this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
350 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
88590 readers
3464 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There needs to be a rule that anyone who does this should be immediately disbarred
Isn't presenting fake evidence enough for disbarring on that country?
Absolutely agree
I mean. He should be imprisoned, no? Does perjury not apply to the lawyers too?
As far as I'm aware perjury can only be committed by someone under oath. And lawyers are not placed under oath. But I agree, the penalty for this shit should be a lot harsher than it's been so far.
I've been to court, and it never even occurred to me that the lawyers are not placed under oath. But they're the ones that do most of the talking during a case. I wonder that the reasoning for not being under oath is.
They are advocating/representing, not testifying. A defense attorney does not make statements of fact, they call witnesses and experts for that. They introduce reasonable doubt.
They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.
Fair enough, but I don’t like it. I guess I’ll settle for contempt of court.
They are still able to be held accoubtable for breaking ethincs, and in my opinion they should be disbarred for presenting AI hallucinations and any other evidence they haven't spent any time verifying.
It’s because you only need to take an oath if you’re testifying. And arguing isn’t testifying. Lawyers are already bound by ethics standards for things like lying. For instance, if a lawyer knows you killed someone, they can’t openly say you didn’t.
They can argue that the evidence is lacking. They can argue that the prosecution hasn’t done enough to prove your guilt. They can find gaps in the prosecution’s case and start poking holes to provide reasonable doubt. But they can’t put a witness on the stand who they know is going to lie in your defense. And that includes themselves. Also, no lawyer would want to take the stand, because then the opposing lawyer would have a chance to cross-examine them directly while they’re under oath, and likely have them testify against their own client. It would be a very big can of worms.
What the lawyers say is not under oath unless they go to the witness stand and swear in. The main reason is that lawyers mainly are in the court to make opinionated arguments, not to give facts.
Lawyers do have a "duty of candor" to the "tribunal" at all times, however. This is because they have taken an oath (different from the witness oath) to become "officers of the court". This means they cannot knowingly misstate facts or law to the court.
But the maximum exposure on a duty of candor violation is court sanctions, like fines or adverse court outcomes, possibly contempt, and bar discipline, and so on. It's not the crime of perjury.
Lawyers are under oath, at least in my state. When they get sworn in by the Supreme Court they take an oath to essentially tell the truth in court and alert the court if they know of any lies (like if their client commits perjury). They just don’t have to be sworn in at every hearing.
Perjury requires intent to deceive anyway and being fucking stupid is not deceitful.
Imprison ChatGPT
"Bring out the LLM torture machine"
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16247v1
They should be subjected to whatever punishment is recommended by asking ChatGPT the most effective way to ensure someone would never again try to erode the foundations of society.
Interesting, but unreliable. Kinda the point here.
There is a rule that covers fake citations, AI or not. But it's not immediate.
What's happens is the court makes a disciplinary referral to the state bar association, which handles barring and disbarring. At minimum there's some kind of additional bar discipline hearing before adverse action.
Each federal court, district or appellate, can also independently revoke admission to the bar of that individual court.