To the editor: Made-up case regulation from attorneys for State Farm in a case dealt with by its personal counsel (cited within the Los Angeles Occasions as Jacquelene Robinson of Musick, Peeler & Garrett) is past comprehension (“AI hallucinated case law in insurance company’s filings in L.A. County house fire dispute,” Aug. 19). As a retired lawyer, all I can say is I by no means filed case regulation authority with out really studying the court docket resolution — on this case, Robinson stated she did not fact-check an AI program’s citations. Moreover, a big personal agency’s lawyer cited this case. Doesn’t a senior lawyer have the duty to evaluation the subordinate’s work product?
Lastly, doesn’t State Farm have a common counsel and authorized employees that displays and checks the work product of its employed legal professionals? What’s going on in at the moment’s authorized world that permits a machine to provide phony regulation that’s utilized in court docket and needed to be identified by the lawyer suing State Farm?
Michael Harvey Miller, Pasadena
