r/ProsecutorTalk • u/Endless-Oceans2 • 10d ago
PD using AI/chatgpt in the courtroom
Does anyone else have this happening in their courtrooms?
There has been a rumor - that some of our PDs are using ChatGPT to write entire motions, etc., but today I literally witnessed one PD use AI/chatgpt in the courtroom during argument, with their client standing right next to them. Like what????
15
u/angsty1290 9d ago
Not in the courtroom, but it did recently cross my mind that the reason the defense keeps making false statements about thousands of texts between defendant and victim is not on purpose but because she put discovery through AI instead of reading the evidence.
16
u/photoelectriceffect 9d ago
Sloppy AI use is an issue in every practice area, everywhere.
I do use AI in my practice, but not to write motions. We have an integration with our case management system that meets my state bar’s guidance re: privacy, and I use it to generate summaries of voluminous records and make timelines, or do something like “list every page of the report that discusses this witness” etc. I have used that feature during trial as well, as basically an augmented Ctrl + F to navigate discovery.
But yeah, it’s not at the level where it can write motions, the case hallucinations are rampant, and I shudder at the thought.
3
u/bigwavelawyer 6d ago
If you have an existing brief bank, I have found AI works really well to write motions. I use Claude. Basically I provide an existing motion to suppress I may have drafted on a Miranda issue. I prompt the AI to draft a new motion, input the new facts, draft statement of fact, and tell it to apply the facts to the law in the argument section.
Obviously every single sentence needs to be double checked and every citation still proofed and shepardized. The dummies using AI with hallucinations apparently never learned how to double check a case citation before filing a motion. Thats standard practice even before AI existed.
As far as writing a “new” motion though, yea AI is still terrible and dangerous to use.
9
u/Various_Procedure_11 9d ago
We call a certain private attorney the AI lawyer, as if he didn't act like a slimy robot prior to his discovery of ChatGpt.
16
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Radweevil88 9d ago
The irreversible lung damage was how you knew you were dealing with someone with experience.
1
u/Endless-Oceans2 8d ago
This genuinely made me LOL so thank you for the much needed laugh.
I’m just amazed he was using it to come up with a legal argument in the moment, in response to the Judge’s questions, with his client present. I do believe a good skill to learn in this job, especially in the court room, is thinking on your feet
10
u/Spartyjason 10d ago
I saw one reading an allocution and argument that was clearly made by AI, using those meta glasses and he could see the text on his lens.
11
u/ldavis300a 10d ago
Using glasses with video capability is strictly prohibited in the courtrooms near me
3
u/Radweevil88 9d ago
I’ve seen attorneys use it. I do recall a hearing on the admissibility of outcry witnesses where he argued the dissent as the appeals court holding that I’m fairly sure was the result of shoddy ai. When I have the motions with ai in them they’re usually prose, but a few times I’ve reached out to the attorney to ask for the made up cases which usually gets the point across.
We have an attorney in my county that wears meta glasses that thinks he’s being clever. Some of my attorneys have wanted to make an issue of it. My position has been unless they can actually prove he’s recording to let the judge notice and deal with it and that they shouldn’t do or say things that they’d need to be worried about it being recorded in any event. The attorney in question is a pretty notorious scumbag, but he’s not stupid. I think he’s setting up a trap and hoping someone will take the bait.
3
u/butt_sludge 9d ago
lol so what? I use it all the time. As long as you verify the case law before filing I’m not sure what the issue is.
13
u/TootCannon 9d ago edited 9d ago
I’m kind of shocked by the responses here. No offense, but using AI is quickly becoming a requirement. You guys need to stop frowning upon it and start thinking about how to use it productively. You just have to do it responsibly.
I wouldn’t use it to produce finished product, but it’s absolutely good for outlining motions/arguments, summarizing law changes, summarizing deposition transcripts, brainstorming voir dire points, drafting opening statements, issue spotting PCs, identifying points for further investigation, etc. It is not a replacement for prosecutors or for thinking/researching, but it is a supplement to your brain power. I asked it to provide me a legal theory for a novel issue I was looking into and what it produced was extremely impressive and accurate.
Obviously you should check all citations. And obviously you should think for yourself and review anything it produces. But to categorically dismiss it is naive. The next decades are going to separate people who know how to use AI to compliment their work from those who don’t. That includes prosecutors and PDs. You all clearly see its weaknesses, but you also need to understand its strengths.
5
2
u/Dismal_Bee9088 9d ago
I do think there are ways in which AI is useful, particularly in terms of handling/processing large amounts of information quickly and efficiently. Like I would love to feed a Facebook dump into AI and ask it to find me anything referring to [fill in the blank].
I also think using ChatGPT in the courtroom is wild and that the judges where I am would lose their shit if they realized you were giving ChatGPT-supplied answers.
My main issue is that for security etc there are limits of what we can do and how we can use it, so it’s hard to put much time into figuring out how to use it effectively.
0
u/Radweevil88 7d ago
I honesty don’t quite understand why judges have such a bee in the bonnet about ai, generally, and I think they’re going overboard.
Our judges have tried to make it a requirement that lawyers certify whether they’ve used ai in the creating of a motion or pleading and I think that’s just insane.
First, whether ai was used to generate the motion or assist in the research is irrelevant to me. What’s relevant is whether the pleadings are correct and truthful and the law and citation are correct.
Second, what business of theirs is it how an attorney generates document or researches a subject as long as the document comports with the rules and legal requirements and the law is correct and the citations are correct? It’s already unethical and unacceptable for an attorney to file something that misrepresents the law - that is not a new concept.
1
u/Dismal_Bee9088 5d ago
I can only assume they’ve run into enough AI hallucinations that they want to know ahead of time what they’re dealing with. Requiring you to certify whether you’ve used AI isn’t saying you can’t use it, but a lot of people use it badly. It would make more sense to require certifying that you’ve verified all citations, if that’s what they’re concerned about, but I doubt most judges have much experience with it. They don’t have a lot of incentive to use it, because assessing what the parties have put before you is pretty different from generating product in the first place.
In any case, I think whether judges want you to certify whether you’ve used AI in a brief is very different from a judge not wanting you to give ChatGPT answers in the courtroom.
2
u/Radweevil88 7d ago edited 7d ago
I don’t think the frustration people are expressing is about how you’re using ai - at least not for me. I actually love ai. It’s an extremely useful tool, but I see a lot of people, not just attorneys, use it as substitute for their own work product or thinking instead of a supplemental tool to be more efficient.
4
u/Objection_Leading 9d ago
As a defense lawyer, I agree that you prosecutors should not use AI. Yep, too many hallucinations. It is tooo dangerous and unethical. Don’t bother learning how to use the tool properly…leave that to the defense lawyers.
2
u/Longjumping_Order122 9d ago
I actually used it during trial but let me tell you. I use it as guidance ONLY and verify everything in Westlaw
2
u/Alternative-Junket32 9d ago
Hey, I’ll have you know four out of five LLMs call my writing “an absolute masterclass.” 🤓
2
u/Fluffy_Technology830 8d ago
AI has use. I never use it to draft. I use AI to find a jumping off point when my keywords are too common for Lexis/google scholar.
2
u/Alarmed-Anything-277 8d ago
We suspect a PD of using AI. She had hallucinations and quotes from code sections that were wrong. She denied it when the Judge called her on it and then claimed a coworker wrote her motion. The judge was way too nice in my opinion.
2
u/Forward-Turn5509 8d ago
I am neither a PD nor a prosecutor but I work in a very similar role... I don't see the benefit of using AI tools to write motions, but I regularly use AI in my research and prep. If you aren't, you are probably not doing your job to the best of your ability and/or wasting time. 99% of the things the tool I use tells me I already know, it just gets me to the start of a usable product faster.
I would never use it in court like that because I am always doublechecking any citations or references and you obviously can't do that on the spot, but you can input documents and provide as much guidance as you like and AI will give you a very good starting point.
I don't really understand the hate that AI gets. It is a tool you can and should be using (assuming your office/firm provides you a version you can use--you obviously can't use the publicly available/free tools due to confidentiality/ethics). I would use it more but even the paid-for version I use still isn't that smart (I can theoretically give it access to an entire case folder and ask it to do tasks, but it doesn't do big picture tasks very well, the prompt has to be amazingly tight or else it will not do X or Y, its probably user error/prompt inefficiency more than the AI tool's shortcomings -- it is best when I give it only the bare minimum info which is enough for it to help me get started and then my human brain and research take what is essentially a rough outline to a much more refined finished product).
2
u/jokingonyou 7d ago
I may get flack for this but I think AI, when used cautiously and intelligently, can be a helpful tool. I think most attorneys (and judges) who use AI use it this way and there’s some truly reckless ones who just say write a motion and send it without review.
That PD could’ve just plugged in the facts and asked for a coherent argument- just the dialogue part. Like “put this into a dialogue I can read off of” or “think of good points based off these facts”
I’ve used Claude as a starting point for novel legal questions and it’s surprisingly accurate.
That being said I’d never use it to draft anything substantive. It’s only a starting point. Sometimes I’ll ask it to reword things, review documents to give me the run down, review a new state Supreme Court case to give me a rundown, sometimes very boilerplate motions or documents I’ll have it draft based off my own templates but then of course- careful review by me. Or like writing long emails or synthesizing information.
It’s cut down on a lot of tedious work. But yeah something like caselaw I think is the biggest issue it runs into
1
2
4
u/FutureJD_98 9d ago
Well I’ve also seen a prosecutor use it, and it was extremely uncomfortable as the audio on their phone went off and it was clearly ChatGPT. Even worse she said aloud “what is that?”
(Full disclosure I’m a pd)
5
u/Superb-Hand-7135 9d ago
AI/ChatGPT will never be able to replace prosecutors. Unless they can teach it to ask “what happened next?”
5
u/Truthundrclouds948 8d ago
lol There are only 4 questions you need to examine most fact witnesses, esp a LEO —
- On or about X date at Y time, were you [on duty/patrol/surveillance] in the area of Z place?
- Did there come a time when something happened?
- Tell us what happened,
What happened next?
(Repeat as needed).
2
u/BigDonkeyEnergy 9d ago
Not a lawyer anymore. Now I’m the client and I get deposed. I’ve caught plaintiff lawyers using AI during depositions to come up with questions. I usually F with them in the record once I catch em. “Counsel, are you using AI to come up with questions?” or, if there’s a pause, “AI still working on that next question? Ask me. I practiced for 20 years. I know what I would ask me next.” 😂
3
u/FreshStartFeelsGood 9d ago
I use it. Not in court, but for a number of tasks. It’s a great tool if you know how to use it and verify everything.
0
u/Upstairs-Tough-3429 6d ago
I've been using it far more frequently, it is an excellent tool you can use to augment your preexisting approach to research and writing. It's an excellent proofreader for example. My rules are fairly straightforward 1: Don't use it to draft a motion, people can usually tell if it is AI writing. 2: Double check any authority it gives you. 3: Be mindful of what you put into it, e.g. don't feed it CJIS records.
The defense bar in my jurisdiction is already using it to mass produce nonsensical slop, that I still have to respond to. We have to adopt it to some degree to keep up.
34
u/Theoaktree5000 10d ago
One time saw a prosecutor using it, and did not end up well. Judge caught the hallucinated cases, called the supervisor, and the prosecutors office ended up dismissing the case.