Latest news with #legalethics
The Sun
2 hours ago
- General
- The Sun
Robert Jenrick joins calls for Sir Keir Starmer to sack lefty lawyer Attorney General who represented Shamima Begum
ROBERT Jenrick joined calls for the PM to sack his lefty lawyer Attorney General who represented IS bride Shamima Begum. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick yesterday blasted the PM for continuing to support Cabinet Minister Lord Richard Hermer, whose former client list also includes Gerry Adams and a right-hand man to Osama Bin Laden. 3 3 In a viral video on social media, Mr Jenrick accused the Attorney General of having 'spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain'. He claimed Lord Hermer actively chose to take on the cases of terrorists and illegal migrants, even where legal ethics dictated he did not have to. The Shadow Justice Secretary said: 'Lord Hermer was a top human rights lawyer. 'He would have been inundated with cases, able to choose the pick of the bunch. 'And what's more, he often worked on a pro-bono or no-win no-fee basis.' Mr Jenrick accused the Attorney General, who is personally close to the PM, of being 'riddled with potential conflicts of interest' because he so often tried to sue the government. It came as last week Lord Hermer, one of Labour's biggest advocates of the ECHR, sparked outrage for comparing opponents of the foreign court to nazis. Mr Jenrick added: 'Starmer should never have appointed him in the first place. 'Why did he? Because they share exactly the same views. 'Britain deserves better than the pair of them.' Unveiling Lord Hermer's Legal Fee Scandal A spokesperson for the Attorney General's Office said: 'Law Officers such as the Attorney General will naturally have an extensive legal background and may have previously been involved in a wide number of past cases. 'Barristers do not associate themselves with their clients' opinions.' 3
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
US lawyer sanctioned after caught using ChatGPT for court brief
The Utah court of appeals has sanctioned a lawyer after he was discovered to have used ChatGPT for a filing he made in which he referenced a nonexistent court case. Earlier this week, the Utah court of appeals made the decision to sanction Richard Bednar over claims that he filed a brief which included false citations. According to court documents reviewed by ABC4, Bednar and Douglas Durbano, another Utah-based lawyer who was serving as the petitioner's counsel, filed a 'timely petition for interlocutory appeal'. Upon reviewing the brief which was written by a law clerk, the respondent's counsel found several false citations of cases. 'It appears that at least some portions of the Petition may be AI-generated, including citations and even quotations to at least one case that does not appear to exist in any legal database (and could only be found in ChatGPT and references to cases that are wholly unrelated to the referenced subject matter,' the respondent's counsel said in documents reviewed by ABC4. The outlet reports that the brief referenced a case titled 'Royer v Nelson', which did not exist in any legal database. Following the discovery of the false citations, Bednar 'acknowledged 'the errors contained in the petition' and apologized', according to a document from the Utah court of appeals, ABC4 reports. It went on to add that during a hearing in April, Bednar and his attorney 'acknowledged that the petition contained fabricated legal authority, which was obtained from ChatGPT, and they accepted responsibility for the contents of the petition'. According to Bednar and his attorney, an 'unlicensed law clerk' wrote up the brief and Bednar did not 'independently check the accuracy' before he made the filing. ABC4 further reports that Durbano was not involved in the creation of the petition and the law clerk responsible for the filing was a law school graduate who was terminated from the law firm. The outlet added that Bednar offered to pay any related attorney fees to 'make amends'. In a statement reported by ABC4, the Utah court of appeals said: 'We agree that the use of AI in the preparation of pleadings is a legal research tool that will continue to evolve with advances in technology. However, we emphasize that every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings. In the present case, petitioner's counsel fell short of their gatekeeping responsibilities as members of the Utah State Bar when they submitted a petition that contained fake precedent generated by ChatGPT.' As a result of the false citations, ABC4 reports that Bednar was ordered to pay the respondent's attorney fees for the petition and hearing, refund fees to their client for the time used to prepare the filing and attend the feeling, as well as donate $1,000 to the Utah-based legal non-profit And Justice for All.
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Utah lawyer in deep water after using AI to prepare brief citing case that doesn't exist
A Utah lawyer has been sanctioned by the state court of appeals after a filing he used was found to have used ChatGPT and contained a reference to a fake court case. Richard Bednar, an attorney at Durbano Law, was reprimanded by officials after filing a 'timely petition for interlocutory appeal', that referenced the bogus case. The case referenced, according to documents, was 'Royer v. Nelson' which did not exist in any legal database and was found to be made up by ChatGPT. Opposing counsel said that the only way they would find any mention of the case was by using the AI. They even went as far as to ask the AI if the case was real, noting in a filing that it then apologized and said it was a mistake. Bednar's attorney, Matthew Barneck, said that the research was done by a clerk and Bednar took all responsibility for failing to review the cases. He told The Salt Lake Tribune: 'That was his mistake. He owned up to it and authorized me to say that and fell on the sword.' According to documents, the respondent's counsel said: 'It appears that at least some portions of the Petition may be AI-generated, including citations and even quotations to at least one case that does not appear to exist in any legal database (and could only be found in ChatGPT and references to cases that are wholly unrelated to the referenced subject matter.' The court said in their opinion: 'We agree that the use of AI in the preparation of pleadings is a research tool that will continue to evolve with advances in technology. 'However, we emphasize that every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings.' As a result, he has been ordered to pay the attorney fees of the opposing party in the case. He was also ordered to refund any fees that he had charges to clients to file the AI-generated motion. Despite the sanctions, the court did ultimately rule that Bednar did not intend to deceive the court. They did say that the Bar's Office of Professional Conduct would take the matter 'seriously'. According to the court, the state bar is 'actively engaging with practitioners and ethics experts to provide guidance and continuing legal education on the ethical use of AI in law practice'. has approached Bednar for comment. It's not the first time a lawyer has been sanctioned for using AI in their legal briefs, after an incredibly similar situation in 2023 in New York. Lawyers Steven Schwartz, Peter LoDuca and their firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman were ordered to pay a $5,000 fine for submitting a brief containing fictitious case citations. The judge found the lawyers acted in bad faith and made 'acts of conscious avoidance and false and misleading statements to the court'. Prior to the fine Schwartz admitted that he had used ChatGPT to help research the brief in the case.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Perspective: Being American should trump partisanship
In March of 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot and critically wounded. Before being wheeled into surgery, Reagan, known for his good-natured quips, famously said to his doctors, 'Please tell me you're Republicans.'' Dr. Joseph Martin Giordano, the director of George Washington University Hospital's trauma unit, replied, ''Mr. President, right now, everybody is a Republican.'' But Giordano was a registered Democrat, and he and his team saved Reagan's life. Giordano was one of the best in his field, and throughout his presidency, Reagan never doubted the goodwill of most Americans of any party. But this spirit is under assault today. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in a recent tempest-in-a-teapot regarding three Republican attorneys general — Dave Yost of Ohio, Alan Wilson of South Carolina and Lynn Fitch of Mississippi — who are taking public flak for hiring law firms that predominately donate to Democrats for litigation related to the opioid crisis and other complex cases. To be sure, there is a difference between life-saving medical treatment and patronizing law firms which are involved in the political process. But they share underlying issues in common. The fiercest criticism comes from a group called the Alliance for Consumers, an organization which seems focused on electing Republican attorneys general. O. H. Skinner, the group's executive director, deems the practice of hiring Democratic connected law firms 'unsophisticated,' and his sentiments are echoed by Mississippi auditor Shad White, a Republican who sees the differences as 'generational,' the 'old guard,' who wants to keep the status quo, vs. the young turks who want to 'ruffle some feathers.' But the conversation raises the question: ruffle feathers, for what purpose? White and the Alliance for Consumers suggest that partisanship alone is the most important consideration that requires feathers be ruffled. That's a downright dangerous point of view. Yost, the Ohio AG, didn't mince words when it came to defending his record: 'A blanket refusal to use a qualified firm based solely on perceived political leanings wouldn't just be bad government, it would be bad legal strategy. We seek out firms and lawyers with the competency to win cases, not ones who check ideological boxes.' His position is the right one. Indeed, there's a certain irony about a group called the Alliance for Consumers arguing, in essence, that the amount of money won in a lawsuit involving the opioid crisis —over $700 million in South Carolina alone — is less important than partisan loyalties. The entire point of such litigation is for the benefit of consumers who have been hurt by practices that federal courts deemed harmful. The past decade has seen extreme partisan swings, from Democrat to Republican and back again. Widespread disenchantment with both parties cannot rationally be said to be a result of too little partisanship. While it is always difficult to judge the complex positions of more than 150 million American voters, the more likely scenario is that a failure of our political leaders to accomplish much of anything lasting is at the core of voter dissatisfaction. Prioritizing donations to your favored political party cannot but lead to worse public policy over time. Something much more fundamental is lost if we allow partisanship of this sort to take center stage. The rules of a free society are, by necessity, relatively fewer and less restrictive. And as such, a certain amount of good faith is required when we seek to operate in the best interests of the public. While it is unrealistic to assume partisanship will play no role, forcing party loyalty to center stage, at all times, destroys the trust required for a large, pluralistic society to function well. The consequences are more than a simple loss of collegiality, as important as that is. Such behavior also leads to the belief that we'll be treated unfairly when the 'other side' takes power. The late Sen. Henry M. 'Scoop' Jackson (D-WA), famous for treating his Republican colleagues fairly, once said, 'Although I am a Democrat, and will work hard for the Democratic victory in November, I respect my Republican friends and their views — and wish them well 364 days a year. On election day, it's a little harder.' That's a much better vision as to how partisanship should work. Am I making too much out of a simple dispute over what law firms a few state attorneys general contract with? That's certainly possible. In the wide range of things to be outraged about, this dispute is relatively minor. But too many of the problems in our current political climate have occurred because too few people raise alarm when small things are doing violence to larger, more fundamental and important truths. Back to Ronald Reagan: He famously, and repeatedly, asked then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, a Democrat, if it was 6 p.m. yet. He meant that, while they might be foes during the work day, they could be friends after work. In truth, O'Neill didn't think a lot of Reagan, as he made clear in his memoirs, but the men still kept things collegial. Even if this principle is not always, or even usually, upheld, it should be something to aim for. If Republicans and Democrats don't view each other as Americans first, our nation, and both parties, will pay the price in the long term.
Daily Mail
14-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Glamourous Vegas judge steps down amid unseemly sex claim
A controversial Las Vegas judge has removed herself from a case after being accused of making a baseless sex claim about a public defender in court. Erika Ballou, a Clark County District Judge who has a history of questionable behavior, allegedly accused attorney Anna Lee Stone of sleeping with her homeless client, according to an affidavit obtained by Las Vegas Review-Journal. Stone called for Ballou to be disqualified from all her cases in a complaint filed on Friday, alleging 'Ballou has demonstrated a deep-seated antagonism toward me that makes fair judgment impossible.' She also claimed Ballou has made legal decisions without providing explanation, which has interfered with the fair court process. Ballou wrote in a Tuesday minute order she had no doubt 'she could remain fair and impartial,' but chose to step down anyway. The fed-up lawyer's strained professional relationship with Ballou dates back several months and specifically involves the cases of two of her clients, Jermaine Garner and Dshawn Cross. Trouble began on January 15, when Stone had an arraignment regarding Cross, the client Ballou made the raunchy claim about. Cross previously settled on a deal - he would plead guilty to a felony charge of attempted residential burglary in exchange for another charge to be dropped. Ballou did not sentence Cross at the hearing and wanted to keep him in custody. Stone requested he be released so he could go to a funeral. The attorney claimed Ballou outright refused to explain why she did not want to let Cross out of custody to attend the event. 'I stated that I believed the court's refusal to provide a reason would violate the Defendant's right to due process and constitute an abuse of discretion,' Stone wrote, according to Las Vegas Review-Journal. 'Judge Ballou still did not provide a reason for refusing to release the Defendant.' After discussing the matter with the case's prosecutor, who agreed Cross should be released once he officially made his plea, Ballou allowed him to walk free with an ankle monitor the following hearing. But Cross ended up back in custody because of trouble with tracking him. His ankle monitor was reportedly not charged. Deputy Public Defender Dan Cho, who represented Cross in court on February 12 instead of Stone, said that at the end of the hearing, Ballou 'described Mr. Cross as the case for which "Anna Stone has lost all credibility in front of me."' Another lawyer, Abigail Stanley, reported a similar incident on March 17 in a separate affidavit. Ballou (pictured) wrote in a Tuesday minute order she had no doubt 'she could remain fair and impartial,' but chose to step down anyway. She has come under fire in the past for her social media posts, including one about her not wanting to go into work after a concert She claimed Ballou and a prosecutor were gossiping about Stone, with Ballou asking what her 'problem' was. 'During this conversation, Judge Ballou accused Ms. Stone of "f**king" her client,' she wrote. Cho and Stanley both pointed out Ballou was at her bench while she made the vulgar and groundless assertion. Stone accused Ballou of sexual harassment and believes the judge has an apparent vendetta against her. 'After Judge Ballou made her accusation, my client suffered by being remanded back into custody at a hearing where Judge Ballou rolled her eyes, twice, during my argument for why my homeless client should stay out of custody,' Stone wrote. 'Though her nonverbal conduct during these proceedings may not, alone, be indicative of bias, when viewed in conjunction with her other conduct toward me, it showed a level of dislike and antagonism that has affected her rulings.' Cross was sentenced to jail time, and during an April 7 hearing, Ballou allegedly told him it was Stone's 'fault he was in custody.' The incident that pushed Stone to finally file a complain against Ballou involved another one of her clients, Garner, who pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen vehicle. Stone claimed Ballou, a former public defender herself, did not let her 'make a record about a custody issue implicating a client's fundamental right to liberty.' Court spokeswoman Mary Ann Price told the Las Vegas Review-Journal the 'recusal appears to apply specifically to' Garner's case. It is unclear is Ballou will be barred from ruling on all of Stone's cases. This is not the first time Ballou has found herself in hot water. Last May, Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson sought out to have Ballou barred from all criminal cases, accusing her of being biased against prosecutors, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Wolfson said she was repeatedly ignoring orders from the Nevada Supreme court by releasing prisoner Mia Christman from custody before her sentence was up. Christman pleaded guilty to robbery with a deadly weapon and failing to stop on a police officer's signal in 2017. She was to serve up to 15 years in prison and was to be eligible for parole after five years. In November 2021, Ballou granted Christman freedom from prison while the Supreme Court was still pending the appeal. The Supreme Court ended up overturning the decision, but Ballou did not order Christman back to jail. The district's attorney's office filed an ethical complaint against her - which is still pending - citing several violations. Early last year, Ballou was criticized for sharing a post in a bikini with two public defenders, Shana Brouwers and Robson Hauser, with the latter shirtless and smiling for the camera. She captioned the Facebook post with 'Robson is surrounded by great t*ts.' Ballou also shared a message online, in which she complained about having to work the next day after a Billie Eilish concert. The post said: 'Life is STILL beautiful, despite the fact that Billie Eilish doesn't start for 30 minutes and I have an 8:30 calendar tomorrow.' It also included the hashtag, 'Vacatethe[Explitive]OuttaOutofCustodyCases', suggesting defendants who are not in custody should have their cases tossed. The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline filed a statement of charges against her for her outrageous social media behavior. The commission said that Ballou had violated their rules requiring a judge to promote public confidence and avoid impropriety, which she admitted to. After Ballou agreed to the censure, the commission decided not to pursue her over a post including lyrics to a Cardi B song in response to the complaint her posts. Ballou said the posts were intended to be private and did not influence her work. In 2022, she made an alarming courtroom comment about police officers. She faced calls from the Los Vegas Protective Association to resign after telling a defendant in her courtroom she didn't know if she would 'walk away alive' from cops. At the time, she said: 'You're the one making the decisions not to walk away from cops. 'You're a Black man in America. You know you don't want to be nowhere where cops are. 'You know you don't want to be nowhere where cops are cause I know I don't, and I'm a middle-aged, middle-class Black woman. 'I don't want to be around where the cops are because I don't know if I'm going to walk away alive or not.'
