Judge Sharp, who is based in NYC, has not just called—he has called out. To him, the growing trend of AI-generated fiction in court briefs by attorneys scares him the most. At a recent court hearing, she explained that the court did not pursue contempt of court proceedings against an attorney who filed incorrect citations. Still, she stressed that this decision should not serve as a precedent for future cases.
In her ruling, Judge Sharp cited troubling patterns of mass filings where legal action is initiated that references a non-existent case. She made headlines when she brought a case against a barrister who advised a client to pursue damages claims against two banks. The attorney filed a brief with 45 citations, and 18 of those were made up. In another instance, a lawyer representing an individual evicted from his London home cited five non-existent cases in a court filing.
Judge Sharp emphasized the limitations of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, stating that they “are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.” She stressed that these tools can generate convincing but nonsensical answers. Frequently they come up with stuff that is just 100 percent made up. This should set alarm bells ringing for the reliability of information that’s being introduced to a court.
“Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,” Judge Sharp warned. She also stressed how essential it is to check research for accuracy. Attorneys need to refer to capstone sources of authority before using research findings in their practice.
The judge’s final ruling will be forwarded to licensing boards. This includes the Bar Council and the Law Society, focused on addressing this increasing crisis. Judge Sharp stated, “More needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court.”
She underscored the stark penalties for attorneys who do not fulfill their commitments. These consequences may range from public reprimand, sanctions assessed, contempt action, or even a referral to law enforcement agencies.
The legal profession is quickly adapting to new technological innovations in their workflows. Judge Sharp’s comments should serve as a sober reminder to all of the critical importance that due diligence and accountability occupy in our legal profession. The court’s diligence to ensure the accuracy of all legal citations is important not only to the parties, but to upholding the integrity of our legal system.
