> Law firm Pinsent Masons and three solicitors referred to SRA after 'astonishing' AI failures where court misled by hallucinations

[rogerbw@discordian.social]

@neil now that we're keeping most of the scrapers out, the "AI lawtech firms" are hammering our feedback address (me) wanting to incorporate our data into their wrong answer machines (without payment of course). I suppose that the ones which _are_ capable of reading and understanding are the ones I don't hear from.

[gpshewan@mastodon.social]

@neil I’ve read at least half a dozen articles like this over the past year. As someone in the profession - is it as deeply embarrassing for them as I suspect it to be? This kind of black mark is hard for a firm to shake off? A bit of industry tutting?

Or are my expectations and impressions too high?

[hedders@mas.to]

@neil good grief. That really doesn’t make pleasant reading, does it?

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@gpshewan

I doubt the firm will lose money / clients over this, unless it turns out to be a more widespread issue.

The impact on the individuals involved could be more significant, but probably not career-jeopardising, I suspect.

[cyberoutsider@infosec.exchange]

@neil It's the 2nd use that made me giggle the most.

Sure, fuck up once... but when you're being asked about the fuck up, it feels like you would take a bit more time and effort explaining the situation... not double-down on the same flawed methodology.

[bloor@bloor.tw]

@neil big name firm too. wow.

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@bloor I suspect that many, many lawyers are doing it.

[bloor@bloor.tw]

@neil is this primarily a sign that many lawyers are overworked (and resort to this just to try and get the job done)

...

or is it maybe the case that many lawyers are lazy and willing to do things that are dishonest (one wonders what hours are billed for an AI-generated element of casework) BUT possibly do not see it as dishonest or questionable because of all the others they know doing it ?

[simonzerafa@infosec.exchange]

@neil @bloor

We need a LLM to find and locate fake references, citations and other flaws in documents.

By this time next year we could be millionaires 🥴

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@bloor

A whole mix of things, I imagine, and not necessarily the same in each case.

Some lawyers are overworked.
Some lawyers are badly supervised.
Some lawyers are poorly trained.
Some lawyers are dishonest.
Some lawyers simply make errors of judgment.
Some lawyers do not understand the technology.
etc.

[jackeric@beige.party]

@neil ok how do you pronounce "Cork & Anor v Smith"

I thought the "v" was an abbreviation for "and" for archaic Latin reasons

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@jackeric

I'd say "Cork and Arnor and Smith".

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@jackeric

(v. being the abbreviation for "versus", so more like "against" than "and".)

[gpshewan@mastodon.social]

@neil Interesting. Apart from it’s now ex client and covering the costs of finding a new firm. Damage control time for other clients.

It’s in danger of becoming a corporate cliche but I’m also minded of “The standard you walk by is the standard you accept”

I hear a lot with GenAI “Oh well they’d use it anyway so we just have to deal with it”. I haven’t had to deal with a situation yet, but I’m not sure I agree with that approach

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@gpshewan

I could be wrong. There could be significant losses / repercussions. But I should be surprised.

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@neil @jackeric you'd say and instead of versus/v??
Roe 'vee' Wade jumps to mind as one almost everyone's heard of, if American

Surely that'd never come out 'Roe and Wade' as it's meant to indicate a conflict..?

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@noodlemaz @jackeric

I'm afraid that I don't know anything about the US approach

[pwaring@social.xk7.net]

@neil Wow, two levels of supervisory failure for what ought to be a routine application that I'd expect even the most junior staff to be able to do unaided (I wonder if it's such a routine issue that someone thought 'I can get AI to do this').

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@neil @jackeric I am shockened and will follow up with lawyer friend

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@noodlemaz @jackeric

It is not something that I need to do, but my recollection is that it is "and" in civil proceedings", and "against" in criminal proceedings.

So "R. v. Brown" would be "The Crown against Brown", but "Neil v. Nicola" would be "Neil and Nicola".

I am not aware that one ever says "versus" or "v", but it is also possible that things have changed since I last needed to consider this.