Two lawyers were sanctioned and referred to Supreme Court for alleged ethical offenses, allegedly producing non -existent references through the use of tools of artificial intelligence and attribute erroneous quotes of jurisprudence in the litigation of a case before the first instance forum.
The superior judge Larissa Ortiz Modestti, From the Court of First Instance of San Juan, it imposed a total sanction of $ 1,000 to the two lawyers -whose identity this medium is reserved -who represent one of the co -defendant parties in the Betancourt Gómez v. College of Nursing Professionals of Puerto Rico and others.
The graduates must pay the sanction in 30 days, counted as of August 22, when the resolution was issued.
“(N) or it is an ordinary breach with the orders of the court or a mere non -observance of procedural norms. It is about using technological tools without due diligence and supervision, and making false representations to the court based on non -existent references in which they are attributed to the Supreme Court appointments and determinations that have never been issued, with the intention of advancing their position in the case”, Said Ortiz Modestti in his resolution.
“We estimate that it corresponds to our highest forum – as part of its inherent faculty to regulate the legal profession – evaluate this behavior and determine if the applicable ethical standards have been violated, and express themselves, if necessary, on the ethical guidelines that must govern the use of artificial technology and intelligence in the legal profession,” he urged the title.
The alleged erroneous quotes are collected in a motion of dismissal presented, on July 17, by both graduates. Later, on August 4, the plaintiff filed its opposition to dismissal, noting that the motion It contained “multiple appointments and reference to cases of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico that do not exist”
After searches in legal investigation systems, the plaintiff identified at least six references of “fictional cases” or appointments that did not correspond to the jurisprudence of the Supreme.
On August 5, lawyers set a clarifying motion recognizing that some appointments had been “Erroneously attributed due to an involuntary error during the search and selection of jurisprudence” and that they had not acted in bad faith, but their mistake “responded to the limitations derived from the consultation of general sources on the Internet“In addition, they pointed out as” unfair and offensive “the imputations of the legal representation of the plaintiff on alleged manufacture of jurisprudence.
Three days later, lawyers set another motion with updating jurisprudential appointments. They included, in their verified motion, that “Public databases, Internet search engines and artificial intelligence applications have impacted the way in which judicial doctrine is accessed and uses”. They pointed out some “challenges due to the existence of wrong documents or incorrect appointments that circulate in the network.”
Likewise, the defendant – in representation of their lawyers – indicated that they had observed alleged errors by the lawyer’s lawyer, but, “instead of pointing such errors, (he had) chosen to respond in law to substantive approaches, without making it a matter of sanction” and that he expected “the same deference and good faith by the other parties”.
In response, the plaintiff rejected the accusations of the lawyers, and reiterated in his request to the Court of Sanctions for alleged recklessness.
Meanwhile, the lawyers They insisted, in a last motion, that They were wanted to sanction for “errors already corrected and clarified in a timely manner in the record of this case, without this having caused procedural damage or delay to the judicial process”.
After an evaluation, the judge confirmed that six appointments were non -existent in the jurisprudence of the Supreme. He even referred to another alleged error in the argument of lawyers, citing the Ashcroft v. Iqbal, but writing “global” instead of “Iqbal”, repeating it on several occasions.
“It gives the impression that not only lawyers are unaware of this important decision, but it could be a character reading error, common with the use of certain technologies that simulate or assimilate the composition of a word”, Added Ortiz Modestti in a note to Calce.
Although the lawyers did not expressly admit had used artificial intelligence applications, but attributed it to an error in the “jurisprudence selection”, the judge emphasized “The truth is that they hint when talking about the challenges that you can represent using these technological tools.”.
“(E) L Court has had to invest time and judicial resources to thoroughly investigate quotes and cases that do not exist, in order to corroborate the allegations and evaluate the matter with the required depth,” said Ortiz Modestti.