 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
AI screws up again; this time in a B.C. Court. Lawyers Fraser and Lorne Maclean representing a mother respondent in a family law case involving issues including taking children to China noticed the father’s lawyer had tendered some cases supporting her client’s case, which cases were apparently generated by AI.
The tendering lawyer, one Chong Ke, of course did so innocently, without intention to mislead.
This case, along with similar ones such as Michael Cohen, former lawyer for Donald Trump who recently rattled a New York court with false AI-generated cases, has judges all over raising their judicial eyebrows and cautioning about the dangers of relying on AI, which can generate fake or “hallucinated” caselaw.
Interestingly, I could not readily find the name of that B.C. Case. I googled “B.C. AI Mystery case” and what I got was, “We don’t know either; try asking AI.” Forget it.
I’m a technophobe. I retired from a practice of over 40 years and the tsunami of technological advances such as paperless offices, virtual 24/7 attachment to the office business via texts and emails and decimation of human contact via telephone have vindicated my choice to fold it and not hold it. Millennials don’t even know what a human receptionist is like. I would not quite say I’m a Luddite though my will does have a clause directing that when I go that I be buried with my dial phone.
I don’t know much about AI, but then again I doubt too many of us do. Even Elon Musk has said something like AI is the greatest threat to civilization. And I do have concerns as to how reliance on same in the justice system can cause problems.
First of all, as we can see, AI has a mind of its own in generating fictitious precedent cases. I can readily see it bend over backwards to generate just what you want. So you want a case that justifies your client going through a red light? No problem. Ask ChatGPT and you’ll get something like R v. Hells Angels. Bada bing bada boom.
There have also been reported incidents of AI making gratuitous weird side comments. It would not surprise me if AI were to generate a Supreme Court of Canada case, with the side comment that the chief justice wears underwear with red polka dots. If lawyers wish to rely on AI, I suggest they do some due diligence. Just maybe the chief justice’s polka dots are blue. Who knows?
And I think of the iconic negligence House of Lords case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, where the plaintiff was traumatized after ordering a bottle of ginger beer which happened to be supplemented with a partially decomposed snail (M'Alister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson). I have not ChatbGBT'd this case but It would not surprise me at all if AI would alter the decision a bit, flipping it over and noting the court concluding, “Action dismissed. She should have ordered a Pepsi.”
As well, can the court administration offices safely rely on AI? No doubt AI can generate notices to the lawyers. I say it will not be too long before some robot from the Court of Appeal office sends out an email to the appellant’s lawyer reading, “Counsel, the court does not have to hear from you. Appeal dismissed.” Said lawyer will probably want to get on the phone and do some shouting and screaming. Good luck. He or she will probably get a voice message saying something like, “Hi. Your call is important to us. I’m Emily. You can tell me anything.”
I have digested all the technology I have to and I am comfortable with. Meanwhile, by the way, if anybody does come up with the name of that B.C. case which I can’t find, feel free to email it to me. Or even better, telephone me.
Hey, just thought of something. What if that B.C. case itself is a hallucination?
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is available on Amazon, (e-book) and paper version. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.