From Kohls v. Ellison, which I quoted extra extensively in an earlier submit:
To make sure, Legal professional Normal Ellison maintains that his workplace had no concept that Professor Hancock’s declaration included pretend citations, and counsel for the Legal professional Normal sincerely apologized at oral argument for the unintentional pretend citations within the Hancock Declaration. The Court docket takes Legal professional Normal Ellison at his phrase and appreciates his candor in rectifying the difficulty.
However Legal professional Normal Ellison’s attorneys are reminded that Federal Rule of Civil Process 11 imposes a “private, nondelegable duty” to “validate the reality and authorized reasonableness of the papers filed” in an motion. The Court docket means that an “inquiry cheap beneath the circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), could now require attorneys to ask their witnesses whether or not they have used AI in drafting their declarations and what they’ve carried out to confirm any AI-generated content material.
Because of Prof. Anthony Bushnell for declaring the importance of this specific passage.
