Our dramatis personae - some lawyers in federal court, in a lawsuit over a personal injury on an airplane. Bartholomew Banino (BB) represents the airline.
Peter LoDuca (PL) and Steven Schwartz (SS) represent the injured person.
Docket for Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
The case is in federal court, and they're arguing over whether it should be there or in state court. The airline has filed its motion to dismiss on Jan. 13. On Jan. 18, the plaintiff asks for more time to reply (#19). The judge gives it to them. (#20).
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . Document filed by Avianca, Inc...(Banino, Bartholomew) (Entered: 03/15/2023)
(This is not necessarily so unusual - some judges have local rules requiring litigants to attach unpublished cases to filings to save the court from having to go find them.)
ORDER: By April 18, 2022, Peter Lo Duca, counsel of record for plaintiff, shall file an affidavit annexing copies of the following cases cited in his submission to this Court: as set forth herein.
Now...this seems a little odd to me. People should be able to take breaks, but really, you need more than a week to produce a copy of cases and an affidavit?
FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 25 Order, addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Peter LoDuca dated April 12, 2023. Document filed by Roberto Mata..(LoDuca, Peter) (Entered: 04/12/2023)
First, he says, he's attached the copies of the cases that he previously cited. (We'll come back to that.)
Second, that he couldn't find one of the cases that was cited by the court in one of those opinions.
Third, that the opinions are excerpts - that the attachments "may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database."
RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . Document filed by Roberto Mata. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, # 2 Exhibit Shaboon v. Egypt Air, # 3 Exhibit Peterson v.
And it's supposedly an 11th Circuit opinion. On page 2, it says "Before Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Higginbotham, *Circuit Judges."
One issue. Higginbotham isn't an 11th Circuit judge. There is a Patrick Higginbotham who is a federal judge. He served on the 5th Circuit, and took senior status before either of the two other judges (who are real) took office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Higginbotham
Now, weird stuff happens in the federal courts, so it's not totally out of the question that someone might sit by designation or something else funky is happening. But still, that's very strange!
(Call back to when I went on @alex and @emilymbender's Mystery AI Hype Theater and talked about how the types of errors that generative AI makes are different in kind from the type that humans make.)
But also, this case is basically perfect. Like tailor made for the fact pattern of PL's case! Amazing that there's circuit level precedent that lines up with the lawyer's argument so cleanly.
On April 26, the day after the affidavit with he cases is filed, BB, the lawyer for the defendant, files a letter with questions. They literally can't find the cases anywhere else. The docket numbers don't line up. And the federal reporters (sort of like a DOI, for my non-lawyer readers) turn up a different case. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.30.0.pdf
[NB: I did not intend this to be this long but whatever, we're all nerds here.]
On May 4th, the shit really hits the fan. The judge issues an order to show cause why he shouldn't issue sanctions on PL for citing cases that don't exist and then swearing that the copies attached on April 25 are real. (Dkt #31)
"Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations."
The judge called (or probably had his clerks call) the 11th Circuit and confirmed that the decision wasn't real. He also points out that the internal citations are also to "bogus" cases.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Let Peter LoDuca, counsel for plaintiff, show cause in person at 12 noon on June 8, 2023 in Courtroom 11D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, why he ought not be sanctioned pursuant to: (1) Rule 11(b)(2) & (c), Fed. R. Civ. P.
I suspect that a significant part of the ire is about the doubling down on the cases in the April 25 filing. If they had come clean then, I feel like the judge might be more lenient.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: This Order incorporates the Court's Order of May 4, 2023. Having received and reviewed the "Affidavit in Response to Order of May 4, 2023" filed by Peter LoDuca and the Affidavit of Steven A.
Changing the date is, if not fine, at the very least a widespread practice. What matters is the date of witness and attestation thereof, and the commission number. 🤷♂️
Changing the date is, if not fine, at the very least a widespread practice. What matters is the date of witness and attestation thereof, and the commission number. 🤷♂️
Anyway, hearing is set for June 8th. Popcorn will be a must. Thanks for reading!
While you're here, check out the episode of Mystery AI Hype Theatre where I talk about why this is exactly the problem with generative AI hype in law. I think at about 30 minutes we talk about this problem. https://peertube.dair-institute.org/w/o6sb7f7RwapWBJd9VC61t4
Anyway, hearing is set for June 8th. Popcorn will be a must. Thanks for reading!
While you're here, check out the episode of Mystery AI Hype Theatre where I talk about why this is exactly the problem with generative AI hype in law. I think at about 30 minutes we talk about this problem. https://peertube.dair-institute.org/w/o6sb7f7RwapWBJd9VC61t4
Mystery AI Hype Theater, Episode 10 - Don't Be A Lawyer, ChatGPT
Alex and Emily are joined by law and technology scholar Kendra Albert for a conversation about ChatGPT, legal expertise, and how we do and don't measure someone's ability to practice law.
“This is a decision by a Colombian court in Cartagena (dated January, 30, 2023). As far as we know, it is the first time that a judicial decision has been taken by explicitly resorting to #ChatGPT @[url=https://wamipets.com/users/sama]SAMA P-A[/url] @OpenAI. The Court poses a series of specific questions to #ChatGPT": https://twitter.com/ethics_law/status/1628793562698510344
Thank you for this amazing thread @kendraserra ! It's bananas that anyone would think using ChatGPT for legal research was a good idea. But reading your expert analysis of the situation is a treat 😀
@emilymbender many smart people are totally credulous when it comes to technology film flam. Things seriously smart people earnestly believe that are absolutely 180 degrees off from the truth: LLMs are AI (in any sense of the word), LLMs think, LLMs make decisions, LLMs can hallucinate, LLMs are new technology which will only improve.
Absolute bonkers bullshit. Wishful thinking, learned helplessness, enormous gullibility, with a huge helping of underlying christian eschatology.
@Seruko @emilymbender I keep telling people who claim any kind of learning or intelligence for AIs that they're computer programs, and can't do anything but follow the instructions in the program.
@PJ_Evans @Seruko @emilymbender and in this case, they've obfuscated to the user what the program is intended to do.
A human "asking a question" of an LLM is doing so with the expectation of an answer (a logical assumption, but wrong). An LLM doesn't treat that input as a question to answer, but as a prompt to generate text. No part of its programming cares whether the generated text correctly answers the question posed.
Kendra Albert
•Bartholomew Banino (BB) represents the airline.
Peter LoDuca (PL) and Steven Schwartz (SS) represent the injured person.
Here's the docket (via @questauthority) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=asc
Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461 - CourtListener.com
CourtListenerKendra Albert
•Kendra Albert
•It cites a bunch of cases in support of its argument! They seem quite convincing - there's some state courts holding that state courts can decide international airline accidents. (See pages 4 and 5). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.21.0.pdf
Kendra Albert
•Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion – #24 in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-01461) – CourtListener.com
CourtListenerKendra Albert
•(This is not necessarily so unusual - some judges have local rules requiring litigants to attach unpublished cases to filings to save the court from having to go find them.)
Order – #25 in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-01461) – CourtListener.com
CourtListenerKendra Albert
•Now...this seems a little odd to me. People should be able to take breaks, but really, you need more than a week to produce a copy of cases and an affidavit?
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply – #26 in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-01461) – CourtListener.com
CourtListenerKendra Albert
•Kendra Albert
•First, he says, he's attached the copies of the cases that he previously cited. (We'll come back to that.)
Second, that he couldn't find one of the cases that was cited by the court in one of those opinions.
Third, that the opinions are excerpts - that the attachments "may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database."
It's notarized by Stephen Schwartz.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/29/mata-v-avianca-inc/
Response in Opposition to Motion – #29 in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-01461) – CourtListener.com
CourtListenerKendra Albert
•First of all, this doesn't really look like a court opinion, formatting wise. There's no date.
Kendra Albert
•One issue. Higginbotham isn't an 11th Circuit judge. There is a Patrick Higginbotham who is a federal judge. He served on the 5th Circuit, and took senior status before either of the two other judges (who are real) took office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Higginbotham
American judge
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Kendra Albert
•(Call back to when I went on @alex and @emilymbender's Mystery AI Hype Theater and talked about how the types of errors that generative AI makes are different in kind from the type that humans make.)
Kendra Albert
•The other ones are also pretty weird. There's parts that are in quotes (page 7)? There's a Texas state court referring to an 11th Circuit ruling as if they had made it (page 5)? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.29.4.pdf
So there's some stuff that should make a lawyer curious, in short.
Kendra Albert
•Kendra Albert
•On May 4th, the shit really hits the fan. The judge issues an order to show cause why he shouldn't issue sanctions on PL for citing cases that don't exist and then swearing that the copies attached on April 25 are real. (Dkt #31)
Kendra Albert
•"Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations."
The judge called (or probably had his clerks call) the 11th Circuit and confirmed that the decision wasn't real. He also points out that the internal citations are also to "bogus" cases.
The full order is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/31/mata-v-avianca-inc/
Order to Show Cause – #31 in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-01461) – CourtListener.com
CourtListenerKendra Albert
•Kendra Albert
•Editor's note: My dude, you did have reason to doubt the authenticity of the case law. These were weirdass print outs that don't look like real cases and if you had literally plugged any of them into Westlaw or Lexis, you wouldn't have found them. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.32.0.pdf
Kendra Albert
•I suspect that a significant part of the ire is about the doubling down on the cases in the April 25 filing. If they had come clean then, I feel like the judge might be more lenient.
Order to Show Cause – #33 in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-01461) – CourtListener.com
CourtListenerKendra Albert
•Oh, and remember how Steven Schwartz notarized the documents back at the end of April? Judge wants him to show cause as to why that wasn't fraudulent.
So first of all, PL basically lied in his affidavit, since SS was the one who produced the cases.
[Removed a comment here about the notary stamp, I stand corrected! Hooray for edits] https://social.coop/@adamgreenfield/110442030870549917.
Adam Greenfield
2023-05-27 18:20:52
Adam Greenfield
•Kendra Albert
•Anyway, hearing is set for June 8th. Popcorn will be a must. Thanks for reading!
While you're here, check out the episode of Mystery AI Hype Theatre where I talk about why this is exactly the problem with generative AI hype in law. I think at about 30 minutes we talk about this problem. https://peertube.dair-institute.org/w/o6sb7f7RwapWBJd9VC61t4
DAIR Institute
Anyway, hearing is set for June 8th. Popcorn will be a must. Thanks for reading!
While you're here, check out the episode of Mystery AI Hype Theatre where I talk about why this is exactly the problem with generative AI hype in law. I think at about 30 minutes we talk about this problem. https://peertube.dair-institute.org/w/o6sb7f7RwapWBJd9VC61t4
DAIR Institute
2023-04-23 01:43:29
Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her)
•Kofi Loves Efia :verified:
•Absolute bonkers bullshit. Wishful thinking, learned helplessness, enormous gullibility, with a huge helping of underlying christian eschatology.
P J Evans
•I keep telling people who claim any kind of learning or intelligence for AIs that they're computer programs, and can't do anything but follow the instructions in the program.
Dan Johnson
•A human "asking a question" of an LLM is doing so with the expectation of an answer (a logical assumption, but wrong). An LLM doesn't treat that input as a question to answer, but as a prompt to generate text. No part of its programming cares whether the generated text correctly answers the question posed.