Fake ChatGPT Cases Cost Lawyers $5,000 Plus Embarrassment

by Roy Strom

 

• Bogus ChatGPT citations lead to $5,000 fines
• Bar discipline possible for other actions

Two Manhattan lawyers fined $5,000 for filing a ChatGPT-generated court brief could still face additional discipline, but the public attention they’re getting may be the worst of the punishment.

Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca were fined by a federal judge on Thursday for submitting a brief containing bogus quotes from nonexistent cases. The lawyers will also be required to send the 34-page sanctions opinion to the real-life judges that ChatGPT said handed down the fake opinions.

“They’re lucky, but I think it’s enough of a sanction considering they’ve been the poster children for incompetent use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law,” said Jan Jacobowitz, a Miami-based legal ethics attorney. “Everybody is talking about this.”

The pair could face discipline from New York’s state bar association stemming from the use of ChatGPT, ethics experts said. US District Judge P. Kevin Castel found that at least one of the lawyers made knowingly false statements to the court and that the pair “doubled down” on the fake cases in the face of questions about the brief’s accuracy.

The embarrassment from the widespread news coverage of the case, coupled with the fines, should be enough to deter the lawyers from again falling prey to ChatGPT’s hallucinations, according to legal ethics experts.

“A litigator would have to be living under a rock not to have gotten the message already about the risks of blithely relying on ChatGPT,” said Fordham Law professor Bruce Green. “The bigger disciplinary risk relates to the lawyer’s conduct after his initial memo of law was challenged, when the lawyer failed to go back and check the cases, and instead reaffirmed their legitimacy.”

Schwartz and LoDuca “abandoned their responsibilities” as lawyers by submitting the fake case citations, Castel said in the sanctions order.

The judge slammed the pair for “doubling down” on the fake cases and only telling the truth after the court asked why they shouldn’t be sanctioned.

LoDuca also made a “knowingly false statement” to the court when he said he was on vacation in an effort to delay a court deadline, according to the sanctions order. He later testified he was not on vacation.

The New York Bar’s grievance committee is “quite likely to consider imposing some sort of discipline” from the lawyers’ conduct after submitting the brief, Green said.

The saga wasted time and hurt the lawyers’ client—who is suing Avianca Airlines, alleging he was injured on a 2019 flight from El Salvador to New York—Castel said. The episode also fuels cynicism about the legal profession and potentially harms the reputation of the judges whose names were tied to the fake opinions, he added.

“A future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity,” the judge wrote.

Schwartz asked the court for leniency at a hearing earlier this month, saying he “failed miserably” at verifying the cases he cited. Hewas “duped” by the chatpot launched by nonprofit OpenAI, he said, admitting “it’s embarrassing.”

His firm has agreed to hold mandatory training sessions on technological competence and artificial intelligence programs and on notarization processes, according to the opinion.

The lawyers may face a reprimand or censure from a state bar discipline proceeding, but nothing more than a “slap on the wrist,” said Michael Frisch, ethics counsel at Georgetown Law.

“These people have been pretty badly embarrassed,” Frisch said. “The publicity alone is probably a disincentive for people to engage in like conduct.”

The case is Mata v. Avianca, Inc., S.D.N.Y., 22-01461, 6/22/23

Full Article & Source:
Fake ChatGPT Cases Cost Lawyers $5,000 Plus Embarrassment

Wisconsin: Appeals Court Returns Elderly Woman's House to Couple Charged With Stealing It

A Milwaukee couple charged with unlawfully taking title to a mentally incompetent woman's house have won the house back in the state Court of Appeals — at least for now.

Before they were charged with crimes, Orlin and Craig Root-Thalman were involved in a probate court case about their 92-year-old neighbor. In the fall of 2016, social services workers had become suspicious the Root-Thalmans might be financially exploiting the woman, who had no children.

The county's Department of Aging petitioned for temporary guardianship, alleging she was suffering dementia. She had given the couple her home via a quitclaim deed and gave them powers of attorney for her finances and health care in July 2016.

The Root-Thalmans attended a hearing as interested parties.

Milwaukee Circuit Judge David Borowski seemed skeptical of the Root-Thalmans' explanations that they had moved the neighbor to a hotel while they renovated her home so she could move back in and that they were merely trying to consolidate her nearly $2 million in savings from more than a dozen area banks into one account.

When Orlin Root-Thalman tried to explain answers, Borowski cut him off, according to the Court of Appeals decision, and ultimately ordered him arrested for contempt of court for trying to interrupt Borowski.

Borowski granted the temporary guardianship and voided the July 2016 quitclaim deed conveying the woman's property to the Root-Thalmans. Months later, at the end of 2017, the Root-Thalmans were charged with crimes.

Those cases are pending, but the Court of Appeals late last month reversed Borowski's decision to void the property transfer because the Root-Thalmans were never given notice their property rights might be in jeopardy at the guardianship hearing and never had the chance to hire an attorney or prepare a defense.

"In addition, the circuit court repeatedly prevented Orlin from testifying in response to questions from the attorneys and from the court itself. Craig was not given any opportunity to testify," the court wrote.

The guardian Borowski appointed in 2016, lawyer Eamon Guerin, could still try to undo the transfer on behalf of the woman, in a separate action, the court wrote. He said he expects to pursue an action soon.

In the criminal complaint, prosecutors charged that the filing of the quitclaim deed was a felony: "The deed was false and a sham because J.H. lacked the mental competence to validly execute the deed. She could not, as the deed attests, 'acknowledge' the meaning and import of the deed. By filing this false and sham deed, the defendants committed the crime of Criminal Slander to Title."

Craig Root-Thalman is scheduled for a plea hearing in July.

Orlin Root-Thalman has been vigorously litigating his case. His attorney, Justin Singleton, argued that complaint should be dismissed because prosecutors withheld facts that tended to favor Orlin Root-Thalman and misstated others. He sought sanctions against the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Kurt Benkley, as well.

A judge ruled against the defense. And Singleton withdrew his motion for sanction.

Benkley filed his own motion for sanctions against Singleton for bringing what the state calls frivolous motions. He sought a reimbursement to the state for more than $1,000 for the time Benkley said he spent responding to the defense motions.

A judge is scheduled to rule on that motion Friday.

Source:
Appeals court returns elderly woman's house to couple charged with stealing it

See Also:
Couple charged with scamming home, cash from 92-year-old neighbor with dementia

State panel slaps Bexar judge who called man “Mr. Maggot”

Judge Kelly Cross

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued sanctions against Bexar County Probate Judge Kelly Cross for, among other acts, calling a disabled man with infected wounds “Mr Maggot” or “Maggot Man,” comparing a disabled child’s IQ to that of a ball point pen, and demeaning other mentally disadvantaged wards of the state.

The commission handed Cross a “public admonition” and instructed her to obtain one hour of instruction from a mentor, focusing on judicial demeanor and courtroom decorum.

Cross, a first-term Republican, won her March primary race with 64 percent of the vote, but faces attorney Oscar Kazen, a Democrat, in the November general election. In 2016, Cross fired Kazen as an associate probate court judge and replaced him with her staff attorney, Art Rossi, a fellow Republican.

“None of this comes as any surprise,” Kazen said Friday after reading the decision. “I honestly think it’s just the tip of the iceberg. She has violated campaign laws … sued the county and insulted intellectually disadvantaged litigants and their families. It is an enormous embarrassment.”

Kazen, who had presided over the county’s mental health docket for nine years, said he once saw Cross angrily address an attorney in the hallway outside her courtroom and later went to speak to the judge privately about her behavior.

“She just brushed me off,” Kazen said. “She does … (verbal outbursts) almost out of joy. It takes some time for every judge to mature on the bench and understand this gift of power over people’s lives that has been given to you. She does not understand this.”

The commission’s five-page ruling says it received an anonymous complaint on Aug. 12, 2016, alleging that Cross referred to a proposed ward (“John Doe”) as “Mr. Maggot” or “Maggot Man” during a proceeding in his guardianship case. Three witnesses provided written statements confirming that account.

Judge Cross told the commission she had no specific recollection of those statements but did not doubt their veracity. She defended her off-handed remarks as just a way to distinguish litigants among thousands that come before a judge.

“Attorneys and other people talk to me about cases every day,” she testified. “They use the proper name, but I can’t remember 4,000 names …To differentiate one case from another, I might ask, ‘Is this the maggot guy? Is this the rat lady case?’…The surnames don’t stick.”

Cross told commission investigators she only used such language in front of attorneys and other “professionals appearing in her court,” and not in front of the person being discussed, but Kazen and other attorneys familiar with her courtroom behavior say this isn’t true. Probate court primarily handles wills, guardianships, eminent domain, mental health and estates.

The commission received another complaint, on Feb. 6, 2018, from San Antonio attorney Kathleen “K.T.” Whitehead providing affidavits from a number of her clients alleging a pattern of insulting or dismissive behavior by Cross.

Victoria and Eric Martinez, whose adult daughter was the subject of a guardianship proceeding, said Cross flippantly referred to their daughter’s low IQ. Her response: “I wasn’t speaking to them. I have no idea what they did or didn’t hear. The conversation was not for them.”

Another litigant, Lysa Curry, said Cross was “rude and curt” to her and Curry’s attorney and that Cross “lacked compassion for my family and other families in this process.” Cross said Curry’s attorney did not come to court prepared and that she not responsible for how attorneys interpret the mood of their clients.

Jennifer and Jo Trevino, serving as guardians of their adult daughter, told the commission Judge Cross yelled at their attorney, upsetting the couple and their daughter to the point that she had to be calmed down. Cross denied she acted inappropriately.

“Judge Cross maintained throughout her appearance,” wrote the commission’s Judge Douglas S. Lang, “that she is the victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by Ms. Whitehead and the Judge’s political opponents to ruin her reputation and her chances for re-election….and reiterated her deep commitment to the disabled community…and vehemently denied she would every knowingly disrespect or demean an incapacitated person appearing before her in court.”

On Friday, Cross said in a written statement that she appreciated the commission’s “measured response to what I believe are politically motivated allegations against me…. At times, my zealous commitment may have exceeded my skills at diplomacy…”

Last year, a survey of 419 attorneys practicing in Bexar County, asked to evaluate the county’s 51 judges, ranked Cross last in all six categories - punctuality, hard work, following the law, temperament, impartiality and overall performance.

Full Article & Source:
State panel slaps Bexar judge who called man “Mr. Maggot”

Justices Probe Use of Precedent in Judicial Discipline

Attorneys representing two Philadelphia judges removed from the bench last year may have wanted to argue about the unfairness of the disciplinary process or the sanctions their clients received, but the state Supreme Court was only interested in hearing about the role that prior precedent may play in the Court of Judicial Discipline's deliberative process.

On Tuesday the justices heard argument in the disciplinary cases against former Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Angeles Roca and former Municipal Court Judge Dawn Segal, who were removed from the bench last year.

The justices, who had specifically granted the appeals on the issue of what role stare decisis should play for the CJD, asked about what the process should be for determining sanctions, whether the disciplinary body should have to outline its reasoning and what role the Supreme Court can play in hearing appeals. Any arguments that Roca and Segal were not afforded due process or that their sentences went beyond the bounds of fairness were quickly rejected by the court.

When attorney Samuel Stretton, who represented Roca and argued first before the Supreme Court, said he did not think removal was warranted for Roca since she had only sought a rule returnable in a case involving her son, Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor put an end to that argument, saying Roca's son received a ruling that nobody else would have. Stretton is a regular contributor to Pennsylvania Law Weekly, an affiliate of The Legal.

"Her son received something a similarly situated citizen would not have," Saylor said.

During attorney Stuart Haimowitz's time arguing, Haimowitz, who is representing Segal, said his client had not been given adequate due process since the sanction varied so vastly from the conduct at issue.

However, Saylor again put an end to that argument, saying "of course she did," and that Haimowitz was making "a serious allegation."

Saylor dismissed Haimowitz from the lectern after the exchange following only a few minutes of argument, saying, in part, that Haimowitz's arguments were repeating some of the issues Stretton had previously raised.

When it came to the question regarding stare decisis, Stretton contended that the court needed to consider precedent when making its decisions on sanctions. According to Stretton, the court did not do any proportionality analysis when considering Roca's sanctions, but simply decided that corruption requires removal.

"I'm suggesting that the court had no studied review of the case law of the past 24 to 25 years of that court and the Supreme Court treating that kind of case different from removal," Stretton said. "What happened here was a sea change."

Justice Debra Todd said Stretton was asking for a "robotic" approach where the court would simply have to follow a check list, but Stretton replied that he did not believe the court needed to be so strictly bound by stare decisis, but simply that it needed to review and distinguish the case law when making a ruling.

Robert Graci, chief counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board, argued in reply that the CJD did what it needed to do in terms of reviewing the precedent, and that a finding by the justices that the court was bound by stare decisis would not change the decision to remove Roca and Segal.

Graci said he was not surprised by the decision to remove Segal and Roca given the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in In re Magisterial District Judge Bruno, which, he said, found that corruption had no place on the bench.

"I think that the times have changed," Graci said.  (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
Justices Probe Use of Precedent in Judicial Discipline

8th Circuit Court of appeals threatens Minneapolis lawyer with sanctions

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals took the unusual step on Monday of threatening to impose its own sanctions on a Minneapolis foreclosure attorney for continuing to file appeals, using legal arguments that have been repeatedly rejected by the district court in Minnesota as well as the federal appeals court.

Attorney William B. Butler already faces possible discipline from the federal district court in Minnesota and the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, both of which are currently conducting investigations of him. Butler's problems were described in the Star Tribune last Thursday.

It is the third time in five days that the appeals panel has upheld the dismissal of a Butler lawsuit. On Thursday and Friday it issued separate opinions, upholding dismissals of his suits by Minnesota District Court judges.

On Monday, a three-judge appeals court panel issued its latest ruling, upholding a decision by U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, who dismissed a case filed by attorney Butler last August. The appeals panel called Butler's continued rehashing of arguments "troubling," citing three similar Minnesota cases in which his arguments were rejected.

"HIs deliberate attemp to ignore these cases suggests that he has the intention of deceiving or misleading the court into ruling in his favor," the panel said in Monday's decision. "At the very least, it suggests he lacks a nonfrivolous basis for appeal. Such conduct may provide a basis for this court to impose its own sanctions in the future."

The appeals court quoted liberally from Schiltz's harsh criticism of Butler for using the "show me the note argument" that the foreclosing entity no longer possesses the original foreclosure borrowing note, making the foreclosure invalid. In his August ruling, Schiltz imposed sanctions totalling $79,766. Butler has said he will not pay the sanctions by local federal judges, insisting his position is correct, the courts are wrong and he will eventually prevail. The sanctions now total $323,307, according to Star Tribune calculations.

Full Article and Source:
8th Circuit Court of appeals threatens Minneapolis lawyer with sanctions