A Master Table of Truth: Lawyers Using AI

Or — just hear me out on this — we can pull and read the cases cited in the papers. (Remember that?)

Let me share an experience from a recent appellate matter I got called in on. In his motion for summary judgment (I wasn't involved at the time), opponent insurance counsel cited a (real) case for propositions that are nowhere to be found in it, and his citation indicated that the case itself cited two other (real) cases for the same proposition or substantially similar ones.

Guess what? The main case says nothing about that proposition and doesn't cite the other two cases. The other two cases do exist, and stand for a proposition that, at first glance, is related — but doesn't apply in our situation.

The clincher was that the circuit-court judge, who asked no questions at the hearing, granted the motion — and her independently drafted order quotes insurance counsel's citation verbatim (including the many formatting errors) as the central reason for granting it.

I'm sure you're shocked, shocked to hear that a judge, let alone a Florida judge, would not only botch a summary judgment (which should be essentially a formulaic analysis), but also failed to pull and read the cases in the motion before doing so, and then supported her ruling with cases that say nothing about the matter at hand. But I assure you it's true!