Latest news with #courts
Washington Post
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him
President Donald Trump and his appointees have been accused of flouting courts in a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling, a Washington Post analysis has found, suggesting widespread noncompliance with America's legal system. Plaintiffs say Justice Department lawyers and the agencies they represent are snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked.
Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
Attorneys—Track AI Hallucination Case Citations With This New Tool
This database tracks hallucinated case citations for attorneys. The legal profession has a new essential resource that could save your reputation, your career and your clients' cases. It's not filled with actual case law, but rather with cautionary tales that every attorney needs to understand. The AI Hallucination Cases database, maintained by legal researcher Damien Charlotin, systematically tracks every documented instance where attorneys have submitted artificial intelligence-generated fake legal citations to courts worldwide. With over two-hundred cases documented and counting, this represents a valuable resource for attorneys on how AI tools create fictional case citations that look completely legitimate. Each entry provides detailed information about the specific court, the nature of the AI hallucinations, the sanctions imposed and the monetary penalties assessed. It's practical intelligence that can help you avoid making the same mistakes that have already caused reputation damage to other attorneys, and in some cases, their careers. Tracking AI Hallucination Cases: Why Attorneys Should Bookmark This Database Understanding why this database exists requires grasping the fundamental challenge that AI tools present to legal practice. When attorneys use AI like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok for research, these tools sometimes generate citations that look entirely legitimate but correspond to cases that never existed. The database illustrates that this is more than just a rare glitch. It's a systematic problem affecting attorneys across all practice areas and experience levels. The database serves two primary functions that make it essential for legal professionals: The database is designed to be searchable and filterable, allowing you to find information most relevant to your practice. You can search by jurisdiction to see how courts in your area have handled AI hallucination cases, filter by practice area to understand risks specific to your field, or examine cases involving particular AI tools you might be considering using. AI Hallucination Cases: Patterns Every Attorney Should Understand The database reveals several consistent patterns that every legal professional should understand. One of the most striking findings is how sophisticated AI hallucinations can be. These aren't obviously fake citations with nonsensical party names or impossible dates. Instead, they often involve plausible case names, proper citation formats and legal reasoning that sounds entirely legitimate. AI tools frequently generate citations that include all the elements attorneys expect to see: believable party names, appropriate court jurisdictions, realistic dates and even fabricated quotations that align with the legal arguments being made. AI Hallucination Cases: Geographic and Practice Area Scope AI hallucinations in legal practice are not confined to any particular jurisdiction or area of law. Cases have emerged across the United States in federal and state courts, and international entries include incidents from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Israel, Brazil and several other countries. The practice area coverage is equally comprehensive. The database includes cases from family law, criminal defense, civil rights litigation, personal injury, immigration law, corporate law and virtually every other area of legal practice. This broad scope means that no attorney can assume they're immune from AI hallucination risks simply because they practice in a particular field. Your Next Steps: How to Access The Tracker The AI Hallucination Cases database is freely accessible online and regularly updated as new cases emerge. Legal professionals should bookmark this resource and check it regularly to stay informed about new developments and trends. The database's search and filtering capabilities make it easy to find information relevant to your specific practice area and jurisdiction. When evaluating AI tools for your practice, use the database to understand the track record of different platforms and the types of verification procedures that have proven most effective. If you're developing AI use policies for your firm, the database provides concrete examples of what can go wrong. Most importantly, treat the database as an ongoing educational resource rather than a one-time consultation. The legal profession's relationship with AI technology is evolving rapidly, and the database provides real-time documentation of that evolution. Every legal professional who wants to use AI tools safely and effectively should make this resource a regular part of their professional development routine.
Times
5 days ago
- Times
Over-80s applying to be legal parents to surrogate children
Men and women over the age of 80 are applying to become the legal parents of surrogate children, according to official figures. Data released by Cafcass, the government agency that represents children's interests in the courts, revealed that between 2020 and 2025 several men over 80 applied for court orders to legally recognise them as the parents of surrogate babies. The figures also show that in the same time frame there were applications from men aged 70-79 and women aged 60-69, 70-79 and over 80. Cafcass declined to specify exactly how many applications for 'parental orders' there were from men and women in these particular age brackets on the grounds that there were less than six in each year of the five-year period.
Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Times
Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity?
Railing against plans for greater secrecy in courts, the human rights barrister spoke out in frustration about the Kafkaesque nature of many closed hearings. Terrorism defendants were being asked to rebut cases against them even though they were blocked from knowing the evidence on grounds of national security. It was contrary to the principles of fairness at the heart of the British legal system, and wider use of such closed procedures would 'start to erode respect for our courts', he said. This was in 2012 and Martin Chamberlain, who was protesting against the Conservatives' controversial measures to expand the number of closed courts, was not yet a High Court judge. His words were nothing short of prescient, though, when it came to the key issues he would grapple with years later while overseeing the Afghan data leak case in a secret courtroom. This time, the Kafkaesque calamity applied to journalists rather than to terrorism defendants. The press were gagged from asking crucial questions of the Ministry of Defence to understand how seriously its blunder would endanger people's lives. And, although they could ask some questions through special advocates appointed by the court, they were prevented from knowing the answers. The Times and other media challenging the superinjunction were operating — as the late head of the judiciary, Lord Bingham, had put it about closed-evidence procedures — as if 'taking blind shots at a hidden target'. A tool that was once used mostly to protect celebrities' privacy had been used to suppress official information. And although concerns about potential misuse of superinjunctions had prompted assurances in the past that they would be applied for only to cover very short periods, that approach had been abandoned under the guise of national security. • Afghan data breach: minister apologises Parliament was also blinded, prevented from examining an issue of great public importance. The result was a lack of scrutiny that shut down the ordinary mechanisms of democracy. Chamberlain acknowledged this, and emphasised his unease about it. He concluded at first that the superinjunction, a mechanism so secret that not even its existence could be reported, was necessary because of the potential risk to thousands of people and the government's need for time to safeguard them. But he resiled from that view a year ago, concerned that it was stopping those at risk from protecting themselves. He also emphasised the need for public scrutiny of a multibillion-pound evacuation programme. It is the MoD's continued insistence that a superinjunction was still necessary, an argument that succeeded at the Court of Appeal, that requires careful scrutiny. The MoD claimed for two years that the security risk to Afghans implicated in the breach justified the unprecedented gagging order, but it was able to abandon its injunction at short notice — a complete U-turn, apparently at the flourish of a pen. It now cites a risk review concluding the Taliban probably already have the information or is unlikely to target the subjects of the leak. But it gives scant explanation of why this so drastically contradicts its long-held position that there was serious risk. This raises the question: did the risk ever truly justify the secrecy? That question gives rise in turn to many uncomfortable follow-ups. What exactly prompted this extraordinary change of heart? Where is the intelligence? Did political pressure over asylum hotels, where thousands of Afghan interpreters would surely have had to be housed, play any part in the MoD's speedy abandonment of its risk argument and in the closure of the evacuation scheme? Most uncomfortable of all: as time went on, is it possible that a legal tool put in place to protect life became a mechanism to spare the government's blushes? Even now, journalists remain gagged. A new injunction blocks the reporting of key aspects of the database leak. But until all these questions are properly addressed, accountability is severely lacking and trust is at stake. As Chamberlain himself noted back in 2012, the public have confidence in the courts only when fairness and transparency is at their heart.
New York Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Are the Courts Checking Trump — or Enabling Him?
In this episode of 'The Opinions,' the editorial director David Leonhardt talks to a conservative former federal judge, Michael McConnell, about the role of the courts in President Trump's second term. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. David Leonhardt: I'm David Leonhardt, the director of the New York Times editorial board. Every week I'm having conversations to help shape the board's opinions. One thing that I find useful right now is talking with President Trump's conservative critics. They tend to be alarmed by the president's behavior, but they also tend to be more optimistic than many progressives about whether American democracy is surviving the Trump presidency. And that combination helps me and my colleagues think about where the biggest risks to our country really are. One area I've been wrestling with is the federal court system. I want to understand the extent to which the courts are acting as a check on President Trump as he tries to amass more power, or whether the courts are actually helping him amass that power. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
