"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
tl;dr, the punishment is to choose one:
I mean the second one is cute and all but I prefer the first one. That's what I want all of them facing.
The judge doesn't have unlimited leniency, of course. But while this technology is still new, the court has an interest in educating lawyers about the fact that this is not, in fact, acceptable behaviour in court and will result in punishment. The second option helps achieve that goal while it is still relatively new and unheard of. But I'm betting that if this judge sees the same thing again from another lawyer, they will just be fined and referred to the Bar immediately and this choice will not be offered.
Honestly, should be both and the lecture should start with "Here is how I fucked up...." Discipline and shame together, not discipline or shame.
They'll pay. The judge should have asked for at least ten times as much.
They can pay, sure, but that option also means potential disbarment.
Any fine is a paltry sum compared to getting a lawyer's license thrown in the bin.
Should've been 'and'.
Fine with that.
One would think that an attorney, even a mildly dumb one, would understand the exacting nature of their profession. Maybe they were under pressure to produce more work than they were capable of? I understand that's a common thing in the legal field.
While the buck stops with the attorney, I got questions for the law firm.
I feel like being disbarred is a good punishment how come that wasn't it?
It’s basically what the first one does; being ‘referred to the bar association’ is, generally, not going to go well for the one referred.