In a unique and somewhat scandalous turn of events, lawyer Edward C. Chung was heavily penalized for attempting to file a fabricated news article as an exhibit in his case. Chung’s apparent objective was to underline his anxieties that Chevron, along with other entities, could potentially sidestep an arbitration award amounting to $18 billion. In supporting his argument, he tried to submit an article from Saudi Sun, claiming it to be for “demonstrative purposes”. However, the article was a complete fabrication, leading to the court sanctioning Chung with a penalty of $268K.
When confronted, Chung attempted to explain the article as a “hypothetical paper”, but this did not appease the ethical concerns of the Ninth Circuit. Further compounding the matter was Chung’s absence from the sanctions hearing, and he even challenged whether the judge had actually signed the sanctions order, citing “profound oddities, threats and misrepresentations made in this case by Chevron and their counsels.”
This unusual case raises questions about the role of artificial intelligence in legal affairs. While Chung’s case is a matter of air-tight scrutiny, there is a plausible concern that AI might land more legal professionals in ethical dilemmas. For instance, Caselaw hallucinations are now grabbing headlines, but these will likely soon recede as reliable caselaw archivists start deploying AI-driven functionality.
It is important to remember that searching for newspaper accounts or non-legal academic support won’t necessarily have such safeguards. These are the exhibits that lawyers may query an AI to compile and, as a result, could receive a plausible but completely fabricated article. Lawyers and law firms, especially those working with AI interfaces, should be cautious and remember that not all vertexes of their work have robust barriers against falsified information.