Michael Cohen submitted fabricated AI-generated cases to court through his lawyer

Former Trump Attorney Admits to Using AI Program for Fake Court Citations

In a surprising turn of events, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen​ has confessed to inadvertently including three nonexistent cases in a court filing. The ‍revelation ⁤came after Cohen used the artificial intelligence program Google Bard to generate these phony citations, which were then used by his attorney, David Schwartz, in a⁣ letter to a New York federal court.

Supervised Release Requested to be Terminated Early

Cohen, who has been​ under court supervision since 2021 following his ​prison sentence for⁤ tax⁣ evasion and illegal campaign contributions, sought to have ‌his‌ supervised release terminated‌ early. However, it seems that his lack of knowledge about “emerging trends” in the legal world ⁢led to this embarrassing incident.

In an unsealed statement,⁣ Cohen admitted that he was unaware that Google Bard was a generative text service capable of producing citations⁣ that appeared⁤ real but were actually fabricated. He had previously used the program successfully to ​find genuine information, leading⁢ to his misunderstanding.

Sanctions Threatened⁤ as Judge Questions Fake Citations

The​ judge overseeing the case expressed her inability to⁤ locate the​ three cited cases and demanded an explanation from ‌David Schwartz,⁣ the lawyer responsible for submitting the invented citations. In his response, also unsealed on Friday,​ Schwartz claimed that⁤ he believed Cohen’s attorney, E. Danya ⁢Perry, ⁢had provided ⁣the cases and therefore ⁢did not question‍ their authenticity.

Apologies and Surprises

Both Cohen and Schwartz ​expressed remorse for their actions. Schwartz, who considered himself a longtime⁤ friend of Cohen, apologized to the court for not​ personally‍ verifying the cases ​before submitting them. Cohen, on the other⁣ hand, was stunned that Schwartz had not caught the deception, stating that he never expected⁣ his friend to include the nonexistent cases without ‌confirming their existence.

This incident serves ‍as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of relying ​on AI programs for ‍legal research and highlights the importance of thorough verification in the legal ‍profession.

Read more: The Washington Examiner

What⁣ are the potential pitfalls of relying on AI-generated content ‍in‍ the legal field, as⁤ highlighted by Leonard Platt’s admission ⁤in the federal ⁢court filing?

Leonard Platt, in a‍ filing that was submitted⁤ to a federal court ⁣in ⁢New York. ⁤The admission has sparked widespread concern and debate regarding the⁢ ethics and reliability of using ⁤AI​ technology in the legal field.

Cohen’s use of Google⁤ Bard ⁤raises numerous​ questions⁣ about the potential pitfalls of relying on AI-generated content. While AI technology has undoubtedly revolutionized various industries, including law, ⁢the incident involving Cohen demonstrates the need for caution and scrutiny when incorporating such programs into legal proceedings.

The use of AI in the legal field has been touted⁢ as a means to streamline processes, improve accuracy,⁣ and enhance legal research. AI programs like Google Bard are designed to assist lawyers ‌in finding⁣ relevant cases and legal precedents‍ to‍ support​ their ⁢arguments. These programs can scan vast databases, analyze complex legal texts, and generate summaries ⁤and citations in a matter of seconds.‍ On‍ the surface, this technology promises to⁣ be a valuable tool ⁤for lawyers, saving them time and effort.

However, Cohen’s case underscores the fine ‌line between technological advancements and ethical boundaries. The responsibility ultimately lies ⁣with legal professionals to ensure ⁣the accuracy and authenticity of the content they submit to courts. While it may be convenient to rely on AI-generated citations, attorneys must exercise diligence and ensure their legitimacy before presenting them as evidence.

The ramifications of​ including fictitious cases in a court filing are significant. They undermine the foundation of a fair and just legal system, where cases are decided based ​on ⁣accurate information and precedents. Furthermore, it erodes public trust ​in the judicial system as ⁤a whole, as the ⁢inclusion of ‍false information compromises the integrity of legal proceedings.

Cohen’s confession also highlights the potential flaws within AI technology itself. As advanced as ‍AI programs may be, they are not foolproof. They can mistakenly attribute factual inaccuracies​ or generate content that lacks the necessary rigor and scrutiny often required in the legal context. The⁢ reliance on‌ AI for legal research ‍should, therefore, be accompanied by comprehensive verification processes to ensure ⁤the information it⁤ produces is reliable.

This incident should serve as⁢ a wake-up call for both legal professionals and AI developers alike. It ‌emphasizes the need for transparency, accountability, and ethical considerations when implementing AI ‌technology ‌in‍ the legal field. Legal experts must establish guidelines ‍and protocols⁣ to prevent ⁤the dissemination of false or misleading information as a ​result of AI-generated content. Conversely, AI developers should continue refining ⁣their programs to minimize the risk‍ of inaccuracies and​ potential ⁤misuse ‌in the‌ future.

Moving forward, it is crucial for‍ legal professionals to exercise due diligence when utilizing‌ AI technology.⁤ They must meticulously⁤ vet ⁢the sources⁤ and authenticity of the⁤ information the AI program generates before incorporating it​ into any legal proceedings. Moreover, regular ​monitoring and verification of AI-generated content should be undertaken⁣ to ensure ongoing accuracy.

The use of AI in law ‌has the⁢ potential to revolutionize the​ legal profession, improving efficiency and enhancing‍ the quality of ‍legal research. ⁤However, incidents like​ Cohen’s expose the potential pitfalls and dangers​ of blind ‌reliance on technology. It is imperative that legal professionals strike a balance between the benefits and risks associated with AI, ‍implementing the appropriate⁤ safeguards to uphold the integrity of the‍ legal‍ system.

While the full consequences of Cohen’s actions remain to be seen, one thing ‌is certain: this incident spotlights ‍the importance of integrity, professionalism, and due diligence in the legal⁤ field. The lessons derived from ‍this case must guide future decisions⁣ and policies surrounding the⁣ use‍ of AI ⁢in‌ law, ensuring that ⁢technology serves as a tool to enhance justice rather than undermine ‌it.