LAWYER’S IMAGINARY FRIENDS CITED IN COURT DOCUMENTS, JUDGE OBJECTS TO INVISIBLE EVIDENCE
In a stunning display of technological incompetence that would make even your grandma who prints out her emails look like Steve Jobs, a Western Australian lawyer has been caught submitting court documents featuring case citations that exist only in the fertile imagination of an AI chatbot.
THE CASE OF THE NONEXISTENT CASES
The lawyer, whose name has been withheld presumably to protect them from dying of embarrassment, used artificial intelligence to prepare documents for an immigration case. Unfortunately, the AI apparently decided that real cases were boring and invented several exciting new ones instead.
“I’m absolutely shocked that making a silicon-based hallucination machine do my homework resulted in complete bulls@#t,” said the lawyer, who requested anonymity but we’re calling Counsel ChatGPTerson.
Legal experts are calling this the most embarrassing courtroom technology fail since that time a lawyer couldn’t figure out how to turn off the cat filter on Zoom and had to assure the judge, “I’m not a cat.”
EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON THIS ABSOLUTE SH!TSHOW
Professor Obvious McToldyaso of the University of Common Sense explained that relying on AI for legal work is “like asking your drunk friend to perform brain surgery because they once played Operation as a kid.”
According to a recent survey conducted by the Make-Believe Statistics Institute, approximately 87.3% of AI-generated legal citations are either completely fabricated, weirdly sexual, or accidentally reference episodes of Law & Order.
JUDGE SUGGESTS REVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT OF “ACTUALLY DOING YOUR JOB”
The judge who discovered the fictional cases expressed concern about the “inherent dangers” of lawyers relying solely on AI, suggesting the radical alternative of “reading an actual f@#king book” or “doing the job you’re paid six figures to do.”
“Call me old-fashioned,” said Justice Reality Check, “but I prefer my legal precedents to actually exist in this dimension.”
AUSTRALIA’S GROWING COLLECTION OF AI LEGAL BLUNDERS
This case joins more than 20 other instances across Australia where AI has contributed fake citations or errors in court submissions. Legal experts are calling it a “concerning trend” while everyone else is calling it “hilarious” and “exactly what you deserve for trying to cheat at your job.”
“Look, I get it,” said Dr. Idon Believeit, Chair of Technological Shortcuts at the University of Taking the Easy Way Out. “Who has time to verify information when you could be billing clients $500 an hour for work a computer did in 15 seconds?”
LEGAL PROFESSION CONTEMPLATES RADICAL SOLUTION: COMPETENCE
The WA legal regulator is now investigating the case, with potential penalties ranging from a stern talking-to all the way up to the lawyer having to explain to their mother what they did.
Meanwhile, law schools across the country are reportedly considering adding a revolutionary new course to their curriculum titled “How to Tell if a Court Case Actually F@#king Exists.”
At press time, when asked for comment, the lawyer’s AI assistant suggested citing the landmark case of “Fakename v. Madeuperson (2023)” which established the precedent that “absolute bullsh!t is legally binding if you say it with enough confidence.”
