Listen to article \u2022\u00a00:00 min<\/p>\n
Raja Rajan doesn\u2019t remember if he used Claude, ChatGPT, or Grok to write the memo that got him in hot water with a federal judge, again. <\/p>\n
The Cherry Hill<\/a> attorney was pressed for time so he says he took a \u201cshortcut\u201d when he wrote a brief that was filed in federal court on Feb. 20. <\/p>\n He wrote it using an AI chatbot, Rajan said, and asked a different bot to verify the citations were accurate. With the technology\u2019s blessing, he filed the motion for a business dispute in which he represented his brother.<\/p>\n Opposing counsel noticed six false citations, and notified the court. Rajan tried to review the cases the chatbot cited. Five citations had errors, and one case cited didn\u2019t exist at all. It was an AI hallucination. <\/p>\n \u201cSo that\u2019s when I knew there\u2019s a problem,\u201d Rajan said. <\/p>\n U.S. District Judge Kai N. Scott sanctioned Rajan $5,000 last week<\/a>. Just over a year ago, Scott ordered him to pay $2,500 for relying on AI to write two motions, and sent him to continuing legal education classes. <\/p>\n It \u201cmakes no sense,\u201d the judge said, that an attorney who has practiced for nearly 40 years violated such a basic tenet of professional conduct. <\/p>\n \u201cAny first-semester, first-year law student would know that a fundamental rule of lawyering \u2014 during litigation or otherwise \u2014 is to ensure that any authority to which a lawyer cites does indeed support the proposition for which he cites it,” Scott wrote. <\/p>\n The judge from Philly\u2019s federal court said she would refer Rajan, who is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, to the state\u2019s disciplinary board if he were to file a brief with AI hallucinations a third time. <\/p>\n Rajan\u2019s sanctions are part of a wave of disciplinary actions by courts grappling with the proliferation of AI in the legal profession. The temptation to use the technology for legal research and write briefs has overtaken solo practitioners, such as Rajan, and the Big Law\u2019s top firms alike. <\/p>\n \u00bb READ MORE: An immigrant sued ICE and won. A judge said the government must pay back his $40,000 in legal fees.<\/a><\/p>\n Prestigious Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell<\/a> apologized last week for having submitted a court filing with AI hallucinations. The firm has more than 900 attorneys, and its partners charge over $2,000 an hour<\/a>.<\/p>\n But courts have been unsure how to approach the new technology, and what to require from attorneys. <\/p>\n Earlier this year the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue for the first time in a split decision emblematic of the debate around who is responsible for AI-generated errors \u2014 the lawyer or the technology? <\/p>\n A panel of three judges reprimanded an attorney for an AI-generated filing that included seven citations \u201criddled with factual and legal inaccuracies\u201d and one that \u201csimply did not exist,\u201d according to the court\u2019s opinion<\/a>. <\/p>\n But two of the judges stopped short of imposing more significant sanctions, in part, because the Third Circuit \u201chas not yet had the opportunity to speak on the issue and emphasize that, when using AI, litigants must still strictly adhere to all rules of professional conduct,\u201d Judge Cindy K. Chung wrote. <\/p>\n Senior Judge Jane R. Roth would have gone further, she said in a separate opinion. Attorneys should know that it is their responsibility to verify information they submit, the judge said, and courts don\u2019t need to issue reminders for every new circumstance.<\/p>\n \u201cPunishing an attorney for failure to verify information obtained from AI is consistent with the standard to which attorneys historically have been held,\u201d Roth said.<\/p>\n For now, Philadelphia\u2019s federal court instructs attorneys<\/a> to disclose their use of AI and certify that every citation has been fact-checked. <\/p>\n Rajan said he hasn\u2019t litigated cases in years, but picked up the case to help his brother and former business partner, who is accused of deceiving an investor to secure a million-dollar loan<\/a>. <\/p>\n In addition to the two AI-related sanctions, Scott ordered Rajan in February to pay $78,000<\/a> in legal fees to the opposing counsel for filing absurd counterclaims, acting in bad faith, and making disingenuous claims. <\/p>\n