Court Especially Concerned About Hallucinations in Criminal Defense Lawyer's Filings

From California Court of Appeal Justice Judith McConnell, writing for the court Thursday in People v. Alvarez; the lawyer involved has been licensed in California for 54 years:

[A filing in this case] included a quotation attributed to In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 87–88, but the purported quote did not exist in the case. Attorney Siddell later clarified that it was not a direct quotation because he modified it "to incorporate broader principles."

The opposition also included a citation to a case that does not exist: People v. Robinson (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 452. Counsel additionally cited two cases that do not address the issues for which they were cited: People v. Jones (2001) 25 Cal.4th 98 and People v. Williams (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 436….

At [a] hearing [after the matter was discovered], Attorney Siddell apologized for failing to verify the legal citations and sources included in his motion and explained that this failure resulted from feeling rushed. He reported he had taken courses regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and was aware that AI could hallucinate cases, but he did not verify the accuracy of any citations. He explained he relies on staff to help draft motions and briefs, but he recognized it is his responsibility to check the caselaw before submitting documents to the court. He said in the future he would "trust but verify" research provided through the use of AI….

The Second Appellate District recently published Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., discussing the impact of the improper use of AI. We agree with our colleagues that "there is nothing inherently wrong with an attorney appropriately using AI in a law practice," but attorneys must check every citation to make sure the case exists and the citations are correct….

The conduct here is not as egregious as what occurred in Noland. But it is particularly disturbing because it involves the rights of a criminal defendant, who is entitled to due process and representation by competent counsel. Courts are obligated to ensure these rights are protected.

When criminal defense attorneys fail to comply with their ethical obligations, their conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system. It also damages their credibility and potentially impugns the validity of the arguments they make on behalf of their clients, calling into question their competency and ability to ensure defendants are provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Thus, criminal defense attorneys must make every effort to confirm that the legal citations they supply exist and accurately reflect the law for which they are cited. That did not happen here.

Attorney Siddell admitted to violating his professional duty by including a hallucinated citation and misrepresenting the law provided in other opinions…. Attorney Siddell voluntarily withdrew from representation, and new counsel was appointed to protect the defendant's rights, but his unprofessional behavior cost the court time and resources.

Because we conclude Attorney Siddell has violated a Rule of Professional Conduct, we are required to "take appropriate corrective action." In line with this obligation, we are publishing this order. Further, consistent with the notion that sanctions should deter future improper behavior, we issue a sanction in the amount of $1,500 to be paid by Attorney Siddell individually to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One. This monetary sanction will also reimburse the court for a small portion of the time and resources expended on this issue.

We direct the Clerk of this court to notify the State Bar of the sanctions against Attorney Siddell.

Thanks to Irwin Nowick for the pointer.

Comments

[JonFrum]

How's about this? From now on, everyone is on notice. Include an AI hallucination, lose the right to represent clients for 6 months. Second time, a year. What could possibly be wrong with that? They always did know their responsibility, but now they've been explicitly warned.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

IANAL and I'm agonna guess that when actual human assistants did all the scut work, lawyers could reasonably rely on them to not make shit up for fear of being fired, and possible scotching any chances of becoming a real lawyer.

Along come AI assistants — cheaper, faster, more thorough. But old habits are hard to break, and they forget to verify the results, or are in a hurry and think they can get away without verification this time. They fall back into the old habit of just skimming for obvious typoes or formatting errors.

ETA: yes, they need some pretty stiff reminders. It's gotten last the stage of "Oops!" and into "Shit! I got caught!"

[Stupid Government Tricks]

This doesn't seem like just yer usual AI hallucination, but deliberate malfeasance too.

Attorney Siddell later clarified that it was not a direct quotation because he modified it "to incorporate broader principles."

The AI didn't change the quote, the lawyer did, intentionally.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

In a case such as this one, would any measures be taken to compensate the client for time and money lost? If the client had paid the lawyer out of his own pocket, it seems like he ought to be reimbursed. Moreover, even if he was represented by a public defender, the lawyer's misconduct would prolong the trail, keeping the client in jail all the longer if he hadn't been able to make bail, and subjecting him to additional weeks and months of anxiety and trouble until the resolution of the case. Here, we see a fine to be paid to the court, but no mention of compensation for the defendant.