Frankie Johnson, an inmate at William E. Donaldson Prison near Birmingham, Alabama, reports being stabbed approximately 20 times within a year and a half.
In December 2019, Johnson claimed he was stabbed “at least nine times” in his housing unit. Then, in March 2020, after a group therapy session, officers handcuffed him to a desk and exited the unit. Shortly afterward, another inmate came in and stabbed him five times.
In November that same year, Johnson alleged that an officer handcuffed him and transported him to the prison yard, where another prisoner assaulted him with an ice pick and stabbed him “five or six times,” all while two corrections officers looked on. Johnson contended that one officer even encouraged the attack as retaliation for a prior conflict between him and the staff.
In 2021, Johnson filed a lawsuit against Alabama prison officials, citing unsafe conditions characterized by violence, understaffing, overcrowding, and significant corruption within the state’s prison system. To defend the lawsuit, the Alabama Attorney General’s office has engaged law firms that have received substantial payments from the state to support a faulty prison system, including Butler Snow.
State officials have praised Butler Snow for its experience in defending prison-related cases, particularly William Lansford, the head of their constitutional and civil rights litigation group. However, the firm is now facing sanctions from a federal judge overseeing Johnson’s case, following incidents where its lawyers referenced cases produced by artificial intelligence.
This is just one of several cases reflecting the issue of attorneys using AI-generated information in formal legal documents. A database that tracks such occurrences has noted 106 identified instances globally, where courts have encountered “AI hallucinations” in submitted materials.
Last year, lawyers received one-year suspensions for practicing law in Florida’s Central District after it was found that they were citing cases fabricated by AI. Earlier this month, a federal judge in California ordered a firm to pay over $30,000 in legal fees for including erroneous AI-generated studies.
During a hearing in Birmingham on Wednesday regarding Johnson’s case, U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco mentioned that she was contemplating various sanctions, such as fines, mandatory legal education, referrals to licensing bodies, and temporary suspensions.
She noted that existing disciplinary measures across the country have often been insufficient. “This case demonstrates that current sanctions are inadequate,” she remarked to Johnson’s attorney. “If they were sufficient, we wouldn’t be here.”
During the hearing, attorneys from Butler Snow expressed their apologies and stated they would accept any sanctions deemed appropriate by Manasco. They also highlighted their firm policy that mandates attorneys seek approval before employing AI tools for legal research.
Reeves, an attorney involved, took full responsibility for the lapses.
“I was aware of the restrictions concerning [AI] usage, and in these two instances, I failed to adhere to the policy,” Reeves stated.
Butler Snow’s lawyers were appointed by the Alabama Attorney General’s Office and work on behalf of the state to defend ex-commissioner Jefferson Dunn of the Alabama Department of Corrections.
Lansford, who is contracted for the case, shared that the firm has begun a review of all previous submissions to ensure no additional instances of erroneous citations exist.
“This situation is still very new and raw,” Lansford conveyed to Manasco. “We are still working to perfect our response.”
Manasco indicated that Butler Snow would have 10 days to file a motion outlining their approach to resolving this issue before she decides on sanctions.
The use of fictitious AI citations has subsequently influenced disputes regarding case scheduling.
Lawyers from Butler Snow reached out to Johnson’s attorneys to arrange a deposition for Johnson while he remains incarcerated. However, Johnson’s lawyers objected to the proposed timeline, citing outstanding documents that Johnson deemed necessary before he could proceed.
In a court filing dated May 7, Butler Snow countered that case law necessitates a rapid deposition for Johnson. “The 11th Circuit and the District Court typically allow depositions for imprisoned plaintiffs when relevant to their claims or defenses, irrespective of other discovery disputes,” they asserted.
The lawyers listed four cases that superficially supported their arguments, but all turned out to be fabricated.
While some case titles were reminiscent of real cases, none were actually relevant to the matter at hand. For instance, one was a 2021 case titled Kelly v. Birmingham; however, Johnson’s attorneys noted that “the only existing case titled Kelly v. City of Birmingham could be uniquely identified by the plaintiff’s lawyers.”
Earlier this week, Johnson’s lawyers filed a motion highlighting the fabrications, asserting they were creations of “generative artificial intelligence.” They also identified another clearly fictitious citation in prior submissions related to the discovery dispute.
The following day, Manasco scheduled a hearing regarding whether Butler Snow’s counsel should be approved. “Given the severity of the allegations, the court conducted an independent review of each citation submitted, but found nothing to support them,” she wrote.
In his declaration to the court, Reeves indicated he was reviewing filings drafted by junior colleagues and included a citation he presumed was a well-established point of law.
“I was generally familiar with ChatGPT,” Reeves mentioned, explaining that he sought assistance to bolster the legal arguments needed for the motion. However, he admitted he “rushed to finalize and submit the motions” and “did not independently verify the case citations provided by ChatGPT through Westlaw or PACER before their inclusion.”
“I truly regret this lapse in judgment and diligence,” Reeves expressed. “I accept full responsibility.”
Damien Charlotin, a legal researcher and academic based in Paris, notes that incidents of false AI content entering legal filings are on the rise. Track the case.
“We’re witnessing a rapid increase,” he stated. “The number of cases over the past weeks and months has spiked compared to earlier periods.”
Thus far, the judicial response to this issue has been quite lenient, according to Charlotin. More severe repercussions, including substantial fines and suspensions, typically arise when lawyers fail to take responsibility for their mistakes.
“I don’t believe this will continue indefinitely,” Charlotin predicted. “Eventually, everyone will be held accountable.”
In addition to the Johnson case, Lansford and Butler Snow have contracts with the Alabama Department of Corrections to handle several large civil rights lawsuits. These include cases raised by the Justice Department during Donald Trump’s presidency in 2020.
The contract for that matter was valued at $15 million over two years.
Some Alabama legislators have questioned the significant amount of state funds allocated to law firms for defending these cases. However, this week’s missteps have not appeared to diminish the Attorney General’s confidence in Lansford or Butler Snow to continue their work.
On Wednesday, Manasco addressed the attorney from the Attorney General’s office present at the hearing.
“Mr. Lansford remains the Attorney General’s preferred counsel,” he replied.
Source: www.theguardian.com
