Forgive me if I’m wrong, but if memory serves, prosecutors have to obtain authorization from the administration to request sanctions for criminal defense attorneys. Something about defendants being entitled to zealous constitutional representation, lower burdens for defense bar ethics issues, memoranda of understanding, etc. What made Wolfson decide that using AI was worthy of a request for sanctions? Bad blood with Kajioka?
Judge struck the reply and issued sanctions against defense counsel. Then immediately went into arguments on the writ, essentially handing defendant an ineffective assistance of counsel argument later on if he’s convicted. This guy just won the short-sighted rulings lottery.
If lying to the court is silly to you, then your ethics need some work. But to the point, this involves the Piero’s bombing case, and everything involving that case is news.
A reply is not usually allowed for a pre-trial writ. Also a trial conviction or GPA overcomes any issue with ineffective assistance of counsel at the probable cause level?
The worst part was that the defense attorney went to the mattresses and made a bunch of affirmative representations like it was a human-generated typo that meant to point to a real case, and then after everyone had spent time briefing it came back and said “oops, actually it was AI.” If I were a judge I would definitely be lining up sanctions for that.
This is 1:00. I see now that if I had scrolled down, you all already had this discussion. Downvoting myself. Bad job by me.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2026 9:10 am
Short term rentals: not just airbnb. I used to live in an older china town neighborhood. about 90% of the houses on that street were rented out two people to a room. They advertised these homes on some kind of foreign website. Zero enforcement despite my reports. There is no solution to the short term rental issue.
Airbnb says in the article that their properties bring in tax revenue, but they failed to mention they did not pay taxes for decades until after their recent lawsuit was filed, tax revenue is great and all, but if people that live here long term have to pay more for housing because all houses are used for tourists, its hardly worth the tax revenue.
I ran into this several years ago on a CD case involving a smaller (20-30 unit) townhome development in that area. In at least half of the places we looked at, there were bedrooms with separate locks on the doors, and/or 2-3 mattresses on the floor. It was essentially a giant dorm. And this was 15 years or so ago.
Guest
joe
July 30, 2026 9:42 am
Suppose civil lawyer A submitted an AI motion with a fake citation. Opposing counsel B moved to strike the motion. In his opposition A says he wrote the motion and he doesn’t even know how to use AI. In her reply, B demonstrates it had to be AI and argues A has intentionally lied to the court. At the hearing on the motion, A admits he used AI in the face of undeniable evidence. The judge would grant the motion to strike, sanction A for lying to the court, and refer the matter to the bar for discipline. $500 was a cheap punishment. And nobody on here would defend A’s misconduct.
He didn’t say AI write the brief. He said upon asking his firm personnel he discovered AI was used. Never said to what extent. We all use AI to elevate our crappy writing. Could have been that simple but prosecutor jumped on it and twisted it into Dean just admitted it was all AI and Dean was given no opportunity to clarify. Neither was the judge asking the question. She just took the argument and huge exaggeration and went with it.
Looks like Dean wrote this, or had is written. I just read the article. The article doesn’t say “upon asking his firm personnel he discovered AI was used”, or “Dean was given no opportunity to clarify.” According to the earlier articles, he had argued all along that he wrote the brief, didn’t use AI, and after reviewing it realized a typo was made in the citation. So he had to review it a second time to determine it wasn’t a typo and that his staff used AI. The issue all along was AI, yet he claims he didn’t find this out when he was preparing his opposition. Once he was doomed, he confessed.
Of course, not supervising his staff’s work is also a violation, but not nearly on the level of lying to the court, multiple times
No; we don’t all use AI to elevate our crappy writing. Some of us just put in a bit more time revising our crappy writing to the point it becomes less crappy writing.
Essentially we have all the rules already to address if someone makes a misrepresentation to the court or lacks diligence or what have you as it relates to attorneys. We have frameworks to even deal with clients getting random ideas from friends or family or the internet (generative or not). I keep hearing from attorneys saying they don’t want to stay on a case where the client just is spewing generated nonsense but if you have a good relationship with your client I would hope you’d try to educate them before throwing in the towel.
Every time I see a headline about a lawyer using AI, my main thought is privilege and what they’re feeding into setups they don’t understand the Terms and Conditions of. Even then, it is about confidentiality and not whatever the snake oil of the moment is.
If we make everyone disclose AI use, I want the judiciary included in that as well, just sayin’.
Is it really that hard to simply check your work? Want to use AI?Great. But, at least check that the cases are real and say what you told the Court they say. How about (at least in civil) an ADKT change to Rule 11 stating that signing one’s name attests that the cases cited to the Court have been verified by citation and application? Then, if caught, the Court can then sanction. And, this can be done with the criminal rules too.
“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: . . . (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.”
Yeah, I’m a firm believer in the position that Rule 11 is the correct tool for this and we don’t need anything new. The biggest problem area that I see is pro se parties using AI. Courts need to educate pro se parties at the outset that 1) they are subject to Rule 11 and 2) they will violate Rule 11 if they don’t verify the citations they put in their briefs.
What about briefs that cite unpublished opinions and almost as annoying is misstating the holding of published opinions. Not nuanced misstatement but one that is completely made up.
Maybe AI would be useful to department as a fact checking tool.
How about we start with the judges holding accountable attorneys who bald-face lie to the face of the judicial officer. Just had opposing counsel do that yesterday, and no repercussion for him. Yet, anyway. FFS put teeth back in the punishment for “lack of candor to the court”. Enforce the damn rules.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2026 1:18 pm
It’s so wild the RJ got a giant boner over the AI story. There was a far more egregious instance in probate court a few months ago where Fontano blasted the offending attorney and rung him up for a few grand in fees.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2026 4:53 pm
Who is putting in for discovery commissioner? Anyone know?
Forged documents by numerous District Court Judges to access federal grant streams supported by the DA/AG and facilitated through prominent non-profit organizations.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but if memory serves, prosecutors have to obtain authorization from the administration to request sanctions for criminal defense attorneys. Something about defendants being entitled to zealous constitutional representation, lower burdens for defense bar ethics issues, memoranda of understanding, etc. What made Wolfson decide that using AI was worthy of a request for sanctions? Bad blood with Kajioka?
Judge struck the reply and issued sanctions against defense counsel. Then immediately went into arguments on the writ, essentially handing defendant an ineffective assistance of counsel argument later on if he’s convicted. This guy just won the short-sighted rulings lottery.
Maybe the judge did that on purpose?
This whole thing seems silly to me. Especially the amount of news coverage.
Noble Brigham usually has better sense of proportionality. He whiffed here.
Apparently he didn’t, because we’re all talking about it.
If lying to the court is silly to you, then your ethics need some work. But to the point, this involves the Piero’s bombing case, and everything involving that case is news.
A reply is not usually allowed for a pre-trial writ. Also a trial conviction or GPA overcomes any issue with ineffective assistance of counsel at the probable cause level?
IAC not available on a writ
Sorry thought this was postconviction
The worst part was that the defense attorney went to the mattresses and made a bunch of affirmative representations like it was a human-generated typo that meant to point to a real case, and then after everyone had spent time briefing it came back and said “oops, actually it was AI.” If I were a judge I would definitely be lining up sanctions for that.
This is 1:00. I see now that if I had scrolled down, you all already had this discussion. Downvoting myself. Bad job by me.
Short term rentals: not just airbnb. I used to live in an older china town neighborhood. about 90% of the houses on that street were rented out two people to a room. They advertised these homes on some kind of foreign website. Zero enforcement despite my reports. There is no solution to the short term rental issue.
What are the websites?
Airbnb says in the article that their properties bring in tax revenue, but they failed to mention they did not pay taxes for decades until after their recent lawsuit was filed, tax revenue is great and all, but if people that live here long term have to pay more for housing because all houses are used for tourists, its hardly worth the tax revenue.
The answer is to build more houses, not to make it harder for tourists to come here (which is our lifeblood).
I ran into this several years ago on a CD case involving a smaller (20-30 unit) townhome development in that area. In at least half of the places we looked at, there were bedrooms with separate locks on the doors, and/or 2-3 mattresses on the floor. It was essentially a giant dorm. And this was 15 years or so ago.
Suppose civil lawyer A submitted an AI motion with a fake citation. Opposing counsel B moved to strike the motion. In his opposition A says he wrote the motion and he doesn’t even know how to use AI. In her reply, B demonstrates it had to be AI and argues A has intentionally lied to the court. At the hearing on the motion, A admits he used AI in the face of undeniable evidence. The judge would grant the motion to strike, sanction A for lying to the court, and refer the matter to the bar for discipline. $500 was a cheap punishment. And nobody on here would defend A’s misconduct.
Yeah. It’s the second affirmative misrepresentation in a filing defending the fraudulent citation that does it for me.
He didn’t say AI write the brief. He said upon asking his firm personnel he discovered AI was used. Never said to what extent. We all use AI to elevate our crappy writing. Could have been that simple but prosecutor jumped on it and twisted it into Dean just admitted it was all AI and Dean was given no opportunity to clarify. Neither was the judge asking the question. She just took the argument and huge exaggeration and went with it.
Looks like Dean wrote this, or had is written. I just read the article. The article doesn’t say “upon asking his firm personnel he discovered AI was used”, or “Dean was given no opportunity to clarify.” According to the earlier articles, he had argued all along that he wrote the brief, didn’t use AI, and after reviewing it realized a typo was made in the citation. So he had to review it a second time to determine it wasn’t a typo and that his staff used AI. The issue all along was AI, yet he claims he didn’t find this out when he was preparing his opposition. Once he was doomed, he confessed.
Of course, not supervising his staff’s work is also a violation, but not nearly on the level of lying to the court, multiple times
No; we don’t all use AI to elevate our crappy writing. Some of us just put in a bit more time revising our crappy writing to the point it becomes less crappy writing.
A favorite article that is only a little outdated (Netscape example): https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2147&context=journal_articles
Essentially we have all the rules already to address if someone makes a misrepresentation to the court or lacks diligence or what have you as it relates to attorneys. We have frameworks to even deal with clients getting random ideas from friends or family or the internet (generative or not). I keep hearing from attorneys saying they don’t want to stay on a case where the client just is spewing generated nonsense but if you have a good relationship with your client I would hope you’d try to educate them before throwing in the towel.
Every time I see a headline about a lawyer using AI, my main thought is privilege and what they’re feeding into setups they don’t understand the Terms and Conditions of. Even then, it is about confidentiality and not whatever the snake oil of the moment is.
If we make everyone disclose AI use, I want the judiciary included in that as well, just sayin’.
Is it really that hard to simply check your work? Want to use AI?Great. But, at least check that the cases are real and say what you told the Court they say. How about (at least in civil) an ADKT change to Rule 11 stating that signing one’s name attests that the cases cited to the Court have been verified by citation and application? Then, if caught, the Court can then sanction. And, this can be done with the criminal rules too.
Rule 11 doesn’t already do this?
“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: . . . (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.”
I was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, I’m a firm believer in the position that Rule 11 is the correct tool for this and we don’t need anything new. The biggest problem area that I see is pro se parties using AI. Courts need to educate pro se parties at the outset that 1) they are subject to Rule 11 and 2) they will violate Rule 11 if they don’t verify the citations they put in their briefs.
Good luck with that.
What about briefs that cite unpublished opinions and almost as annoying is misstating the holding of published opinions. Not nuanced misstatement but one that is completely made up.
Maybe AI would be useful to department as a fact checking tool.
Six years from now I’ll run for Judge on the “Make Rule 11 Great Again” platform. Get your checkbooks ready.
How about we start with the judges holding accountable attorneys who bald-face lie to the face of the judicial officer. Just had opposing counsel do that yesterday, and no repercussion for him. Yet, anyway. FFS put teeth back in the punishment for “lack of candor to the court”. Enforce the damn rules.
It’s so wild the RJ got a giant boner over the AI story. There was a far more egregious instance in probate court a few months ago where Fontano blasted the offending attorney and rung him up for a few grand in fees.
Who is putting in for discovery commissioner? Anyone know?
Discovery Commissioner/ADR: Anyone good or qualified won’t get it.
There’s a lot more to this story. A lot of fraud being purported by the DA and Public Defenders’ Office-we’ve compiled hundreds of documents
What kind of fraud ?
Pro se slop.
If it’s hundreds of documents, as opposed to say, dozens, the evidence must be conclusive!
Feel free to email me at charlesnewman252@gmail if you want evidence
Nah.
Forged documents by numerous District Court Judges to access federal grant streams supported by the DA/AG and facilitated through prominent non-profit organizations.
I think you forgot the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires.
We’re through the looking glass here people.