- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
There needs to be a rule that anyone who does this should be immediately disbarred
I mean. He should be imprisoned, no? Does perjury not apply to the lawyers too?
As far as I’m aware perjury can only be committed by someone under oath. And lawyers are not placed under oath. But I agree, the penalty for this shit should be a lot harsher than it’s been so far.
I’ve been to court, and it never even occurred to me that the lawyers are not placed under oath. But they’re the ones that do most of the talking during a case. I wonder that the reasoning for not being under oath is.
They are advocating/representing, not testifying. A defense attorney does not make statements of fact, they call witnesses and experts for that. They introduce reasonable doubt.
They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.
They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.
So, how can “fake witnesses” exist? Last I heard, witnesses were required to appear on the witness stand, take the oath, and present their evidence.
The US Supreme Court has upheld the Confrontation Clause of the constitution in recent cases, too. The prosecuted have the right to face their accusers.
Last I checked, submitting false testimony was a crime. If these lawyer stop getting slaps on the wrist, the slop legal work will stop.
It seems whatever actions courts are taking, it’s not enough if it keeps happening.
Aarons was sanctioned $5,000
How much do lawyers charge to defend a murder charge? I’m guessing a lot more than that.
This is before the Bar association does something to him.
“It’s little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon,” New Mexico attorney Stephen D. Aarons said in a hearing last month before five judges. He “assumed” ChatGPT would generate a “bulletproof summary of proceedings.” Instead, ChatGPT generated false testimony from “wholly fabricated witnesses,” according to an order of direct contempt from the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Aarons’ reasoning for trusting ChatGPT, he said in the August hearing, was that he’d heard of doctors using AI for medical research.
I had to check the date of the article to make sure it was recent. How a lawyer hasn’t heard of the several times other lawyers have had issues with ChatGPT I have no idea. There’s no way this guy didn’t perjure himself be feigning ignorance. I feel like the bar needs to send out a written notice requiring some kind of acknowledgment to all lawyers so they can no longer claim ignorance if this happens to them.
