Last week, the legal world watched as it was revealed that Michael Cohen, former lawyer to President Trump, applied for early termination of his supervised release. This seemingly routine process took an unexpected turn when Judge Jesse Furman found that the cases cited by Cohen’s attorney, David M. Schwartz, in support of the application were nonexistent. As per the report on Above The Law, the incident stirred memories of another recent occasion when lawyers utilized a language AI model, ChatGPT, for research and, in turn, cited a raft of fabricated cases.
A subsequent order to show cause was issued by Judge Furman, demanding a justification from Schwartz to avoid sanction. Moreover, the judge sought an explanation, through a sworn declaration, of how the motion ended up citing non-existent cases and Cohen’s role, if any, in drafting or reviewing the motion.
This legal imbroglio took a more intriguing turn when Bloomberg Law News uncovered that Schwartz had engaged his own lawyer and responded to the order under seal. This unusual move, Schwartz argued, was necessary because his response might require a disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications. Judge Furman granted the seal temporarily, allowing Cohen’s new counsel a chance to respond.
Legal professionals question why fake case citations would implicate attorney-client privilege. The possibility arises that Cohen might have directly contributed to the contested citations – a development that endangers Cohen’s application and places Schwartz in a precarious position. Cohen’s reply to the situation is due on December 28, with Schwartz allowed to file a reply by January 3.
Cohen’s Lawyer Says Privilege at Issue in Fake Citation Response [Bloomberg Law News]
Earlier: Former Trump Fixer Michael Cohen’s Latest Brief Filled With Fake Cases [Above The Law]