Former Donald Trump attorney, Michael Cohen, has publicly acknowledged a significant error in his legal research process, attributing it to the use of Google Bard, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot.
Cohen, who is preparing to testify against Trump in upcoming trials, admitted to unintentionally forwarding inaccurate legal citations generated by Google Bard to his lawyer, David Schwartz, in support of his case.
Cohen’s confession came to light in a recent court filing, where he clarified his misunderstanding of Google Bard’s capabilities.
He had mistakenly assumed it to be a highly advanced search engine rather than a generative AI service similar to Chat-GPT.
The problematic citations, as well as several others that were not included in the motion, were attributed to this misunderstanding.
Critics argue that Cohen, not being an active legal practitioner, bore no ethical obligation to verify the accuracy of the information he provided.
They contend that Schwartz, as a legal professional, should have reviewed the citations before incorporating them into official court documents.
Cohen’s legal team emphasized this point, stating, “Mr. Cohen is not a practicing attorney and has no concept of the risks of using AI services for legal research.”
READ MORE: Federal Judge Rules in Favor of SEC in Terraform Labs Securities Case
To further highlight the issue, Cohen’s statement outlined the sequence of events: He had sourced citations and case summaries online, believing them to be authentic, which were then added to the motion by Schwartz without proper validation.
This incident is not the first involving attorneys relying on AI tools only to discover inaccuracies.
Earlier this year, a similar case emerged when Steven Schwartz, an attorney at the New York law firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, faced criticism for incorporating AI-generated court citations that turned out to be false.
The judge presiding over the case expressed strong dissatisfaction with Schwartz’s reliance on AI for legal research, pointing out that six of the submitted cases contained fabricated judicial decisions, false quotes, and fictitious internal citations.
In both instances, the misuse of AI tools for legal research underscores the importance of thorough verification and the ethical responsibility of attorneys to ensure the accuracy of the information they present in court.
These cases serve as cautionary tales for legal professionals exploring the integration of AI technology in their practice.
Discover the Crypto Intelligence Blockchain Council
