The Fake Opinion — Mata, a $5,000 Joint, and a Duty That Does Not Delegate

Roberto Mata commenced the action on or about February 2, 2022, in New York County Supreme Court, asserting he was injured when a metal serving cart struck his left knee on a flight from El Salvador to John F. Kennedy Airport. Avianca removed the action to the Southern District of New York on February 22, 2022, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention. The caption is Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 22-cv-1461 (PKC). I will keep the cart. I will keep the Convention. I will not tour a knee. A knee is a person. A person is not a kit.

Steven A. Schwartz of the Levidow Firm had been the attorney listed on the state-court complaint. Upon removal, Peter LoDuca filed a notice of appearance on March 31, 2022. Schwartz continued to perform all substantive legal work, in the order's weather, because he is not admitted in the District. I will keep March 31. I will keep all substantive. I will not invent a kinder division of labor than the order wrote.

January 18, 2023: a letter signed by Schwartz and filed by LoDuca requested a one-month extension to respond to the motion, from February 3 to March 3, stating the undersigned would be out of the office for a previously planned vacation and needed extra time to properly respond to the extensive motion papers. The Court granted the request. I will keep previously planned vacation. I will keep the grant. I will not upgrade a vacation to a finding I sat on a beach. A letter is a public. A public is not a holiday I held.

Plaintiff's opposition was submitted as an affirmation and not a memorandum of law. Local Civil Rules require that cases and other authorities relied upon in opposition to a motion be set forth in a memorandum of law. An affirmation is a creature of New York state practice akin to a declaration under penalty of perjury. I will keep creature. I will keep the Local Rule as the order's Local Rule. I will not typeset a 7.1 you can copy as a kit.

Colm wrote Schwartz state / LoDuca appear Mar 31 2022 / vacation letter Jan 18 / affirmation not memo / Local 7.1 and boxed not memo. He typed a flyer that had used the word declaration. He said declaration is a brochure until a perjury line writes it. I said declaration sat above a signature that had not read a case.

January 13, 2023: Avianca moved to dismiss, urging the claims were time-barred under the Montreal Convention. March 1, 2023: Peter LoDuca filed an Affirmation in Opposition that cited and quoted purported judicial decisions said to be published in the Federal Reporter, the Federal Supplement, and Westlaw. Above his signature: a declaration under penalty of perjury that the foregoing was true and correct. He was not its author. Steven A. Schwartz researched and wrote it. LoDuca reviewed for style — flow, nothing untoward, no large grammatical errors. He did not review any judicial authorities cited. Schwartz is not admitted in that District. LoDuca appeared because Schwartz is not admitted. I will keep style. I will keep not admitted. I will not invent a reason that is kinder than the order.

March 15, 2023: Avianca's reply said the undersigned had been unable to locate most of the case law cited, and the few cases located did not stand for the propositions for which they were cited. April 11 and 12: the Court ordered production of the cases. The individual respondents doubled down and did not begin to dribble out the truth until May 25, after an Order to Show Cause, in the Court's telling. I will keep dribble. I will keep doubled down. I will not upgrade a dribble to a crime I sat. The Court declined to refer the matter for criminal forgery prosecution. I will keep declined.

Avianca's March 15 reply impliedly asserted certain cases were non-existent: Plaintiff does not dispute the Montreal Convention governs, and has not cited any existing authority holding that the Bankruptcy Code tolls the two-year limitations period or that New York law supplies the relevant statute of limitations. It then detailed by name and citation seven purported decisions counsel could not locate, set apart with quotation marks. I will keep seven. I will keep quotation marks. I will not add seven to six. The six are the fake opinions the sanctions order walked as letters. The seven are what a reply could not find. Two counts. One March. I will not write a plot that says I counted a library.

Despite the serious nature of the allegations, no Respondent sought to withdraw the March 1 Affirmation or provide any explanation of how a case purportedly in the Federal Reporter or Federal Supplement could not be found. The Court conducted its own search and was unable to locate multiple authorities. I will keep no Respondent sought to withdraw. I will keep Court conducted its own search. I will not upgrade a search to a raid I sat.

LoDuca testified he received Avianca's reply and did not read it before he forwarded it to Schwartz. Schwartz did not alert LoDuca to the contents. Schwartz, at the June 8 hearing: he was operating under the false perception that this website could not possibly be fabricating cases on its own. "I just was not thinking that the case could be fabricated, so I was not looking at it from that point of view." "My reaction was, ChatGPT is finding that case somewhere. Maybe it's unpublished. Maybe it was appealed. Maybe access is difficult to get. I just never thought it could be made up." I will keep never thought it could be made up. I will not upgrade a never to a finding that I sat in his head. A transcript is a public. A public is not a mind I held.

He knew free sites exist where a known citation can be entered and a decision displayed. He entered Varghese. He could not find it. He cited it anyway. The Court: and yet you cited it in the brief to me. Schwartz: operating under the false assumption and disbelief that this website could produce completely fabricated cases. I will keep and yet. I will keep disbelief. I will not typeset a search you can run. A museum sells a ticket.

April 11, 2023: Order directing LoDuca to file an affidavit by April 18 annexing copies of Varghese, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019); Shaboon, 2013 IL App (1st) 111279-U; Peterson v. Iran Air, 905 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2012); Martinez, 2019 WL 4639462; Estate of Durden, 2017 WL 2418825; Ehrlich v. American Airlines, 360 N.J. Super. 360 (App. Div. 2003); Miller, 174 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 1999); and In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987). Failure to comply will result in dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). April 12: an additional decision, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines, 516 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2008). I will keep the list as the order's list. I will not invent which of these later proved real. Inventing a real as a mercy is a kit. The order later walked fakes and walked letters. I will keep the letters as the letters.

Schwartz understood the import: I thought the Court searched for the cases and could not find them. LoDuca requested an extension to April 25. The letter: the undersigned is currently out of the office on vacation and will be returning April 18, 2023. LoDuca signed it and filed it. The statement was false and he knew it to be false. Under questioning, he admitted he was not out of the office on vacation. His intent, he said, was because Schwartz was away. The Court finds a knowingly false statement in a successful effort to induce an extension, concealing Schwartz's role and LoDuca's lack of a meaningful role in confirming the truth. Evidence of subjective bad faith. I will keep knowingly false. I will keep concealing. I will not invent a kinder vacation than the finding.

April 25 Affidavit: annexed purported copies or excerpts of all but one of the decisions. Unable to locate Zicherman, "which was cited by the Court in Varghese." The purported decisions "may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database." No database named. Shaboon "is an unpublished opinion." LoDuca did not author the affidavit, had no role in its preparation, and no knowledge of whether the statements were true. Schwartz drafted it and compiled the exhibits, walked it twenty feet, and LoDuca looked it over and signed it. No evidence LoDuca asked a single question. He had not been provided a draft before he signed. I will keep twenty feet. I will keep not a single question. I will not invent a question that would have saved a chapter.

Schwartz thought, at the hearing, that a citation in the form "F.3d" meant "federal district, third department." The Court found the claim not credible from a lawyer who had practiced in the litigation arena for approximately thirty years, and it was contradicted by later testimony that F.3d is the third edition of the Federal Reporter. I will keep third department. I will keep not credible. I will not upgrade a not-credible to a crime I sat. The Court declined a forgery referral. Declined is still declined.

Eira asked if a vacation was a stain. I said it was a finding. She said findings are for courts. I said this finding is a letter. She wiped around the ten.

Dax asked if I was studying the twenty feet. I said I was dating a walk. He dated the card pack. Walks are honest. Studies are a later costume.

June 8, 2023: a hearing. June 22, 2023: Opinion and Order on Sanctions, P. Kevin Castel, U.S.D.J. Bad faith on a conscious-avoidance theory and false and misleading statements to the Court. Rule 11, or alternatively inherent authority. A $5,000 penalty jointly and severally, payable into the Registry of the Court within fourteen days. Letters, first-class, to plaintiff Roberto Mata and to each judge falsely identified as the author of the fake Varghese, Shaboon, Petersen, Martinez, Durden, and Miller opinions, attaching the opinion, the June 8 transcript, and the April 25 affirmation including the fake opinion attributed to the recipient judge. The firm jointly responsible; no exceptional circumstances. I will keep $5,000. I will keep fourteen days. I will not add them into a novel that says a fine is a finding I counted as a market.

Castel: there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. Existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings. A fake opinion is not existing law. Citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law. An attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system. I will keep the sentences as the order's sentences. I will not typeset a prompt you can run. A museum sells a ticket. A ticket is not a brief.

The case terminated July 7, 2023, in the rooms that walk a docket. No notice of appeal, in those walks. I will keep terminated. I will not invent a later appeal I did not hold.

I printed the order. Eira asked if $5,000 was a score. I said it was a penalty. She said penalties are for parking. I said this penalty is a Registry. She wiped around the ten.

Colm wrote 22-cv-1461 / Castel June 22 / $5k joint / six fake / letters to Mata + judges / nothing inherently improper / gatekeeping / not a crime referral and boxed gatekeeping. He typed a flyer that had used the word reliable. He said reliable is a brochure until a court writes it. I said reliable sat in the order next to abandoned.

The Six That Are Not Law

The fake opinions the order walked include Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, Shaboon v. Egyptair, Petersen v. Iran Air, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, Estate of Durden v. KLM, and Miller v. United Airlines — names that look like a table of authorities and are not a table of authorities. I will keep the names as the order's names. I will not invent holdings for them. Inventing holdings for a fake opinion is how a chapter becomes the thing it is walking.

Schwartz, in the rooms the order walked, used ChatGPT. The model produced citations. The citations produced excerpts. The excerpts produced an April 25 affidavit that annexed purported decisions with traits superficially consistent with actual judicial decisions. Superficial is the honest typeface. A grocery line will try to spend superficial as if I had held a real reporter. I held an order that said fake.

The Court reviewed the purported decisions annexed to the April 25 Affidavit. It made exemplar findings as to the three "decisions" purported to be issued by federal courts. Varghese is presented as a panel of the Eleventh Circuit: Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin S. Rosenbaum, and Patrick Higginbotham, authored by Judge Jordan, docket 18-13694. It discusses the Montreal Convention's limitations period and the purported tolling effects of the automatic federal bankruptcy stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). I will keep the judges' names as the fake's names. I will keep § 362(a) as the fake's statute. I will not invent a holding. Inventing a holding for a fake is how a chapter becomes the thing it is walking.

The Clerk of the Eleventh Circuit confirmed the decision is not an authentic ruling and that no party by the name of Vargese or Varghese has been party to a proceeding in that Court since the institution of its electronic case filing system in 2010. Judge Higginbotham is a Senior Judge of the Fifth Circuit, not the Eleventh. Judges Jordan and Rosenbaum sit on the Eleventh. I will keep 2010. I will keep Fifth, not Eleventh. I will not upgrade a clerk letter to a finding that I sat in Atlanta. A clerk is a public. A public is not a tour.

The fake shows stylistic and reasoning flaws that do not generally appear in decisions issued by United States Courts of Appeals. Its legal analysis is gibberish. It references a claim for the wrongful death of George Scaria Varghese brought by Susan Varghese, then describes the claims of a plaintiff named Anish Varghese who, due to airline overbooking, was denied boarding on a flight from Bangkok to New York with a layover in Guangzhou. Procedural history borders on nonsensical: abrupt mention of arbitration; Chapter 7 as a tactical response to dismissal; later, without explanation, Chapter 13; defendant said to have filed for bankruptcy in China. Quotation marks often unpaired. The decision abruptly ends without a conclusion. I will keep gibberish. I will keep abruptly ends. I will not typeset the fake as if it were law. A museum sells a ticket.

Docket 18-13694 is associated with George Cornea v. U.S. Attorney General. The Federal Reporter citation 925 F.3d 1339 is associated with J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2019). I will keep Cornea. I will keep Azar. I will not write a plot that says a real reporter number is a theft I sat. A number can be reused by a model. Reuse is a stain. A stain is not a holding that I counted pages.

The fake includes internal citations and quotes from decisions that are themselves non-existent. I will keep themselves non-existent. I will not invent the internal names. Inventing the internals is a second kit.

Petersen v. Iran Air, 905 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2012), is the second federal exemplar. The Court was unable to locate the decision. A search of the Federal Supplement, in the order's weather, does not find that reporter page as that caption. I will keep unable to locate. I will keep 905 F. Supp. 2d 121 as the fake's clothes. I will not invent a holding for a page that is not that case. Inventing a holding for a fake is how a chapter becomes the thing it is walking.

Miller v. United Airlines, 174 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 1999), is the third. The Court was unable to locate that decision in the Second Circuit. Volume 174 of F.3d sits in 1999. The caption does not. I will keep unable to locate a second time because a grocery line will spend a Second Circuit cite as if I had held a real panel. I held an order that said fake. I will not invent the real opinion that happens to live near that page. Inventing a neighbor is a kit.

The other three — Shaboon, Martinez, Durden — sat in the letters the Court later required. I already kept the letters. I am walking the two remaining federal exemplars so a grocery line cannot spend Varghese as if it were the only fake a clerk unsaw. Six names. Three federal exemplars. One June 22. I will not add a seventh. Adding a seventh is a kit.

Schwartz, in the affirmation the order walked, asked the model whether the cases were real. The model said they were. He asked for copies. The model produced more text that looked like an opinion. He treated the look as a find. I will keep asked whether they were real. I will keep said they were. I will not typeset the ask. A museum sells a ticket. A ticket is not a chat you can paste into a brief.

The affirmation sat in May, after the Order to Show Cause. I already kept May 25 as the dribble. I am walking the ask so a grocery line cannot spend a June hearing as if the model had not already been asked to swear for a case. A model cannot swear. A model generates a next token. A next token that says real is still a next token.

Colm wrote Petersen 905 F Supp 2d 121 unable / Miller 174 F.3d 366 unable / asked if real / model said yes / do not typeset the ask / not a seventh and boxed said yes. He typed a flyer that had used the word verified. He said verified is a brochure until a clerk writes unable. I said verified sat in an affirmation next to a look.

I printed the two exemplars as names. Eira asked if Petersen was a score. I said it was a fake. She said fakes are for news. I said this fake is a letter a judge later received. She wiped around the ten.

Piers asked whether "said they were real" meant "they peaked." I said peaked is a polo word. He wrote a five.

Rex said grounded exemplar adjacency. I said an exemplar is a court's three, not a vest. He zipped a pocket.

Dax asked if I was filing the Miller. I said I was dating an unable. He dated the pack. Unables are honest. Filings are a later costume.

The six are still this one. I will not give the two remaining exemplars a holding. A holding is what they do not have. A look is what they had. A look is this book's joke and also this book's job.

Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions, in the order's opening: opposing party wastes time and money; the Court's time is taken from other endeavors; the client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic precedents; potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked and to a party attributed with fictional conduct; it promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system; a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity. I will keep the list as the order's list. I will not upgrade cynicism to a finding I sat in a poll. Cynicism is a harm the Court named. A harm the Court named is a public.

An innocent mistake, in a footnote: counsel for Schwartz and the Levidow Firm, in an initial version of the brief in response to the Orders to Show Cause, included three of the fake cases in its Table of Authorities, then promptly caught and corrected on its own. I will keep promptly caught. I will keep three. I will not add three to six. A correction is a public. A public is not a mercy I invented.

Piers asked whether "gibberish" meant "they peaked." I said peaked is a polo word. He wrote a five.

Rex said grounded reporter adjacency. I said a reporter is a book, not a vest. He zipped a pocket.

Dax asked if I was filing the six. I said I was dating a table. He dated the card pack. Tables are honest when they stay empty.

The Cousin in the Second Circuit

January 30, 2024. Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024). Attorney Jae S. Lee admitted she cited a nonexistent state-court decision in a reply brief. She reported she relied on ChatGPT to identify precedent and did not read or otherwise confirm the validity of the (non-existent) decision. The court: this conduct falls well below the basic obligations of counsel. Referred to the Court's Grievance Panel pursuant to Local Rule 46.2. Ordered to furnish a copy of the decision to her client. The nonexistent caption, in the walks that name it, is Matter of Bourguignon / Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Services. I will keep did not read. I will keep Grievance Panel. I will not upgrade a referral to a discipline I sat. A referral is weather that has a local rule. Weather that has a local rule is still not a later suspension I invent.

The Second Circuit, in that January 30 opinion: at the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely. Indeed, we can think of no other way to ensure that the arguments made based on those authorities are warranted by existing law, or otherwise legally tenable. I will keep read, and thereby confirm. I will keep no other way. I will not typeset a confirm you can skip. A museum sells a ticket.

Lee's reply brief, in the walks that bother with a count, cited only two court decisions. The court was unable to locate Matter of Bourguignon. On November 20, 2023, the court ordered Park to submit a copy of that decision by November 27. On November 29, Lee filed a Response explaining she was unable to furnish a copy. She referred to "this non-existent case." She wrote that she had encountered difficulties locating a relevant case; consequently she utilized the ChatGPT service, to which she is a subscribed and paying member; ChatGPT was previously provided reliable information, such as locating sources for finding an antique furniture key; the case was suggested by ChatGPT; she wished to clarify that she did not cite any specific reasoning or decision from this case. I will keep antique furniture key. I will keep subscribed and paying. I will keep unable to furnish. I will not invent a key I sat. A key is a transcript's key. A transcript's key is not a holding that a tool once found a dresser.

The appeal was from a district court's dismissal of a medical-malpractice suit, in the Bloomberg walk. I will keep medical-malpractice as the underlying kitchen. I will not remake Chapter 3's percent as this appeal. A malpractice is a caption's past. A percent is a paper. Two kitchens. I will not add them.

Colm wrote Park 91 F.4th 610 / Jan 30 2024 / Lee / Bourguignon / Nov 20 order / Nov 29 unable / furniture key / paying member / read and confirm / referral not a suspension I invent and boxed referral. He typed a flyer that had used the word tenable. He said tenable is a brochure until a circuit writes it. I said tenable sat next to existing law.

The Second Circuit quoted Mata: a fake opinion is not existing law. I am putting the quote in this cousin so a grocery line cannot call January a sequel I plotted. Calendars are not switchboards. A district order can sit in a circuit sentence. Sitting is a citation. A citation is not a finding that every later brief called the other.

Piers asked whether "grievance" meant "they peaked." I said peaked is a polo word. He wrote a five.

The Cousin in Missouri

February 13, 2024. Kruse v. Karlen, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, ED111172, later 692 S.W.3d 43. Jonathan R. Karlen, pro se, appealed a summary judgment. The overwhelming majority of the citations were not only inaccurate but entirely fictitious. Only two out of twenty-four case citations in the brief were genuine. Those two, in the court's telling, did not stand for what the brief purported. Appeal dismissed for briefing deficiencies that prevented meaningful review. Damages toward appellate attorneys' fees: $10,000, Rule 84.19. I will keep two of twenty-four. I will keep $10,000. I will not add $10,000 and $5,000. Two kitchens. One winter. I will not write a plot that says a pro se and a firm called each other.

The trial court, in the rooms that walk a wage: awarded Molly Kruse, a former employee, over $311,000 in unpaid wages, penalties, and attorneys' fees on summary judgment for failure to pay for work performed and two unsatisfied promissory notes given to secure the unpaid salary. I will keep over $311,000 as a walk. I will not add $311,000 to $10,000. A judgment below is a judgment below. A $10,000 is a Rule 84.19. Two numbers. One appeal. I will not freeze 311 as a census I counted.

Karlen filed a notice of appeal acting pro se purportedly on behalf of all defendants named in the original action. He failed to timely file the Record on Appeal, a signed Appellate Brief, and the requisite Appendix. Following numerous deadline extensions, he filed the Record, an unsigned brief, and a Reply Brief. He did not file an Appendix. Respondent moved to strike. I will keep unsigned. I will keep no Appendix. I will not invent a signature that would have saved a chapter.

A contextual example, in the court's telling: the brief cited a quoted portion of a purported Missouri opinion Smith v. ABC Corporation. Both the legal quotation and the case itself are nonexistent; the case citation belonging to a Texas state-court family-law opinion. I will keep ABC Corporation. I will keep Texas family-law. I will not invent the Texas caption. Inventing a Texas caption is a kit.

The court: to protect the integrity of the justice system, courts around the country have been considering and/or enacting local rules specifically geared towards prohibiting or disclosing the use of generative A.I. in court filings. Appellant's fictitious citations alerted the court and Respondents to the probability of generative A.I.'s involvement even prior to Appellant's disclosure after the fact. I will keep even prior. I will keep local rules as a court's observation, not a statute I sat. An observation is a public. A public is not a kit you can copy as a standing order.

Colm wrote Kruse ED111172 / Feb 13 2024 / ~$311k below walk / 2 of 24 / Smith v ABC Corp fake / Texas family cite / $10k 84.19 / unsigned / no appendix and boxed 2 of 24. He typed a flyer that had used the word fictitious. He said fictitious is a brochure until a court counts a two. I said fictitious sat next to a Texas family that was not a Missouri wage.

Emrys asked if I was fixing the ABC. I said I was dating a two. She dated the mouse. Twos are honest. ABCs are a later costume I will not wear as a kit.

The Missouri court cited Mata. I will keep the cite as a cite. I will not remake Castel's fourteen days as this $10,000. Two numbers. Two rules. Labels are honest when they stay labels.

Emrys asked if I was fixing the twenty-four. I said I was dating a two. She dated the tape. Twos are honest. Twenty-fours are a later costume I will not wear as a kit.

The Opinion That Is Not a Statute

July 29, 2024. ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 512, generative artificial intelligence. Existing rules already cover this, in that telling: competence, confidentiality, candor. I will keep already cover. I will not upgrade an opinion to a statute. An opinion is a bar kitchen. A statute is a later room I do not have. I will not typeset a 512 you can copy as a compliance kit. A museum sells a ticket.

To ensure clients are protected, the syllabus says, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees. I will keep the seven as the syllabus's seven. I will not invent an eighth. Inventing an eighth is a kit.

Communication, Model Rule 1.4, in the rooms that walk a talk: whether a lawyer must disclose the use of a GAI tool depends on the circumstances. Informed consent is required if the lawyer will input confidential client information. A discussion may also be required if the use will affect the basis or reasonableness of a fee. Some clients will want to know. The opinion does not invent a script. I will keep depends on the circumstances. I will keep if. I will not typeset a disclosure you can paste. A museum sells a ticket. A ticket is not a talk.

Supervisory responsibilities, Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3: partners and lawyers with comparable managerial authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers and nonlawyer assistants using GAI tools conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Training can be a measure. A policy can be a measure. I will keep reasonable assurance. I will keep nonlawyer assistants. I will not invent a policy you can copy as a standing order. A measure is a bar's measure. A bar's measure is not a kit.

Meritorious claims and candor, Model Rules 3.1 and 3.3: a lawyer who uses a GAI tool to generate a filing still has to review the output before it goes to a court. The tool does not become the filer. The filer stays the filer. I will keep review the output. I will keep still. I will not remake Mata's $5,000 as this 3.3. That kitchen had a June 22 order. This kitchen has a July 29 syllabus. Two summers. Two mouths. Labels are honest when they stay labels.

Fees, Model Rule 1.5: if a GAI tool lets a lawyer finish a task in less time, an hourly fee should reflect the time actually spent, not the time the task would have taken without the tool. A flat fee that used to be reasonable can stop being reasonable if the tool changes the work. A lawyer may charge a client for the cost of a GAI tool if the charge is reasonable and the client is told. I will keep actually spent. I will keep if the charge is reasonable. I will not typeset a billing code you can paste. A museum sells a ticket. A ticket is not an invoice.

The opinion walks output that can be biased or inaccurate and still look finished. I will keep look finished as my mouth for a page that already said inaccurate. I will not invent a bias I sat in a model card. A look is a typeface. A typeface is this book's joke and also this book's job.

Colm wrote 512 / 1.4 depends / 5.1 5.3 reasonable assurance / 3.1 3.3 review output / 1.5 actually spent / advisory not statute and boxed actually spent. He typed a flyer that had used the word efficient. He said efficient is a brochure until a fee rule writes a clock. I said efficient sat in a 1.5 next to a charge a client is told.

I printed the syllabus. Eira asked if 512 was a score. I said it was an opinion. She said opinions are for neighbors. I said this opinion is a seven. She wiped around the ten.

Piers asked whether "actually spent" meant "they peaked." I said peaked is a polo word. He wrote a five.

Rex said grounded fee adjacency. I said a fee is a 1.5 noun, not a vest. He zipped a pocket.

Emrys asked if I was fixing the invoice. I said I was dating a reasonable. She dated the click. Reasonables are honest. Invoices are a later costume I will not wear as a kit.

Alec asked if I was filing a 5.3. I said I was dating a measure. He dated the tin. Measures are honest. Filings are a later costume.

The next room is still a percent a paper scored. The seven is still this one. I will not add an eighth. Adding an eighth is a kit. A kit is what the mug refuses.

Competence, Model Rule 1.1: to competently use a GAI tool in a client representation, lawyers need not become GAI experts. Rather, lawyers must have a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the specific GAI technology that the lawyer might use. I will keep need not become experts. I will keep specific GAI technology. I will not upgrade a reasonable understanding to a finding that I sat in a model card. A reasonable is a bar's reasonable. A bar's reasonable is not a statute.

Confidentiality, Model Rule 1.6: keep confidential all information relating to the representation, regardless of its source, unless the client gives informed consent, disclosure is impliedly authorized, or an exception applies. Rules 1.9(c) and 1.18(b) extend similar protections to former and prospective clients. Reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure. Self-learning tools draw particular emphasis: prompts and client data may be retained and surface later in another user's session. For consent to be informed, the client must have the lawyer's best judgment about why the tool is being used, the extent of and specific information about the risk, the kinds of client information that will be disclosed, the ways others might use the information against the client's interests, and a clear explanation of the tool's benefits. I will keep self-learning. I will keep surface later. I will not typeset a consent you can paste. A museum sells a ticket.

The opinion is advisory, not binding. The Model Rules are not the rules of any jurisdiction until a state supreme court adopts them. I will keep advisory. I will keep not binding. I will not upgrade an advisory to a docket. An advisory is a bar kitchen. A docket is Chapter 2's other rooms.

I will not remake another book's lobbying as this 512. That kitchen had a bill and a veto. This kitchen has a syllabus and a seven. Two kitchens. I will not add them.

Piers asked whether "need not become experts" meant "they peaked." I said peaked is a polo word. He wrote a five.

Rex said grounded competence adjacency. I said competence is a 1.1 noun, not a vest. He zipped a pocket.

Rex said grounded candor adjacency. I said candor is a Rule 3.3 noun, not a vest. He zipped a pocket.

Lynne is not Lee. I am saying that a second time because a grocery line will spend a shop that thanked a clause as a reply brief. A clause is a vendor. A brief is a court. Two kitchens. I will not add them.

The next room is a percent a paper scored. The six are still this one.

I will not give you a prompt that summons a Varghese. I will not give you a table of authorities you can paste. I will tell you February 2, 2022, happened, that March 1, 2023, happened, that a reply on March 15 said most could not be located, that April 11 and 12 ordered production, that a vacation letter was a lie the Court found, that April 25 annexed excerpts a clerk later unsaw, that June 8 was a hearing and June 22 was an order, that $5,000 went to a Registry, that Park referred a lawyer who did not read, that Kruse dismissed a brief with two genuine cites of twenty-four, that 512 said the rules already cover this, and that a shop in a rented suite still thanks a sentence because confidence is a typeface. The next room is a guideline a paper scored. The six are still this one.

March 20, 2024. United States v. Cohen, 18-CR-602 (JMF), S.D.N.Y. Opinion and Order, Jesse M. Furman. Document 108. A fourth motion for early termination of supervised release, filed November 29, 2023, ECF 88, cited three cases that do not exist. The Court denied the motion and declined to impose sanctions. I will keep 18-CR-602. I will keep March 20. I will keep declined. I will not remake Mata's $5,000 as this decline. Two Southern Districts. Two Schwartzes. I will say the second sentence twice so a grocery line cannot spend them as one man.

David M. Schwartz is not Steven A. Schwartz. I am putting the first names in the same paragraph because a grocery line will try to spend a Schwartz as a Schwartz. David filed the November 29 motion. Steven wrote Mata's March 1 affirmation. Two kitchens. One last name. I will not write a plot that says they called each other.

The three examples, allegedly affirmed by the Second Circuit: United States v. Figueroa-Florez, 64 F.4th 223 (2d Cir. 2022); United States v. Ortiz (No. 21-3391), 2022 WL 4424741 (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2022); and United States v. Amato, 2022 WL 1669877 (2d Cir. May 10, 2022). There was only one problem: the cases do not exist. I will keep the three as the order's three. I will not invent holdings for them. Inventing holdings for a fake is how a chapter becomes the thing it is walking.

The Government failed to point that fact out in its opposition. E. Danya Perry entered a notice of appearance on Cohen's behalf following the Government's submission and later brought the nonexistence to the Court's attention, in the rooms that walk a later appearance. I will keep failed to point. I will keep Perry as a later appearance. I will not invent a kinder opposition. An opposition is a public. A public is not a mercy I wrote.

Cohen, in a declaration: he obtained the cases and summaries from Google Bard, which he did not realize was a generative text service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not. Instead, he had understood it to be a super-charged search engine. He did not have access to Westlaw or other standard resources and trusted Schwartz and his team to vet the suggested additions. I will keep super-charged search engine. I will keep did not realize. I will not upgrade a realize to a finding that I sat in his head. A declaration is a public.

Schwartz believed the cases had been found by Perry, given an earlier back-and-forth in which Perry had commented that the motion should cite a few cases granting early termination. Because of Perry's reputation as a renowned and skilled trial lawyer, Schwartz did not independently review the cases. He never contemplated that the cases cited were non-existent. Inclusion was an honest and unfortunate mistake. I will keep did not independently review. I will keep renowned. I will not invent a review that would have saved a chapter.

The Court: Schwartz's citation to non-existent cases is embarrassing and certainly negligent, but the record does not support a finding of bad faith sufficient for sua sponte sanctions under Rule 11, Section 1927, or inherent power. The standard for inherent-power sanctions requires bad faith; Section 1927 is effectively the same; sua sponte Rule 11 is akin to contempt. The Court cited Mata. I will keep embarrassing and certainly negligent. I will keep cited Mata. I will not add a decline to a $5,000. Two kitchens. One Southern District. Labels are honest when they stay labels.

No basis to impose sanctions on Cohen himself. The Order to Show Cause was limited to Schwartz. Even if Cohen had been on notice, sanctions would not be warranted on this record. Given the amount of press Google Bard and other generative tools have received, it is surprising that Cohen believed it to be a super-charged search engine rather than a generative text service. Google, the Court noted in a footnote walk, goes out of its way to remind you that Bard is still very much an experiment: pop-ups and reminders that what Bard tells you might be wrong, and a notice underneath the text box that says Bard may display inaccurate or offensive information. I will keep surprising. I will keep may display inaccurate. I will not upgrade a surprising to a perjury I sat. Reuters walked that the judge suggested Cohen may have perjured himself in other rooms of the same opinion. I will keep may have as a walk. I will not invent a perjury caption. Inventing a perjury caption is a kit.

December 12, 2018. The Honorable William H. Pauley sentenced Cohen principally to thirty-six months' imprisonment, followed by three years' supervised release, citing a veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct. I will keep smorgasbord as the sentencing transcript's noun in the later order. I will keep thirty-six months. I will not tour a plea. A plea is a person. A person is not a kit.

December 2019: Cohen moved for a reduction of his term of imprisonment pursuant to Rule 35(b). Pauley denied that motion in March 2020. Between July 2022 and May 2023, after the case was reassigned to Furman due to the death of Judge Pauley, Cohen filed three motions for early termination of supervised release. The Court denied all three. Supervised release was due to expire in November of that year, in the March 20, 2024, order's weather. I will keep three denials. I will keep due to expire in November. I will not invent a fourth denial's reason as this chapter's lead. The fourth is the Bard. The first three are a calendar. A calendar is not a plot that says a model wrote a sentence.

In opposing the third motion, the Government alerted the Court to statements Cohen had made in a then-recent book and on television. He wrote in Revenge (2022) that he did not engage in tax fraud, that the tax charges were all 100 percent inaccurate, and that he was threatened by prosecutors to plead guilty. On television, attempting to distance himself from his guilty plea to making false statements to a financial institution about tax medallion liabilities, he stated there was no fraud in the medallions. The Court denied the third motion substantially for the reasons in the Government's letter and singled out those statements as suggesting a reduction would not serve the purposes incorporated by reference in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) — deterrence, rehabilitation, or proportionality. I will keep § 3583(e). I will keep Revenge. I will not tour a book. A book is a public. A public is not a kit.

Undeterred, through David M. Schwartz, Cohen filed the November 29, 2023, fourth motion. Schwartz argued a substantial change in circumstances: Cohen's testimony for two straight days in State of New York v. Donald J. Trump; two days of grueling cross-examination; testimony widely lauded and publicized; willingness to come forward demonstrating an exceptional level of remorse. I will keep grueling. I will keep widely lauded as a motion's mouth. I will not upgrade a laud to a finding I sat in a courtroom. A motion is a public. A public is not a tour of a trial.

The Court denied the fourth motion on those other grounds and stated it did not rely in any way on the citation to non-existent cases. I already kept did not rely. I am walking the calendar so a grocery line cannot spend a Bard as the reason a supervision continued. A Bard is a stain. A stain is not a holding that a term ended.

Perry suggested, in a footnote the order walked, that the combination of the docket number of one of the non-existent cases and other facts raised questions. I will keep footnote as a footnote. I will not invent the combination. Inventing a combination is a kit.

Colm wrote 18-CR-602 / Pauley Dec 12 2018 36 mo + 3 yr SR / 35(b) denied Mar 2020 / three SR denials / Revenge 2022 walk / 3583(e) / Nov 29 2023 fourth / NY v Trump two days walk / did not rely on fakes for denial / David not Steven and boxed did not rely. He typed a flyer that had used the word smorgasbord. He said smorgasbord is a brochure until a sentence writes it. I said smorgasbord sat in 2018 and not in a Bard.

Piers asked whether "fourth motion" meant "they peaked." I said peaked is a polo word. He wrote a five.

Rex said grounded supervision adjacency. I said a supervision is a term, not a vest. He zipped a pocket.

Alec asked if I was filing a Revenge. I said I was dating a decline. He dated the tin. Declines are honest. Revenges are a later costume I will not wear as a tour.

The Court denied the early-termination motion substantially on other grounds — including statements in a book and on television the Government had flagged — and stated it did not rely in any way on the citation to non-existent cases in denying the motion. I will keep did not rely. I will keep the denial as a denial that has its own kitchen. A fake cite that does not decide a motion is still a fake cite. A fake cite is this chapter's stain. A stain is not a holding that a supervision ended.

I will not remake another book's campaign-finance kitchen as this Bard. That kitchen, if it exists in another book, is not this motion. This motion is three Second Circuit fakes and a decline. I will not tour a hush. A hush is a person. A person is not a kit.

Piers asked whether "embarrassing" meant "they peaked." I said peaked is a polo word. He wrote a five.

Rex said grounded search-engine adjacency. I said a search engine is what Cohen thought he had, not a vest. He zipped a pocket.

Dax asked if I was studying the three. I said I was dating a decline. He dated the pack. Declines are honest. Studies are a later costume.

I will not give you a Bard query that summons a Figueroa-Florez. I will not give you a table of authorities you can paste. I will tell you February 2, 2022, happened, that March 1, 2023, happened, that June 22 happened, that Park referred a lawyer who did not read, that Kruse dismissed a brief with two genuine cites of twenty-four, that 512 said the rules already cover this, that March 20, 2024, declined to sanction a different Schwartz for three fakes a client pulled from a box he thought was a search engine, and that a shop in a rented suite still thanks a sentence because confidence is a typeface. The next room is a guideline a paper scored. The six are still this one.