pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 5h \ parent \ on: Legal team fined close to 6M sats in sanctions for using an LLM AI
Can you provide citation? Is it in the court listener doc?
I linked it above in the text?
reply
I consulted copilot...
The short answer is: Rule 11 doesn’t directly apply to AI or AGI, but it does apply to the humans who use them in court filings.
⚖️ Rule 11’s Scope
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the conduct of attorneys and unrepresented parties who submit documents to federal courts. It requires that filings:
- Are not for improper purposes (like harassment or delay)
- Are legally and factually grounded
- Are signed by a responsible human
Since AI or AGI systems aren’t legal persons and can’t sign pleadings, they aren’t directly subject to Rule 11. But if a lawyer or party uses AI to draft a filing—say, to generate case law or arguments—they’re still personally responsible for ensuring the content complies with Rule 11.
🤖 AI in the Crosshairs
Recent cases have shown how this plays out:
- In Mata v. Avianca, attorneys used ChatGPT to draft a brief that cited fictitious cases. The court sanctioned them under Rule 11 for failing to verify the content.
- This has led some judges to issue standing orders requiring disclosure of AI use in filings or even banning it outright.
🧠 What About AGI?
If we ever reach a point where AGI can autonomously draft and file court documents, the legal system would need to evolve. For now, humans remain the accountable agents under Rule 11.
If you're thinking about how this intersects with broader legal ethics or policy, I’d be happy to dive deeper. Want to explore how courts are adapting to AI use more broadly?
reply