I totally agree—and I'm guessing Kucera would too, based on what he wrote in his declaration:
"Independent of the use of artificial intelligence tools, Firm lawyers are always expected to scrupulously proofread and cite check the accuracy of the factual and legal claims in court filings."
So I have no idea what happened here. But maybe we'll find out, since the firm said it's conducting an investigation. It's also possible the court will want to know what happened here; in other AI mishaps, some courts have asked for information about how exactly the mistakes happened, who made them, and the like.
On Warhol’s quote, I believe it derivates from a comment painter Philip Pearlstein made. Pearlstein, who with Warhol attended Carnegie Mellon, had been featured in Life Magazine. When they were new to the school, Warhol (then Warhola) walked up to Pearlstein, introduced himself, and said, “you’re famous.” Pearlstein responded, “I was, for 15 minutes.”
I fault Kucera for saying, "However, as the supervising attorney ultimately responsible for signing and submitting the Filed Response Brief..." NO. You don't get to say I put too much confidence in my associate. NO, you don't get to appeal for sympathy from other partners in big firms who he knows will nod and say, "We get it, our business model doesn't give us the luxury of ensuring that our associates actually read the cites AI comes up with, we just have to rely on their training." AI is a dangerous tool, especially with a generation of lawyers who are becoming addicted to relying upon it, instead of searching for and actually reading the sources. This is just a germ now. How will it grow, where will it spread, who will suffer from it?
I didn’t read it as a dodge; it struck me as a “buck stops with me” sort of statement. He can’t say that he personally screwed this up if it’s not true, but he can say that it’s his fault (as he did).
Some courts have asked for chapter and verse in situations like this, asking exactly who screwed things up, when in the process, and how. It will be interesting to see what the court does here.
1. Just so we get the horse put down completely here, I don't think there should be much dispute that Warhol *used* the phrase about 15 minutes of fame; the question raised in the Rachel Nuwer piece was (or should have been) whether he *originated* it. There's a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame) collecting instances attributed to Warhol, and this article (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/04/famous-15-minutes/) shows not only multiple sources publishing it as a direct quotation but Warhol acknowledging it and correcting an erroneous rendition. But as also noted in the Wiki, the phrase had been used, particularly in French society, as far back as the 19th century, and it's likely Warhol picked it up from somewhere, whether literary or, quite possibly as noted in the Nuwer and O'Toole pieces, from one of his art-world associates. Certainly, repackaging someone else's concept in a pithy and engaging way would have been on-brand!
2. I am a little unclear how you got from "suboptimal" to "debacle" within a single, three-line paragraph, but I would put the Boies Schiller filing definitively at the latter end of the spectrum. And I am not terribly worried about judging "too harshly" because, in the terms of another cultural adage speaking to hypocrisy, I do not--at least in respect of this criticism--live in a glass house. I write, supervise the drafting of, and file plenty of briefs, and while I get help from colleagues with research and cite-checking, I also do not put my name on a brief without reading the cases that it cites. BECAUSE THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE BARE MINIMUM THAT IS REQUIRED OF A LAWYER WHO IS SIGNING A BRIEF. Regardless of their hourly rate.
3. I am absolutely astounded that three (three!) partners at a law firm with a reputation for producing quality legal work subscribed to a brief without having read the cited cases. And frankly, the firm should be almost equally embarrassed by Bucera's follow-up motion. Instead of a mealy-mouthed apology coupled with obfuscatory and deflective references to policies, trainings, and controls about the use of AI, Bucera's filing should have explained that he was withdrawing from the representation and from his partnership at the firm and identified the successor attorney at Boies Schiller who would, with the court's permission, be filing a corrected brief. The only explanation I can imagine that, to me at least, would justify Bucera keeping his job would be if a colleague filed the brief over his name without his permission or review. (That, I suppose, would speak to poor controls!)
Of course read and assess what you are supposed to have written before submission - especially to a court. Common sense isn’t and many folks arr lazy.
I totally agree—and I'm guessing Kucera would too, based on what he wrote in his declaration:
"Independent of the use of artificial intelligence tools, Firm lawyers are always expected to scrupulously proofread and cite check the accuracy of the factual and legal claims in court filings."
So I have no idea what happened here. But maybe we'll find out, since the firm said it's conducting an investigation. It's also possible the court will want to know what happened here; in other AI mishaps, some courts have asked for information about how exactly the mistakes happened, who made them, and the like.
On Warhol’s quote, I believe it derivates from a comment painter Philip Pearlstein made. Pearlstein, who with Warhol attended Carnegie Mellon, had been featured in Life Magazine. When they were new to the school, Warhol (then Warhola) walked up to Pearlstein, introduced himself, and said, “you’re famous.” Pearlstein responded, “I was, for 15 minutes.”
I fault Kucera for saying, "However, as the supervising attorney ultimately responsible for signing and submitting the Filed Response Brief..." NO. You don't get to say I put too much confidence in my associate. NO, you don't get to appeal for sympathy from other partners in big firms who he knows will nod and say, "We get it, our business model doesn't give us the luxury of ensuring that our associates actually read the cites AI comes up with, we just have to rely on their training." AI is a dangerous tool, especially with a generation of lawyers who are becoming addicted to relying upon it, instead of searching for and actually reading the sources. This is just a germ now. How will it grow, where will it spread, who will suffer from it?
I didn’t read it as a dodge; it struck me as a “buck stops with me” sort of statement. He can’t say that he personally screwed this up if it’s not true, but he can say that it’s his fault (as he did).
Some courts have asked for chapter and verse in situations like this, asking exactly who screwed things up, when in the process, and how. It will be interesting to see what the court does here.
1. Just so we get the horse put down completely here, I don't think there should be much dispute that Warhol *used* the phrase about 15 minutes of fame; the question raised in the Rachel Nuwer piece was (or should have been) whether he *originated* it. There's a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame) collecting instances attributed to Warhol, and this article (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/04/famous-15-minutes/) shows not only multiple sources publishing it as a direct quotation but Warhol acknowledging it and correcting an erroneous rendition. But as also noted in the Wiki, the phrase had been used, particularly in French society, as far back as the 19th century, and it's likely Warhol picked it up from somewhere, whether literary or, quite possibly as noted in the Nuwer and O'Toole pieces, from one of his art-world associates. Certainly, repackaging someone else's concept in a pithy and engaging way would have been on-brand!
2. I am a little unclear how you got from "suboptimal" to "debacle" within a single, three-line paragraph, but I would put the Boies Schiller filing definitively at the latter end of the spectrum. And I am not terribly worried about judging "too harshly" because, in the terms of another cultural adage speaking to hypocrisy, I do not--at least in respect of this criticism--live in a glass house. I write, supervise the drafting of, and file plenty of briefs, and while I get help from colleagues with research and cite-checking, I also do not put my name on a brief without reading the cases that it cites. BECAUSE THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE BARE MINIMUM THAT IS REQUIRED OF A LAWYER WHO IS SIGNING A BRIEF. Regardless of their hourly rate.
3. I am absolutely astounded that three (three!) partners at a law firm with a reputation for producing quality legal work subscribed to a brief without having read the cited cases. And frankly, the firm should be almost equally embarrassed by Bucera's follow-up motion. Instead of a mealy-mouthed apology coupled with obfuscatory and deflective references to policies, trainings, and controls about the use of AI, Bucera's filing should have explained that he was withdrawing from the representation and from his partnership at the firm and identified the successor attorney at Boies Schiller who would, with the court's permission, be filing a corrected brief. The only explanation I can imagine that, to me at least, would justify Bucera keeping his job would be if a colleague filed the brief over his name without his permission or review. (That, I suppose, would speak to poor controls!)