The lawyer in question asked ChatGPT to find him some cases that supported his argument, and it duly obliged, providing full citations, where they had been reported etc.
The opposing lawyer then challenged the selection of cases, saying that he couldn't find them, and asking for extracts from the judgements. The judge ordered that copies of the cases be filed with the court.
No problem - ChatGPT duly obliged, with sections extracted from the original judgements. So far, so good.
But the opposing lawyer, becoming increasingly frustrated, said he couldn't find any of these cases, and complained to the judge trying the case. He couldn't find them either, and to cut a long story short it now turns out that ChatGPT had simply invented them! And when challenged to provide extracts from the judgements it had written them itself.
The lawyer and his colleague who filed the original arguments and quoted the cases have now been ordered to appear in court on 8 June,along with a representative from their firm, to show cause why they should not all be sanctioned, and as well as facing personal sanctions it seems that their client's case is also likely to be struck out.
I think I'll hang on to my text books for a while yet!
![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/27/l ... onic_email