NO PATIENCE FOR IT: Courts Increase Penalties for GenAI Usage As America’s Worst Law Firms Continue to Use “Troubling” Technology

“If you are a lawyer who relies on AI for anything you are a failure as an attorney.”

Those were my words from just about a year ago.

Remember this video? How was has this aged?

Despite my wise and prophetic admonition, the worst lawyers and law firms in America continue to use Gen AI.

So so absurd.

While companies like Harvey and Legora currently enjoy large private valuations and tons of hype with desperate-to-stay-relevant #biglaw firms, the best law firms in the nation– like powerhouse Troutman Amin, LLP— are staying away from GenAI altogether.

The long-term viability of companies like Harvey and Legora are heavily in doubt following the recent Heppner ruling— holding users of third-party AI technology likely waive the A/C privilege– but larger issues exist regarding the reliability (or lack there of) of GenAI products. Indeed lawyers. clients and law firms have been sanctioned across the nation for submitting briefs with hallucinated cites– a phenomenon that is wasting tremendous amounts of court time.

To say patience is wearing thin in federal court for these antics is putting it mildly.

For instance in an order issued last week U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore sanctioned a lawyer $10,000.00– you read that right, $10k– for submitting a brief containing false citations.

The court noted that it had previously sanctioned attorneys $6,000 and $7,500 but lawyers continue to use Gen Ai– so the Court hammered the GenAI-using attorney $10k to make a point.

I suspect future sanctions orders will be even worse.

As the court wrote:

The practice of law is not just a job, it is a profession; a profession with standards and ethical responsibilities. One of the most troubling aspects of these situations is the lack of respect for the profession, and the lack of respect by the offending attorneys for their own personal capabilities, that these situations represent.

One would expect that, when individuals choose this profession, they do so in part because they believe they have some talent for the work. One would expect that, after several years of law school, and more years of practice, those attorneys believe they bring some level of value to their clients beyond that of a machine. Yet these situations represent an abdication of those personal and professional responsibilities to those very machines, which to date have not proven themselves up to the task.

While the Undersigned has long recognized the value of the proper and efficient use of technology, my confidence in the profession and the generations of lawyers who have shaped it prevents me from believing that it can ever be replaced by a machine, no matter how advanced. However, the preservation of that profession requires ever increasing levels of diligence and vigilance from each and every attorney and judge involved in the process. Absent that, someday clients may well be better off accepting advice from a machine as opposed to a careless and inattentive attorney. That is a day the profession of law must not allow to come to pass. 

Bravo.

And sounds a lot like my words from the video above right?

The full order– which you should read– is available here: Judge_Dinsmore_Professionalism_Order_AI__1771379043

Stay smart attorneys (and clients!)

Chat soon.