8/2/2023 0 Comments Judge stephen schwartzIt did not go well for either LoDuca or Schwartz. On Thursday morning, LoDuca and Schwartz filed an amended reply, and while the docket does not mention the reason for the amendment, I note that the three non-existent cases have disappeared from the Table of Authorities.Īlso on Thursday, though, was the courtroom hearing about all this, and Inner City Press’s Matthew Russell Lee covered the hearing in detail. There was at least one other such fake case in the Table of Authorities as well. China Southern Airlines.”īut, because the response includes a discussion of ChatGPT providing that cite (and others) those fake cases are mentioned in the brief… meaning whoever put together the Table of Authorities included the fake cases that were mentioned. And, this response, in explaining what happened, mentions some of those cases, with the main one being the entirely fictitious: “Varghese v. In this case, though, that actually represented a kind of challenge, because (you’ll recall, though whoever created this document did not…) that the whole reason we’re in this mess is that Schwartz (under LoDuca’s signature) included citations to made up cases that ChatGPT had given him. When filing a legal brief, it normally includes a “Table of Authorities” which includes citations to every other case named in the document. However, even within that filing there were some issues. The shortest summary of the 29 page document is “we may be ignorant and stupid, but we’re not malicious - and sanctions should only be put on malicious lawyers” And also “we’re super duper sorry, and everyone’s mocking that, so isn’t that punishment enough?” Second, on Wednesday, they filed their required response to Judge Kevin Castel’s order to show cause, which was effectively the two lawyers throwing themselves on the mercy of the court. We’ll again remind you that Joshua Browder, the founder of DoNotPay insisted that this same underlying technology was so sophisticated that he offered $1 million to a lawyer who would let it make arguments in front of the Supreme Court.Īnyway, some stuff has been happening in the underlying case, in which the judge ordered the two lawyers associated with the case, Peter LoDuca and Steven Schwartz, from the law firm of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman to explain what the fuck they were thinking.įirst off, both lawyers (smartly) lawyered up with lawyers from outside their own firm. Court of Federal Claims.By now you’ve heard of the lawyer who used ChatGPT for his legal research, and it made up fake cases. The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the nomination of Stephen S. Court of Federal Claims, not one whose intemperate writing reflects an extreme ideological perspective. Schwartz is far from a mainstream conservative nominee.Īmericans deserve an open-minded and fair judge on the U.S. These incendiary writings against government spending on Social Security and other vital safety net programs demonstrate that Mr. Schwartz failed to disclose when first nominated have revealed his extraordinarily narrow view of the constitutional authority for Congressional actions. His brief legal career is notable only for its consistent advocacy of laws restricting the rights of voters, women, transgender youth and immigrants. Schwartz has been out of law school for only 11 years, has been neither admitted to practice before the Court of Federal Claims nor litigated before it. Schwartz suggests that he is qualified to serve on the Court of Federal Claims. This court has jurisdiction over large, complex, and often-technical litigation against the federal government, including pay claims by veterans and federal employees. Schwartz to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose to the nomination of Stephen S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |