AI Double Check
It is easy to say, "Lawyers have always had an ethical duty to check our citations."
Rule 11 (and its state equivalents) has been around for a long, long time.
When we sign documents and file them with a court, we certify their accuracy (along with their filing for a purpose that is not frivolous, in bad faith, etc.).
And yet, here we are, with more and more courts and states adopting notices reminding us to check our citations.
In Connecticut, for example:
(a) “Generative AI” means: any machine-learning model/application that can create original content--such as text, images, video, audio or software code--in response to a prompt or request, including but not limited to, ChatGPT, Co-Counsel, Google Bard, Neeva, Harvey, Ironclad, Bing, DeepSeek, Grok, and similar technology.
(b) Due to the risk that generative AI can create inaccurate factual and legal information, including, without limitation, faulty citations to legal authority, fabricated quotations from such authority, and inaccurate or fabricated evidence, any person who uses generative AI in the creation or editing of any document filed with the court shall independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence produced by generative AI.The failure to do so may result in court-imposed sanctions, including, without limitation, the entry of a nonsuit or default judgment.
(c) Any person who files documents with the court represents that they have reviewed this rule and, by filing the document, represents that they have made good faith, diligent efforts to ensure compliance with their obligations under this rule, all other rules of practice, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and any applicable provision of Connecticut law regarding the use of or reliance on generative AI.
(d) The responsibility for complying with this rule rests solely with the person filing the document. The court or the clerk of the court is not required to review any filed document for compliance with this rule.
Do we need this?
Apparently so.
Those of us paying attention have known about AI hallucinations for years at this point.
And yet: every day another attorney is found to have filed something with an AI hallucination.
I'd also say: these reminders are for pro se litigants.
Self-represented parties have also always been around, but we're seeing the volume of pro se litigation increase rapidly in the AI age.
How do we, do courts, educate those litigants on the realities of AI and ethical obligations when submitting papers to a court?
These rules are a start.
♥️✌🏻🔥