Category Uncategorized

“...I will explain it by reference to the judicial guidance we have promulgated on AI. This emphasises that individual judges take full personal responsibility for what goes out in their name. So, just like a Google search on the internet, AI also can be handy for reminding you of something you knew but had forgotten, but also just like googling, AI is a poor and unsafe tool for finding the answer to a question you do not yourself know and cannot recognise as correct...”

Lord Justice Birss

Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to…

"The irony—a credentialed expert on AI misinformation fell victim to relying too heavily on AI…"

"We would go further however. There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused. In those circumstances, practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession with individual leadership responsibilities (such as heads of chambers and managing partners) and by those with the responsibility for regulating the provision of legal services. Those measures must ensure that every individual currently providing legal services within this jurisdiction (whenever and wherever they were qualified to do so) understands and complies with their professional and ethical obligations and their duties to the court if using artificial intelligence. For the future, in Hamid hearings such as these, the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled." Dame Victoria Sharp

“...That said, in considering an appropriate sanction the Court takes into account the steps [Lawyer] has taken "to educate himself on the responsible use of AI in legal practice" and adhere to "the highest standards of professional conduct moving forward..."

AI Case Tracker

“…AI tools are now being used to produce fake material, including text, images and video. Courts and tribunals have always had to handle forgeries, and allegations of forgery, involving varying levels of sophistication. Judges should be aware of this new possibility and potential challenges posed by deepfake technology”
AI Guidance for Judicial Office Holders

“… I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist. That’s scary. It almost led to the scarier outcome (from my perspective) of including those bogus materials in a judicial order. Strong deterrence is needed to make sure that attorneys don’t succumb to this easy shortcut”

Judge Wilner - Lacey v State Farm

“The steps which the Court will consider taking include the initiation of proceedings for contempt of court pursuant to CPR 81.6.” Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the KBD)

“We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing, including respondents' counsel's unfounded insinuation that appellant's counsel "used ChatGPT to write [his] brief" without verifying the accuracy of cited case authorities. The court reminds respondents' counsel that, as an officer of the court, such representations must be substantiated, and without evidence, these insinuations can undermine trust and damage one's reputation (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.00] rule 3.3[a][1]). Counsel's response at oral argument when questioned about his claim was dismissive and his attempt to defend and modulate his accusatory contention was disingenuous.
Upon review of the cases relied upon by appellant, we find no support for respondents' counsel's position.”
Vanguard v 400 Times Sq