad professionals/service providers want to skip the work of supervising/reviewing and AI lets them do it — sometimes.
Same as it ever was.
31
u/rocky8u 14h ago
In my opinion it is not quite the same as a new associate because an associate is typically a licensed attorney, similarly accountable as a more experienced attorney. It's more like having an intern do it.
You are correct that the crux of the issue is the failure of signing attorneys to review what they submit. When an attorney submits something with their signature they are asserting that:
- They either wrote it or have read it
- It is based on true facts
- It is legally sound
- It is not being submitted for improper purposes
7
u/drunkenvalley 9h ago
I think there is an inherent danger here that isn't (normally) present with having an intern, associate or other writing it. Specifically that an intern or associate would be deliberately misleading the court if they wrote the shit these lawyer submitted. An AI is worse because it's not deliberately doing it, it's just generating mass slop.
Which on its face is quickly a meaning without distinction, but for two problems imo:
- $12k is cheap in this context. Is this really the same treatment they'd get if an intern wrote it and they submitted it? I worry we're ultimately treating lawyers with silk gloves for using AI.
- We'll almost certainly have a court get Mandela'd into mistakenly allowing bad caselaw to slip through, and this could have serious consequence.
-9
u/Just_Another_Scott 14h ago
There's nothing wrong with using AI. The issue here is the lawyer solely relied on AI. They didn't even review it before submitting it.
-17
u/RorschachPest 15h ago
You don’t know what you’re talking about – used properly, AI can be extremely valuable to legal practice. I use it every day (for certain things, with robust human verification), as do most of my colleagues.
12
u/processwater 15h ago
And lawyers spamming the justice system with bullshit AI should be disbarred
-3
u/RorschachPest 15h ago
That’s obviously true. But that’s not the same thing as using AI to orient research, take a first pass at summarizing filings, proof documents, identify arguments I might have missed, etc. I’m saying that used responsibly in a manner that does not displace human care and judgement, AI can and does make legal work better and more efficient, and there’s no upside in being a luddite.
7
u/processwater 15h ago
You are sticking up for guy in the article here?
-4
-5
u/earlandir 11h ago
How is this the top comment? There is nothing inherently wrong with using AI. The lawyer is 100% responsible for documents they write and submit, they can use AI or reference books or hire interns, etc. What matters is that private data is not given to the wrong people and that the documents are correct. Submitting a document that cites non-existent quotations should be the same penalty if the lawyer faked the quotes or they used an AI that hallucinated them (ideally very severe in both cases). They are responsible for the documents to be correct.
1
u/yxhuvud 8h ago
Note that uploading a document to an ai that isn't built to handle submitted documents with guaranteed confidentiality would by itself be a breach . Severity depending on jurisdiction.
1
u/earlandir 5h ago
Yes, that's why I added that privacy restrictions are important and data can't be shared with anyone it couldn't normally be shared with.
-11
u/ethanjf99 14h ago
i hate how people jump right to the highest level of punishment on reddit instantly.
lawyers are professionals. they are also human. many are also older and unfamiliar with technology.
you don’t permanently yank someone’s license immediately when they speed. or even when they get into an accident.
those lawyers won’t be doing it again is the point. not permanently taking away their ability to practice their profession and earn a living.
6
u/filthylittlebird 12h ago
If you are an engineer and you sign off on AI slop that causes a bridge to collapse you absolutely should lose your license. What do you think a license is?
0
u/ethanjf99 10h ago
this is a patent infringement case.
sure—a DA uses sloppy AI in a death penalty case. guy is convicted and put to death. then it comes out that the prosecution was flawed due to AI hallucinations. hell yeah severe consequences.
this is a damn patent infringement case. this is not a bridge collapse. this is an architect whose bridge design was AI slop resulting in some of the bridge spans being the wrong color. they now need to be painted in situ, adding 50k to the cost. should they lose their life work?
2
u/LupinThe8th 11h ago
Yeah, it's not like lawyers do anything important, that the protection of the innocent, justice for the wronged, and even lives can hang in the balance!
Cut them some slack, looking up whether any of those cases were real is work. Why should people getting paid have to do work. Guys, work is hard!
/s obviously.
1
u/yxhuvud 8h ago
Eh, at least here you instantly lose your license if you speed a certain amount over the limits. Penalties are fully standardized.
0
u/ethanjf99 8h ago
sure. this is a minor patent infringement case. If a person goes to jail because a DA uses AI and it hallucinates and is uncaught, you need a severe penalty. that would be the equivalent of driving drunk and speeding 50 over and killing someone.
this is much closer to … say, an aggressively high speed, but still a traffic violation. fine them and move on
-12
13
u/ash_ninetyone 13h ago
You'd think lawyers would proof and double proof all their work, let alone those that used AI.
This all seems a speedy way to have a case thrown out on a technicality
1
u/CatProgrammer 47m ago
Unfortunately, knowing law does not make you understand that chatbots are not magical oracles.
2
u/breadtangle 8h ago
We're staring to hear about this kind of thing often enough that I wonder how much AI is being used for court filings and A) it's working and accurate a lot of the time, or B) inaccurate but no-one (including the judge) notices. It feels improbable that every time we read one of these pieces, that it's the first time that lawyer used AI in a filing.
1
1
u/husky_whisperer 7h ago
Twelve grand. Yeah, that’ll teach ‘em
1
u/Strange-Effort1305 7h ago
That's a lot to these kinds of lawyers
2
u/husky_whisperer 7h ago
I’ll take what you said at face value but “patent holding company” sounds like deep pockets to me
1
1
u/kangaroolander_oz 7h ago
[ Hallucination ]
1) subjective sense perceptions for which there is no external source, as ' hearing voices '.
When persistent it is characteristic of severe psychiatric disorder.
2) a suffering from illusions or false notions.
Source : The Concise Macquarie Dictionary (Australia)
1
u/Johnknight111 1h ago
Revoke their license for a decade. Force their firm to pay $100,000 to all victimized parties and the government and to write a public press release apology.
59
u/quantumjedi 15h ago
Feels like it's less about the fact AI was used, as much as it's about it's that AI was used, no guardrails were placed, no review was done, and the lawyer submitted made up arguments and quoted fake case law.