Do not recommend under any circumstances.
Lawyers Allegedly Behaving Badly
- Thread starter dapaterson
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 42,890
- Points
- 1,210
See that's why you're not a lawyer, because you're not willing to parse "who and when is it appropriate to send dick pics to (professionally)".
- Reaction score
- 42,890
- Points
- 1,210
Lie in a brief with a dozen non-existent cases cited? Why would that cost you your license?
If self regulation thinks this is worthy of merely a fine, then the bar is at risk of losing their self regulation. Lying to the court should lose your license.
If self regulation thinks this is worthy of merely a fine, then the bar is at risk of losing their self regulation. Lying to the court should lose your license.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 20,878
- Points
- 1,160
If it did I missed that class.
"Parsing" is part of the job description.
You and I don't often see things the same way in these cases, but for this one I agree that law societies need to act more strongly, albeit I can't agree that this is a case of "lying to the court" without more information.
I tried to access the committee's report on this particular case but I couldn't find it on the NBLS web site (which I think is wrong too.) The best I have is the newspaper report that says that he "Sawyer said he probably used either Claude or Chat GPT, which are two popular AI platforms, and likely copy and pasted material without reviewing it," and the complaint.
Only one of the rules charged - Rule 5.1-1 Advocacy - involves "knowingly" misleading a tribunal or misrepresenting the contents of a document. There were other rules alleged to be broken which include competence and integrity.
Leaving aside the issue of whether this is acting knowingly or incompetently or without integrity, our judicial system is one of adversarial proceedings. In effect each side of a dispute argues the facts and the law that assist their clients side of the case so that the decision maker can properly assess them in order to come to an appropriate decision. There are many decided and conflicting court cases out there that need to be "parsed" by a judge. While it is expected that both sides will be strong advocates for their clients the system basically demands that material presented and arguments made are real. Let's call a spade a spade. Every legal brief submitted is essentially a copy and paste process from the appropriate legal report. When I, as a lawyer, submitted a case to a judge then I have warranted that I have reviewed the case, it says what I say it does and that it stands for the legal principle propounded.
Without knowing exactly what rule the committee found he broke it's hard to assess if the punishment is a proper one. My gut tells me it isn't. Submitting unverified AI citations in legal arguments is, IMHO, an attack on the very integrity and function of the judicial system. IMHO Law Societies should be dealing much more strictly with these types of cases.
- Reaction score
- 42,890
- Points
- 1,210
From what I read, this individual submitted a report to the court with twelve wholly fictitious cases. When called out on it, he revised and removed ten of them, but resubmitted while still including two (which included fabricated quotes).
Having been afforded the opportunity to correct, he did not properly review. Whether he relied on an AI LLM or a paralegal is irrelevant; he, as an officer of the court, submitted that document under his own name. He owns it. He's responsible for it. He's accountable for it.
A fine is a price. This clearly states that you can lie to the court, and, if caught, you'll have to pay $12,000. That $12,000 just gets wrapped into his billing rate going forward.
Having been afforded the opportunity to correct, he did not properly review. Whether he relied on an AI LLM or a paralegal is irrelevant; he, as an officer of the court, submitted that document under his own name. He owns it. He's responsible for it. He's accountable for it.
A fine is a price. This clearly states that you can lie to the court, and, if caught, you'll have to pay $12,000. That $12,000 just gets wrapped into his billing rate going forward.
No. That’s what he’s gotten as this first instance not just for him but for his law society. Any repeats and he’ll get smoked. Likewise, the law society is also putting it out there that this is a problem, this is not going to be tolerated, and that there’s a bit of lenience for now, but lawyers need to take note. If this remains a problem and this general deterrence fails, that will ramp up. This isn’t a case where lawyers can now just decide to do this and occasionally eat a fine that they price in to their operating costs.
This muppet has also earned himself (and his firm) some serious professional shame. This is what comes up when you google him now. This will cost him a lot more than the $12k fine.
What we haven’t yet heard is the impact this had on the specific client (probably a criminal defence case based on his practice) and if he faces liability there.
@FJAG, or one of our other lawyers here- is this likely to also cause him to pay increased professional insurance?
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 20,878
- Points
- 1,160
I can't say for sure. In my day the insurance was a two parter: the Law Society was self-insuring to a set level and then there was CLIA's excess coverage. I think both premiums were claims based.
The nice thing about being in a partnership is that you had a managing partner to look after all the business side of the practice and never had to think about those things.
- Reaction score
- 42,890
- Points
- 1,210
Former Liberal MP, lawyer in Brampton, nearly a million in outstanding property taxes on commercial properties, alleged mortgage skulduggery... something for everyone here.
www.theglobeandmail.com
CIBC asks court to appoint a receiver to oversee businesses run by lawyer and former MP Raj Grewal
Mr. Grewal is the founder of law firm RSG Law Professional Corporation and is separately facing an application from the Law Society of Ontario to revoke his licence to practise law
www.theglobeandmail.com
Similar threads
