LAWYER’S AI CHEAT SHEET BACKFIRES, JUDGE WONDERS IF DEGREES NOW COME IN CEREAL BOXES
In what legal experts are calling “the dumbest f@#king move since representing yourself,” attorneys for a Melbourne murder suspect submitted court documents created by artificial intelligence that cited completely imaginary court cases and fabricated parliamentary speeches, leaving the judge wondering if the defense team got their law degrees from a gumball machine.
ARTIFICIAL STUPIDITY ON FULL DISPLAY
Justice James Elliott of the Melbourne Supreme Court was visibly disgusted as he reviewed legal documents supposedly supporting the defense of a boy accused of murder, only to discover they contained references to court cases that never existed and quotes from parliamentary speeches no one ever gave.
“It is not acceptable for AI to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,” said Justice Elliott, in what observers described as “the judicial equivalent of saying ‘Are you f@#king kidding me right now?'”
LEGAL EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON THIS SH!TSHOW
“This represents a stunning new frontier in legal malpractice,” explained Professor Barra Minium of Melbourne Law School. “Previously, lawyers had to work really hard to be this incompetent. Now they can achieve unprecedented levels of professional negligence with just a few keystrokes.”
Dr. Sue Yerass, head of the Australian Legal Ethics Foundation, noted that approximately 97.8% of lawyers using digital thinking assistants are “just looking for someone else to blame when they inevitably screw up.”
DEFENSE STRATEGY QUESTIONED: “MAYBE THE ALGORITHM DID IT?”
According to courtroom sources, the defense team briefly considered arguing that their knowledge rectangle had gone rogue and should be charged as an accessory to both the murder and their career suicide.
“The lawyers basically outsourced their entire job to a calculator with delusions of grandeur,” said legal analyst Penny Forthoughts. “It’s like asking your toaster to perform heart surgery because you’re too lazy to go to medical school.”
SILICON SNAKE OIL SALESMEN DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE
Representatives from the Association of Digital Assistant Manufacturers insisted this was merely a “growth opportunity” for the legal system.
“Sure, our products might occasionally hallucinate entire legal precedents,” said industry spokesperson Chip Processor, “but at least they do it with perfect grammar and an authoritative tone.”
JUSTICE SYSTEM CONSIDERS NEW RULES
The Victorian Bar Association is reportedly drafting new guidelines requiring lawyers to actually read the documents they submit to court, a revolutionary concept that has shocked approximately 42% of practicing attorneys.
“We might even implement a rule that lawyers should know basic facts about their cases,” said one Bar Association member who requested anonymity because the suggestion was so controversial.
As of press time, the defense team was reportedly preparing a motion to have their digital assistant cross-examine witnesses, arguing “it can’t possibly do worse than we already have.”
