A Texas federal judge criticized three defense attorneys for their AI-assisted motions, calling them "frivolous" court briefs filled with "blatant AI slop" and claiming most law students could write better motions.
Here's what to know
In the voting-related criminal case against Khalwinder Singh Bhengura, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruled against releasing him from custody before sentencing, according to Business Insider.
Bhengura was convicted of falsely claiming citizenship to register to vote and casting a ballot in a federal election as a noncitizen. He is 70, was born in India, and is a lawful permanent U.S. resident.
His attorneys, Mario Herrera, Nicole Knox, and Vincent Rene Carrizales, argued that a sentencing guideline range of zero to six months' imprisonment should exempt him from detention before sentencing.
The motion's disclosure said some of its text was drafted "with the assistance of a generative artificial intelligence tool."
Pittman viewed the filings as largely AI-generated. The legal reasoning, he said, amounted to "an abysmal reading of the statute."
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
More background
The attorneys' decades of combined experience did not square, in Pittman's view, with briefs containing "blatant AI slop." He questioned how they could submit arguments he considered superficially convincing but legally meritless.
"It is distressing to see how quickly the advent of artificial intelligence has undermined counsels' ability to properly advocate for their client," Pittman wrote.
Pittman expressed sympathy for prosecutors facing what he called "defense by ChatGPT." He said the filings raised serious questions about the attorneys' ability to practice law.
What's being done?
Pittman said he intended to impose sanctions on the attorneys but could not fit a hearing into his schedule. He warned that further waste of court and government resources could lead to sanctions, including barring the attorneys from practicing before the Northern District of Texas.
A local court rule already requires attorneys to disclose AI use in briefs. Knox, the lead defense attorney, told Business Insider that the team had sought to follow the judge's rules, including the disclosure requirement.
Herrera said he personally wrote, reviewed, and finalized each brief. He defended the arguments and noted that the AI rule neither prohibited the tools nor classified their use as misconduct. "For decades lawyers have used templates, forms, and other types of drafting software," he said.
Knox also disputed the judge's characterization of the team's work, defending the attorneys' responsibility for the argument they presented. "We have nothing to hide. AI could never create our novel approach to the argument presented," she told Business Insider, adding that the lawyers "will not stand for disrespect, arbitrary application of local rules and federal law, or name-calling."
Where can I learn more?
The dispute over AI-assisted briefs is one of several legal fights involving the technology.
• Florida's attorney general asked a court to block OpenAI from training new models.
• In the U.S., Lina Khan says AI that hacks servers remains subject to the law.
• A Tennessee woman seeks $10 million in damages after an AI error led to six months jailed.
• Florida's attorney general seeks criminal penalties for chatbot firms after an FSU suspect's ChatGPT questions.
• The New York Times, OpenAI, and Microsoft are battling over copyright in New York.
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
