Speaking of going rogue, it was not just a county sheriff whom the Supreme Court today criticized for unlawful conduct, but also his counsel.
In a footnote to its Cervantes v. Bianco opinion, the court reported that the sheriff’s preliminary briefing included an argument “based on misquoted passages from, and an incorrect recitation of our holding in,” a 1989 decision. The court said, “We disapprove of the improper use of artificial intelligence tools, which apparently contributed to the significant error that occurred here and remind counsel of attorneys’ professional duties of competence and candor to the court.”
The court noted that “[t]he law firm responsible for the error apologized and withdrew [the] argument,” but it nonetheless opted to “refer the matter to the State Bar of California to determine whether discipline is warranted.”
Related:
Supreme Court posts AI warning
Supreme Court orders sanctions hearing about DA’s alleged AI briefing
Court denies review of Court of Appeal’s failure to address faulty-AI-infected briefing (see here)
