I agree that AI merely shines a spotlight on the egregiously deficient lawyering and judging that has been far too common for far too long. Even when the cited authority is real, the proposition for which it is cited too often is false. Justice Scalia (and SCOTUS) repeatedly spoke to this problem. See, e.g., Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 400 (1998). “While communis error facit jus may be a sadly accurate description of reality,” it is not “jurisprudence.” “Courts may not create their own limitations on” any law (including the Constitution) “no matter how alluring the policy arguments for doing so, and no matter how widely the blame may be spread” among any quantity or quality of courts. Abuses of AI merely highlight how some lawyers and judges have been abusing citations for generations. Artificial Intelligence isn't the problem. The problem is a paucity of real integrity and real intelligence.
I support the additional step for AI generated filings, because there are enough instances of false AI citations to make it a non-trivial possibility for misleading a tribunal. It encourages the otherwise innocent litigant to make sure AI hasn't hallucinated. The ordinary sanctions for misleading a tribunal have not been enough to stop litigants from making false filings, however inadvertently. Signing a filing that one has done oneself, where there are meaningful direct personal sanctions is one thing - but what meaningful sanctions are there against the AI itsel?. Some research supports the importance of that additional signature as a means of preventing fraud. See, e.g., What's in a name? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103115000979
I agree that AI merely shines a spotlight on the egregiously deficient lawyering and judging that has been far too common for far too long. Even when the cited authority is real, the proposition for which it is cited too often is false. Justice Scalia (and SCOTUS) repeatedly spoke to this problem. See, e.g., Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 400 (1998). “While communis error facit jus may be a sadly accurate description of reality,” it is not “jurisprudence.” “Courts may not create their own limitations on” any law (including the Constitution) “no matter how alluring the policy arguments for doing so, and no matter how widely the blame may be spread” among any quantity or quality of courts. Abuses of AI merely highlight how some lawyers and judges have been abusing citations for generations. Artificial Intelligence isn't the problem. The problem is a paucity of real integrity and real intelligence.
I support the additional step for AI generated filings, because there are enough instances of false AI citations to make it a non-trivial possibility for misleading a tribunal. It encourages the otherwise innocent litigant to make sure AI hasn't hallucinated. The ordinary sanctions for misleading a tribunal have not been enough to stop litigants from making false filings, however inadvertently. Signing a filing that one has done oneself, where there are meaningful direct personal sanctions is one thing - but what meaningful sanctions are there against the AI itsel?. Some research supports the importance of that additional signature as a means of preventing fraud. See, e.g., What's in a name? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103115000979