Judge Fine Georgia Lawyer for the obvious use of AI in the event of divorce

Article

A photo that was taken on January 2, 2025 shows the Letters AI for artificial intelligence on a laptop screen (R) next to the logo of the chat -ai application on a smartphone screen in Frankfurt am Main, West Germany. (Photo by Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via GE

The Court of Appeal in Georgia punished a lawyer at Atlanta after a judge decided that she used artificial intelligence in a divorce case of her clients.

The judges say that several cases that lawyer Diana Lynch cited in their application do not exist.

What we know:

In the decision obtained from FOX 5, judge Jeff Watkins, in connection with an order in the event of divorce of their clients, punished a fine of $ 2,500.

According to the judge, half of the cases to which the arrangement refers to be “hallucinations” from generative artificial intelligence. The other two had nothing to do with the Pro proposition that Lynch explained in her letter, said Watkins.

When the ex-wife of Lynch's client pointed out to the non-existent cases, the judge said that Lynch quoted almost a dozen references that did not exist or the proposal were disrespectful. The lawyer then allegedly called for fees in connection with the complaint.

What you say:

Jackson wrote that he and the other judges were “worried” by the wrong cases cited in the order of the court.

“Lynch's use of fictional cases and quotes has deprived the opposing party the opportunity to react appropriately to their arguments,” the judge wrote.

The judges also cited a warning of the highest judge John Roberts of the Supreme Court on the use of AI by lawyers in his report on the federal judges in 2023 about the Federal Justice. In this report, Roberts expressly warns of “hallucinations”, which can lead to lawyers cite existing cases.

What's next:

The fine imposed on Lynch is the maximum punishment that the law allows.

The judges also cleared the previous court order and sent the case back to a lower dish to rethink.

The source: Information for this story comes from a decision by the Court of Appeal Georgia.

Georgianews