What happened
The D.C. Court of Appeals struck Deutsche Bank's entire brief after judges discovered that four cases cited by one of the bank's attorneys did not exist. The attorney acknowledged using artificial intelligence to help find case law and, according to the court, “did not verify the existence or accuracy of those before filing the brief.”
The D.C. Court of Appeals struck Deutsche Bank's entire brief after judges discovered that four cases cited by one of the bank's attorneys did not exist.
The attorney acknowledged using artificial intelligence to help find case law and, according to the court, “did not verify the existence or accuracy of those before filing the brief.”
The court was sharply critical of the firm's response, noting that they emphasized the attorney was now a “former employee” and shifted much of the blame to her without explaining what supervision or review of her work had taken place before the brief was filed.
The court's sanction was to strike Deutsche Bank's entire brief and refer the matter to the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which can decide whether to investigate further.
Why it matters
The case highlights the growing concern about AI-generated material making its way into courtrooms and the difficulty judges and lawyers face determining what is authentic. The court's warning is about responsibility, emphasizing that lawyers remain responsible for verifying what they put before a court.
The case highlights the growing concern about AI-generated material making its way into courtrooms and the difficulty judges and lawyers face determining what is authentic.
The court's warning is about responsibility, emphasizing that lawyers remain responsible for verifying what they put before a court.
The case is strikingly similar to warnings made by D.C. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby in our interview with her months earlier.
Senior Judge Stephen Glickman, in a concurring opinion, called fabricated AI only the “tip of a perilous iceberg.”
Interactive Mechanism: How It Actually Works
Explore the underlying technology behind this development interactively.
Why can ethical evaluation not be reduced to one model score?
What to watch next
The case will continue to be decided, and the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel will investigate further. The court's warning about the use of AI in legal research and the importance of verifying information will be closely watched.
The case will continue to be decided, and the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel will investigate further.
The court's warning about the use of AI in legal research and the importance of verifying information will be closely watched.
The case highlights the need for lawyers to be responsible for verifying what they put before a court and the importance of understanding how AI-generated material can impact the fairness of proceedings.
The court's warning is a reminder that AI may make legal research faster and produce answers that sound convincing, but lawyers remain responsible for verifying what they put before a court.