More on the Sanctions Hearing for Lawyer Who Used ChatGPT, Which Fabricated Precedents

Matthew Russell Lee (Inner City Press) has what appears to be a live-Tweet transcript of the hearing, as it progressed; I can't be certain that it's accurate, but it seems credible enough to link to. There should presumably be a decision soon from Judge Kevin Castel. For the backstory, see my earlier post (which is based on written court filings).

UPDATE: John Russell (Courthouse News) has a story on the hearing, with quotes.

Comments

[Bored Lawyer]

This struck me:

Judge Castel: Did you do anything other than sign your affirmation? Did you read any of the cases? LoDuca: No. Judge Castel: Did you do anything to make sure those cases existed? LoDuca: No. Judge Castel: Then Avianca replied – LoDuca: I did not read it. Judge Castel: Did Mr. Schwartz alert you to this, from Avianca’s reply memo? LoDoca: No. Judge Castel: And when you got my orders of April 11 and 12? LoDuca: I told Mr. Schwartz the Court would like to see the cases cited. Judge Castel: Do you recall writing to me you were going on vacation? And the Court giving you until April 25?
LoDuca: Yes.
Judge Castel: Was it true you were going on vacation?
LoDuca: No, judge.

LoDuca was the associate who was admitted to the SDNY, which the main attorney, Schwartz, was not. Schwartz did the work, and LoDuca signed off on it without even reading it. That is likely to be a second source of sanctions. You can’t act as the front-man (front-counsel) for someone else without checking his work. And then he lied to the judge about going on vacation (in fact it was Schwartz who was out, not him.) Not a promising start to a legal career.

[Jameson]

LoDuca was admitted to the NY bar in 1985, so while he may be an associate, he's not exactly a newbie.
https://opengovny.com/attorney/1972363

[Gandydancer]

And Schwartz was admitted in the Second Judicial Department (seated in Brooklyn) of New York State in 1992.https://opengovny.com/attorney?company=LEVIDOW+LEVIDOW+%26+OBERMAN

I repeatedly drew attention to this business of having one attorney acting as a strawman for another in my comments on EV's first mention of this case, but aroused no interest in that aspect of it.

[Gandydancer]

For convenience, on Judge Castel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._Kevin_Castel

[David Nieporent]

I mean, it's textually a Rule 11 violation by LoDuca.

[David Nieporent]

Not a promising start to a legal career.

Don’t be fooled by the term “associate.” LoDuca has been admitted to practice since 1985!

EDIT: D'oh! Should've reloaded before posting, since Jameson made that point too.

The vacation thing is really bad for LoDuca, though. On paper, LoDuca was attorney of record, but in real life he had nothing to do with the case. But he couldn't have gotten an extension by saying, "I'm not really working on this case and the guy who is is going on vacation," so he pretended he was the one who was. It's trivial but it's a real lie to the court.

[Gandydancer]

Just signing the paperwork pretending to be the actual attorney working on the case was a real lie to the court.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I saw this: “It’s not fair to pick apart people's words, but I’ll just note that his has been repeatedly described as a mistake,” [the judge] continued. “I understand why it’s framed that way. The mistake was to have submitted the brief on March 1st that cited nonexistent cases, but that’s not what this is all about, that’s part of what it’s about.”....

[RSM]

I thought this was most telling:

Judge: You know what F.3d means, right? Schwartz: Federal district, third department?

[Life of Brian]

I chuckled at that too, but don't find it all that shocking for someone who has exclusively practiced in state courts for decades.

Oh the other hand, I thought the "I was duped" bit was exceptionally poorly taken, particularly in the midst of that particular line of questioning where the judge basically walked through how he couldn't possibly have made a good-faith effort to verify the cases were real.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wonder how many *competent* young lawyers, who have only used LEXIS, honestly know what the "3d" actually stands for -- only that it is in the citation and needs to be included in the citation.

[David Nieporent]

All the ones who have been to law school.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ten years out of law school?

[Roger S]

This judge is a petty tyrant, like an elementary school teacher. Lawyers cite cases without reading them all the time. Sometimes they trust their tools. Not a big deal. I think the real reason he is upset is that he does not like AI encroaching on legal work.

[Life of Brian]

Lawyers cite cases without reading them all the time.

Cases they already know, sure.

Cases they've never heard of? Not if you want to have clients for very long. Just about the least embarrassing thing you didn't bother to read is that the case with the juicy soundbite ends up deciding the relevant legal issue against you, and it goes downhill from there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I think the real reason he is upset is that he does not like AI encroaching on legal work."

Well, he didn't like it in this case, with good reason.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You do? Personally, I think the real reason he is upset is that the lawyers cited a bunch of cases that don’t exist and presented fabrications purporting to be those cases when called out on it.

[Gandydancer]

Sure, it's real tyranny expecting the lawyers to cite real cases that support their claims about them or to expect that the lawyers actually practicing in your court be admitted to do so.

Not.

[David Nieporent]

This judge is a petty tyrant, like an elementary school teacher. Lawyers cite cases without reading them all the time. Sometimes they trust their tools. Not a big deal. I think the real reason he is upset is that he does not like AI encroaching on legal work.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[KenveeB]

"Lawyers cite cases without reading them all the time."

Incompetent lawyers, maybe. I've never done that once in a twenty-year career. I may read only the relevant holdings instead of the entire case if it's a lengthy one, but I have never and would never cite to a case solely based off a search engine summary.

[wolfefan]

Matthew is a good follow on Twitter. He's really good at live-blogging trials and the like - better IMO than a lot of bigger names. @InnerCityPress

[The Drill SGT]

"Castel: Take a look at the notarization here - it's dated April, but notarized in January. When did you sign it? LoDuca: In April."

I'm an old fashioned guy, non-lawyer( though was married to one)

My personal experience is
- document prepared and dated
- interested parties sign with notary present
- notary stamps and signs off

these guys notarize each others work, using form letters and don't correct the dates beforehand?

Isn't this a false statement in a Federal matter, even if trivial?

[Gandydancer]

It was "1", not "January", iirc. A typo is not a "false statement".

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a different font?

At what point does reckless disregard become “a false statement”?

You know, I wonder how much sloppy paperwork these folks have gotten away with -- and how many of their pleadings actually make legal sense. If they settle most of their cases, who would ever know?

[The Drill SGT]

here's hoe Eugene quoted the judge two weeks ago:

"{The April 25 affidavit was filed in response to the Orders of April 11 and 12, 2023, but is sworn to before a Notary Public on the 25th of January 2023. Mr. LoDuca should be prepared to address this anomaly on June 8, 2023 and bring with him a wet-ink signed copy of the affidavit with the notary's signature and stamp.}"

[David Nieporent]

This is a "false statement" in the same way writing January 10, 2022 on your checks in January 2023 is. It's just sloppiness. It's by far the trivial-ist part of the whole thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is it just sloppiness, though, or is it evidence that the notarization was actually fraudulent, that the notary of record didn't actually witness the signing?

It sounds to me like they were cutting corners all over the place.

[David Nieporent]

The notary in this case was the other lawyer, so it's just sloppiness.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In what way would it be evidence of that?

[tkamenick]

As I've said repeatedly, the right thing to do here would be to say "Yes, I deserve to be sanctioned, I screwed up and without justification" and argue about the amount.