Photo credit: www.yahoo.com
A judge has criticized the legal team representing conspiracy theorist and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell for submitting a court document that utilized artificial intelligence and was found to contain numerous “fundamental errors.”
The ongoing lawsuit against Lindell has been initiated by Dr. Eric Coomer, a former employee of Dominion Voting Services. Coomer alleges that Lindell made defamatory remarks about him during a conservative podcast in Colorado, linking Coomer’s name to debunked conspiracy theories.
Since the initiation of the lawsuit in 2022, Lindell’s legal representation submitted an opposition brief earlier this year which Colorado District Judge Nina Y. Wang criticized for containing “nearly thirty defective citations.” In a court order issued on Wednesday, she highlighted several mistakes, including references to cases that do not appear to exist.
At a hearing, Lindell’s attorney Christopher I. Kachouroff admitted to employing generative artificial intelligence in creating the contentious document.
Judge Wang admonished the attorneys to provide justifications as to why they and Lindell’s companies should not face sanctions. She also indicated the need for potential disciplinary action against the attorneys involved.
In response to Wang’s directive, Kachouroff filed a motion asserting that using artificial intelligence can be acceptable if done correctly. He claimed that the version presented in court was not final but an earlier draft submitted in error.
During the court proceedings, Kachouroff recounted that he was “grilled” about the document’s AI generation, to which he openly acknowledged its use as a beneficial tool when utilized appropriately.
The defense team explained that Kachouroff was traveling out of the country with limited internet access while he and co-counsel Jennifer T. DeMaster discussed the brief via phone. They noted that DeMaster had employed a legal research AI tool to assist in enhancing the brief’s content.
Kachouroff stated that he frequently leverages AI tools for analyzing both his own legal arguments and those of his adversaries, emphasizing that he does not depend solely on these technologies. “Regardless of whether I utilize AI in a particular pleading, I consistently verify citations before they are filed,” he explained.
Moreover, he expressed his surprise during the court’s questioning, stating he was unaware that the court had reviewed a different copy of the brief, which left him feeling unprepared. “I was taken completely off guard,” he elaborated, reflecting on his distress at having to navigate an unfamiliar document under intense questioning.
Related…
Source
www.yahoo.com