Apparent AI Hallucinations in Filing from Two >500-Lawyer Firms

From Monday’s decision by Judge Michael Simon (D. Ore.) in Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock:

GBI cites Stell v. Cardenas, No. 3:21-cv-413-HZ, 2022 WL 1696093, at *6 (D. Or. May 26, 2022), and Page v. Parsons, 249 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1017 (D. Or. 2017). Stell, however, is totally fake; it is an “hallucinated” case. There is no case at 2022 WL 1696093. Nor does there exist a case with the parties “Stell” and “Cardenas” (in either orientation—in the District of Oregon or elsewhere). Moreover, Case No. 3:21-cv-413 is a real case, styled JS Halberstam Irrevocable Grantor Trust v. Davis, and it was presided over by the undersigned (“SI”), not U.S. District Judge Hernández (“HZ”). Further, that case was closed by judgment on May 9, 2022, and no decision was issued on May 26, 2022.

Page v. Parsons is almost real. There is a case titled Page v. Parsons that discusses the Oregon anti-SLAPP statute, but it is not a federal case from the District of Oregon. See Page v. Parsons, 249 Or. App. 445 (2012). Page, however, does not discuss when fees are due or may be advanced under the statute. And as a matter of logic, that Oregon Court of Appeals decision cannot support the proposition that GBI cited it for—that federal courts applying Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute have consistently held that fee awards are appropriate immediately following resolution of the special motion to strike. Indeed, a basic internet search easily reveals both the real citation for Page v. Parsons, and the real case listed at 249 F. Supp. 3d 998 (a death penalty habeas decision from the Eighth Circuit). See Deck v. Steele, 249 F. Supp. 3d 991, 998 (E. D. Mo. Apr. 13, 2017), rev’d and remanded, Deck v. Jennings, 978 F.3d 578 (8th Cir. 2020).

GBI’s fake case citations appear to be hallmarks of a generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool, such as ChatGPT…. GBI is hereby ordered to show cause within two weeks as to why the Court should not issue sanctions on both GBI and its counsel for the use of fake citations in violation of Rule 11(b). GBI is also ordered to disclose what it believes to be an appropriate sanction. GBI’s proposed sanctions should reflect the nature and seriousness of its use of fake citations and appropriate steps to ensure that this type of violation will not occur again….

The post Apparent AI Hallucinations in Filing from Two >500-Lawyer Firms appeared first on Reason.com.