90-Day Suspension of Colorado Lawyer Who Filed ChatGPT-Written Motion with Hallucinated Cases

Looks like the main problem wasn't the blind reliance, but the coverup.

From People v. Crabill, released yesterday:

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties' stipulation to discipline and suspended Zachariah C. Crabill (attorney registration number 56783) for one year and one day, with ninety days to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon Crabill's successful completion of a two-year period of probation, with conditions. The suspension took effect November 22, 2023.

In April 2023, a client hired Crabill to prepare a motion to set aside judgment in the client's civil case. Crabill, who had never drafted such a motion before working on his client's matter, cited case law that he found through the artificial intelligence platform, ChatGPT. Crabill did not read the cases he found through ChatGPT or otherwise attempt to verify that the citations were accurate. In May 2023, Crabill filed the motion with the presiding court.

Before a hearing on the motion, Crabill discovered that the cases from ChatGPT were either incorrect or fictitious. But Crabill did not alert the court to the sham cases at the hearing. Nor did he withdraw the motion. When the judge expressed concerns about the accuracy of the cases, Crabill falsely attributed the mistakes to a legal intern. Six days after the hearing, Crabill filed an affidavit with the court, explaining that he used ChatGPT when he drafted the motion.

Through this conduct, Crabill violated Colo. RPC 1.1 (a lawyer must competently represent a client); Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1) (a lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal); and Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 242.41(a).

Thanks to Jake Karr for the pointer.

Comments

[Bored Lawyer]

"hallucinated cases" -- for a minute there I thought magic mushrooms were somehow involved. Aren't those legal in Colorado?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I still can't understand how this happens -- in order for it to consider Smith v. Jones to be a real case, it has to find people referring to Smith v. Jones and while there is the "10,000 monkeys" concept that 10.000 monkeys randomly pushing keys on a typewriter could produce a valid literary work, I still have to ask *what* AI is tapping in order to hallucinate in the first place.

Smith saying "I'm going to sue Jones" could possibly result in a "Smith v. Jones" but for the rest of the citation?!?

There's something missing here....

[Michael P]

Most of these LLMs work at the level of tokens that represent word fragments, but can synthesize higher-level structures and "fill in the blanks". They don't need to have a specific Smith v. Jones case in the input, but they need to have the names Smith and Jones and lawsuit text.

[David Jay]

You’re right about your bafflement, Doctor. It is doing something beyond predictive text. It is coming up with, unpredictable as to when and how, invented text, cites, propositions. That’s really amazing. It can often suggest a novel inference or pathway.

I am amazed by people using it to write a brief. You’d have to be so far gone in terms of sincere commitment to doing a good job that this seems like you should be disbarred. All the rules on point here in this article, sure. But if you’re even at this threshold, you have already given up. That’s dangerous.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This use of an unreliable crutch amplifies but is consistent with something I have observed in recent years. Most lawyers from my era went from law school to firms (large, medium, small) or organizations (in-house, prosecutors, public defenders, etc.). Those institutions provided guidance, training, oversight, example, opportunity to perform appropriate work, etc.

I sense it has become more common for new lawyers to work as sole practitioners. I also sense it has become more difficult for new lawyers to receive first-rate mentoring at firms. How are those lawyers to learn to operate as effective lawyers? How are they going to get the proper level and volume of work? Where can they turn when they need help?

This saddens me. Even before I graduated from law school, I had more than a dozen excellent mentors -- and hundreds of other resources -- investing time, effort, and skill in me at my law firm. I am enormously grateful for the structure, education, encouragement, and breadth of experience -- appropriate experience -- I received. I would not have wanted to begin practicing alone. I believe the profession should offer better circumstances to young lawyers. I also believe the profession and law firms would benefit in the medium to long term from providing better support to younger lawyers.

I have empathy for those who have not had suitable mentors and organizational support. That would not excuse using a chat program for production of legal work, in my judgment. I also would not use it for any form of writing and would be disinclined to employ or associate with anyone who did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I sense it has become more common for new lawyers to work as sole practitioners."

Interesting.

What I've heard from former students (who then went on to law school) is the exact opposite. That it is financially prohibitive to start as a solo practitioner because of the overhead costs, including the malpractice insurance.

Now I don't know what RAK means by "recent years" -- I'm talking lawyers who graduated law school 2010 and later, i.e. after the crash of 2008.

[MoreCurious]

Two years of clerking -- first for a trial court judge then for an appellate court judge taught me research, writing, and proofreading skills that would serve me for more than 40 years of practice. It is simply inconceivable that memos and draft opinions submitted to either of my judges would contain so much as a typo or incorrect page number. Those two judges were the best mentors a young lawyer could hope for.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

But the whole point was "you very well might not know until it is too late" In the college where I taught they have software to detect in student papers. You cannot always tell.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I am not mistaken, you are referring to things like "turn it in" -- which created vast databases consisting of EVERY submitted student paper, against which student papers were checked for text matching an existing paper -- i.e. plagiarism.

You can do the same thing, with a lesser degree of detection, by simply googling various paragraphs of a student's paper and seeing if it comes back to you.

That is the exact opposite of AI in legal briefs, where much of the brief *should* come back to you as consists of quotations from precedent and/or statutes.

[Ridgeway]

I agree with this completely. And it is not just support, it is things like access to good models and form files that are important to professional development.

[myself]

I still can’t understand how this happens — in order for it to consider Smith v. Jones to be a real case, it has to find people referring to Smith v. Jones and while there is the “10,000 monkeys” concept that 10.000 monkeys randomly pushing keys on a typewriter could produce a valid literary work, I still have to ask *what* AI is tapping in order to hallucinate in the first place.

That's not how they work.

It's predicting one letter after the other, one word after the other.

It's doing more or less what a human would do if they were told to write an example (ie, allowed to invent facts) legal brief, complete with citations, without having any access to research.

They'll write the argument sincerely, and well known facts (guns fire bullets) they'll adhere to, but they're probably not going to remember specific case citations. So they'll just make up something that looks and sounds like a real citation.

[ReaderY]

chatGPPT’s talent is writing in something like the style of an author or genre. Here ChatGPT wrote something in the style of a legal brief. It provided material in the style of case citations, the style of quotes from cases, the style of legal argument, etc.

Thst’s all it does.

[David Jay]

Not true. It’s actually pretty amazing. It conjures up a credible cite and credible text that says something that fits within the context of other real case citations and quotations. I couldn’t do it. It goes beyond a clever parody to emulating something that you would want to fill the gap in authority that you have. It’s brilliant, albeit fictitious. One would have to be an idiot to use it without checking every inference. BUT, in terms of suggesting potential lines of reasoning, it’s essentially smart enough to emulate creativity and innovation. That’s what it is promising for (and amazing due to).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well that is an even bigger issue -- what ELSE is it fabricating?

This is one step beyond even Orwellian....

[Dr. Ed 2]

The big question here: WHAT ABOUT THE CLIENT?!?!?

As someone who has been burned by incompetent legal advice from, at this point, more lawyers than I care to count (on different issues), this is what I ask.

If the legal profession wants to be self-policing and present every member of its fraternity as competent, it needs to do more than just suspend the most egregious cases.

Do I hear "drawing & quartering"?

[Magister]

Funny then how Dr. Ed 2 seeks legal advice in the comment sections here.

I've lost track of how many groups Dr. Ed 2 wants killed. Liberals, protesters, immigrants, leftist academics, residents of Gaza, lawyers are among them.

[David Nieporent]

Sex workers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stating that they suffered the consequences of risk-taking behavior is very different from wanting them killed. And when did whores become "sex workers"?

[Magister]

Does Dr. Ed 2 exclude fatal consequences for sex workers? Dr. Ed 2 is sometimes careful to assign responsibility to someone else in his murderous fantasies, most frequently the victims themselves. But Dr. Ed 2 does not disavow the previous list of those to be killed.

The term "sex worker" dates from the 1970s; it also includes porn actors and others who would not be referred to as prostitutes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

hyperbole /hī-pûr′bə-lē/
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton. In rhetoric, an obvious exaggeration; an extravagant statement or assertion not intended to be understood literally.

No, I don't want to see the schmuck literally drawn & quartered -- amongst other things, it would be a hazmat situation. But I do think the public would be better served if lawyers were a tad more worried about the consequences of screwing their clients.

As to the whores murdered on Long Island, murder is illegal and I trust (hope) that the perp will be duly punished -- but I refuse to feel sorry for them. They knowingly did something they knew was wrong, illegal, and dangerous -- they flew too close to the sun and their wings melted.

As to murderous fantasies -- no.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 is all talk but does want people to fear consequences, some of which are fatal, and will experience no empathy.

As to murderous fantasies — no.

Since everyone knows how reliable Dr. Ed 2's assertions are, there should be no dispute on the question of Dr. Ed 2 expressing murderous fantasies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight much?

[Magister]

No, Dr. Ed 2, if you're questioning your sanity then that's on you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I use a broader definition of "Gaslighting" so as to avoid Godwin's law -- true "brainwashing" inevitably includes the use of Hitler's concept of the "Big Lie" -- you also have to convince everyone that the person associates with of the false truth.

I may be sloppy on my citations, but I neither fabricate nor hallucinate. Condemn me for sloppy citations if you wish, it is a legitimate criticism, but do not extend that to fabrications of your own. I don't have "a list of people to be killed" although if I did, homicidal terrorists would be on it -- although that's actually the policy of the US Government, and they (unlike I) have the means to accomplish it.

Funny how no one ever mentions how Obama went through Hellfire Missiles like a frat boy through beer -- the DOD now has a shortage of them, and they aren't cheap.

[Magister]

Gaslighting is manipulating someone to question their own perceptions. Dr. Ed 2's lack of sympathy and impressive record of being wrong have been amply demonstrated; it's not just me.

I don’t have “a list of people to be killed”

Nuke Gaza

I think my opinions on the Middle East are pretty well known (“Nuke Gaza”)

Shoot people crossing the border

“Pressure on the southern border” is exactly why this should NOT be done — and instead why we should patrol that border with A-10s shooting to kill.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Any sovereign nation has to rely, as a *last* resort, on the use of deadly force and threat to use deadly force to enforce its borders.

So in that context, yes -- shoot them. If necessary, if nothing else works, shoot them -- just like Ashli Babbitt, although I don't think that was necessary. We need men with guns to enforce our borders.

And as to Gaza, it must be de-nazified and if that means destroying it and killing everyone there, if it's the only option, then it must be done. I'm told that Egypt could have had Gaza as part of the 1978 peace deal and didn't want it. Gazans cause trouble in Muslim countries too and Israel has tried peace.

But I come back to the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, and not in the terms of necessity (I don't think it was necessary) but legitimacy. Was it legitimate to use deadly force to secure the US Capitol?

I don't see anyone on the Left arguing otherwise -- and if you are willing to accept that, then there really no difference between shooting her and shooting those breaking into the country, again as a last resort.

[Magister]

Capitol Police should have nuked the hallway outside the Speaker's Lobby, or just strafed it with A-10s, to stop Ashli Babbitt? So, no reason to worry about the police in that hallway?

The list of people Dr. Ed 2 doesn't want murdered may be shorter than the Dr. Ed 2 murder list.

[David Nieporent]

.

Does Dr. Ed 2 exclude fatal consequences for sex workers?

Dr Ed did not actually express a desire to personally kill prostitutes the way he did people in other categories. But he did sneer at their deaths and express schadenfreude about their murders.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey's_Paw

It's not schadenfreude with the prostitutes as much as recognizing that they are committing a serious sin for which there are consequences. It involves the Puritan concept of evil, and Hawthorne understood this in the House of Seven Gables -- once the corrupt judge falsely executes the poor man so as to steal his property with the nice water, the well goes foul.

Sinning has consequences, and it wasn't like those sluts were prostituting themselves out of desperation. No, they wanted to live the fun life in the city, and this is how they paid for it -- and the ultimate price they paid for it....

[David Nieporent]

QED.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whatever.

[Drewski]

It's funny because in traditional Christianity one of the most grievous sins one can commit is attempting to judge the state of anothers' soul. Christians were even cautioned pretty specifically about not judging the sins of whores against their own.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg

Opinions, yes - actionable legal advice, not so much.
For this very reason.

[carl.byington]

A google for the name turns up https://www.theaijd.com/aijd-blog/origin-story

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That guy figures the solution to this problem is "more cowbell?"

Get a job at a legitimate law firm and learn to become a credible, able lawyer.

Or, try to get rich quick from double-downed flim-flam and precipitate another flaming (and unprofessional) shitstorm.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He apparently HAD a job at a law firm -- WaPo has an interesting article on him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/16/chatgpt-lawyer-fired-ai/

And that's the other thing that is missing here -- why doesn't the FIRM also face bar sanctions?

[Magister]

The law firm apparently did not mentor him as Kirkland recommends.

“This is all so new to me,” [Crabill] said. “I just had no idea what to do and no idea who to turn to.”

[Roger S]

"Crabill did not read the cases he found through ChatGPT" -- What, lawyers are supposed to read the cases they cite? Since when?

He is charged with several ethical violations, but there is no rule that he actually has to read the cases he cites. Lawyers cites cases without reading them all the time.

[David Nieporent]

Can't tell if this is stupid — it's Roger S, so that's plausible — or dishonest, or a poor attempt at humor. Yes, there is in fact such a rule, and while lawyers do indeed cite cases without reading them, that's unethical.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Citation, please.

[Roger S]

So if that is a rule, then why was he not charged with violating it?

[Davy C]

Citing a case without knowing anything about it means you're incompetent and/or not acting with reasonable diligence, which are two of the rules he was charged with violating.

[Roger S]

Reasonable diligence? There is a vague term. Reasonable people can also differ about that. I suppose you are also going to say a lawyer should check to see if a cited case has not be reversed by a higher court, or overruled by a subsequent opinion or change to the law? And maybe also cite the cases undermining his brief?

Maybe if lawyers were truly diligent we would have no need for opposition briefs. Every lawyer would have an obligation to explain it all.

[Drewski]

"Reasonable diligence? There is a vague term. Reasonable people can also differ about that."

The standard here is "reasonable attorney," whom we assume has taken at least the minimum required professional ethics education. Of course, you obviously haven't read the rules before forming opinions on them, and it's kind of pointless to apply these standards against your imagination instead of the text.

[Davy C]

They *do* need to cite directly adverse authority. That's in the rules too.

[David Nieporent]

.

Reasonable diligence? There is a vague term. Reasonable people can also differ about that. I suppose you are also going to say a lawyer should check to see if a cited case has not be reversed by a higher court, or overruled by a subsequent opinion or change to the law?

See, this is why I can't tell whether Roger S is doing a bit here. As every lawyer knows, lawyers do have to do this. (Though of course not every one does.)

And maybe also cite the cases undermining his brief?

If they're controlling, the lawyer has to. If they're just not good for his client, then a lawyer is not required to, but a competent lawyer does, so he can explain why the court shouldn't rely on them before his adversary has a chance to cite them.

[David Nieporent]

Charged with? It's not a crime. It's disciplinary. And he was.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You raise an interesting point: if the state brings a civil rather than criminal charge against you, are you being charged with a crime?

The classic example is a speeding ticket, which is civil. Yet the state is not suing for damages, because it has none -- instead it is assessing a fine. And fines are criminal in nature.

The state is not suing him for damages -- instead it is accusing him of wrongdoing and revoking a license. How is that not punitive in nature? And hence why should it be considered criminal? Why shouldn't they be considered "charges"? Because the state says so?

[David Nieporent]

.

You raise an interesting point: if the state brings a civil rather than criminal charge against you, are you being charged with a crime?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

And fines are criminal in nature.

I mean, no, that's not right, but go on.

The state is not suing him for damages — instead it is accusing him of wrongdoing and revoking a license. How is that not punitive in nature? And hence why should it be considered criminal? Why shouldn’t they be considered “charges”? Because the state says so?

Wait, did I say "Go on?" I didn't mean it.

Setting aside the characterization of attorney regulation as "the state," it's not punitive in nature because the purpose of attorney regulation isn't to punish. It's to protect the public. If you flunk a vision test, the state may take away your driver's license. That's not a criminal proceeding.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm talking theory of government here, not what the law technically is but what it is based upon and what justifies it.

Speeding tickets were once criminal and are now civil, while there may be many legal differences between the two, it is still the same offense and still the same punishment -- taking money in hopes of discouraging behavior (i.e. speeding) by both the individual and the public at large.

"...the purpose of attorney regulation isn’t to punish. It’s to protect the public.">/i>

Isn't that the purpose of the criminal justice system? Don't we put people in prison to "protect the public"? What's the difference?
And do you honestly believe that part of the purpose of bar sanctions isn't to discourage *other* attorneys from doing the same thing?

Don't rob banks, don't steal from your clients because if you get caught, the state will punish you. It's the same discouragement of undesired behavior.

And as to the Bar not being the state, it's acting under the authority of the state.

[Drewski]

Yeah, that's made-up nonsense. The US's first speed limit law, Connecticut's 1901 statute, provided for a noncriminal fine up to $200. Before that, New Amsterdam had a speed limit, which was also not criminal and cost an offender two pounds Flemish.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then President US Grant was arrested for speeding in 1872.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/when-president-ulysses-s-grant-was-arrested-for-speeding-in-a-horse-drawn-carriage-180981916/

Arrested -- so the DC statue had to be criminal. As were a lot of the ones in the south where you had to pay the fine on the spot or go to jail.

[Drewski]

A probable urban legend I'm surprised to see repeated in Smithsonian. Almost certainly didn't happen. You're right that there were carriage speed laws, but not speed limits. They prohibited such things as riding at a gallop, racing, or reckless speed, not specific speeds. However, they were still noncriminal or petty offenses.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

You raise an interesting point: if the state brings a civil rather than criminal charge against you, are you being charged with a crime?

It is not, in fact, an interesting point, because the answer is very obviously no.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Lawyers cites cases without reading them all the time.

That is not my experience.

[Kleppe]

Scumbag move to try and blame the intern. That was the worst part about this story for me. Feels like he got off with a slap on the wrist for what he did, and tried to do.

[Drewski]

Unfortunately pretty common in show-cause hearings. Risky, though, as many judges will come down hard if it looks like it’s just reflexive finger-pointing, as in this case.

It’s hardly a slap on the wrist, though: A 90-day suspension can financially ruin a lot of lawyers and career prospects are now much more limited. Disciplinary bodies aren’t quick to obviate the time and expense of a law degree, so if you think all misbehavior merits disbarment then you’re going to be disappointed a lot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It gets better — he was working for the District Attorney’s Office…

I don’t ever truly believe anything I see on the internet, but this does appear to be the official folk who regulate attorneys in Colorado. And they say that his firm is “4th Judicial District Attorneys Office ”

And "105 E. Vermijo Ave Colorado Springs" is the address of the DA's office. Now maybe some computer hiccuped or something, but it does look like he was working for the DA's Office...

See: https://coloradosupremecourt.com/Search/Attinfo.asp?Regnum=56783

[TTT]

What is he doing working on a civil case if he is working in the DA's office?

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's what I was wondering -- but that is his bar number and this isn't the only place I found him listed as working there. While I'd feel more comfortable with a .gov address, if this isn't the website of the folk who regulate attornies in Colorado, someone's done a *really* good job of faking it, and I say that as one who has debunked fake websites in the past.

I mean it is one thing to say DA's Office -- it's another thing to have the correct address for it, that's where people usually make their mistakes. Likewise the length of time he's been licensed is consistent with the WaPo story, it's the little things like that you catch people on.

The only thing I can think of -- and this is speculation -- is that Colorado DA offices have a consumer protection division with litigation powers. Or maybe they run legal aid for the poor out of the DA's Office -- in a geographically large state, it might make sense to do that -- take all the consumer protection stuff out of the AG's Office and combine it with legal aid in some division of the local DA's Office.

The more I think about it, it's actually not a bad idea...

The other thing is that if he was employed by the DA's Office, it would explain why he doesn't have malpractice insurance -- sovereign immunity and whatever Colorado has for tort claims, he well may be indemnified.

But like I said, I am NOT saying that he was working for the DA's office, just that it appears that he was.

[David Nieporent]

Did you ever in your life think for even one second that if you don't have any idea what you're talking about, you should just shut up rather than babbling?

If he worked for the DA's office, which he did at one point but didn't at the time of these events, he wouldn't have malpractice insurance because he wouldn't have clients, and therefore nobody to sue him for malpractice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you ever consider for one second to stop being such an arsehole to reflect on the fact that I might actually -- actually -- have a basis for some of my speculation?

Fact: Maura Healey was AG of the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts (she's now Governor, but that's irrelevant.)

Fact: Maura Healey sued ExxonMobil on behalf of Massachusetts residents who are owners of ExxonMobil stock. This was a civil suit.

Fact: Attorneys working for Maura Healey actually brought the suit.

Fact: The Taxachusetts Tort Claims Act indemnifies public employees.

Now I'm not going to bother with citations, you can look all of this up for yourself.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In what possible universe is that a basis for your speculations?

[David Nieporent]

Well, you see, because state Attorney Generals often handle civil cases on behalf of the state, therefore a guy who worked for a District Attorney's office probably was representing a private client in a civil dispute. It's obvious when you don't think about it.

[Drewski]

If you want to be taken seriously, act seriously. As soon as I see "Taxachusetts" I recognize that you're not seeking information but instead just posturing to show your political creds and maturity level. Anything else you want to communicate is lost beneath the word poetry.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You can save a lot of time by entering not-taking-seriously mode when you see the words “Dr. Ed” instead.

[Drewski]

TBH I usually go into not-taking-seriously as soon as I hit the comments button, and sooner than that if the byline is Blackman.

[David Nieporent]

He was working for the DA's office. Before he went to work for the law firm where this happened.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/zach-crabill/

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: Your URL does not provide information -- post the name of the firm you are alleging he worked for or STFU.

2: Are you disputing the fact that the state website states what it does?

3: Exactly what part of "...I am NOT saying that he was working for the DA’s office, just that it appears that he was..." do you not understand?

4: You do know that states have legal aid programs, don't you?

[David Nieporent]

1. My URL does indeed provide information. Including the name of the firm he worked for at the time of the incident: Baker Law Group, LLC. And his dates of employment there, as well as at the DA's office.

2. No.

3. Why you thought any of this was relevant to anything.

4. They may or may not. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Ridgeway]

If the good Rev. RAK scrolls down that link, he'll get a stiffy.