I really am hoping I don’t have to go through another holiday season like this one has been, both here at home and around the ethics world. It hasn’t quite reached the gloomy depths of the Christmas of 2010, the second one after my father had died on my birthday on December 1, 2009, with the hospital my mother was in for an infection that another hospital had given her trying to dump her on Christmas Eve, only to have me realize while wheeling her out to the car that she was desperately sick still, turning around and getting her readmitted, as Mom kept insisting tearfully that she was okay and wanted to be home for Christmas. Ah, those wonderful holiday memories! (The infection killed her in February.)
Well, not having any Christmas decorations up and with nobody opening gifts, clean-up this season has been a breeze. I did get some mordant good news: the law firm I was recruited into as an ethics partner along with a distinguished group of successful lawyers five years ago (that subsequently failed to meet its funding goals after debuting with a dazzling business plan and has been slowly shedding its initial cases as it winds down) finally sent me my first check from the enterprise. It was for $64.52.
Happy New Year!
1. The rest of the story: you recall that earlier this month I wrote that the lawyer representing Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s now disbarred sleazeball lawyer in his pre-White House days, had submitted a court document with three fictional cases cited. Well, guess who found those fantasy cases? Yes it was Trump’s old legal eagle himself. Cohen said in court papers unsealed this week that he had mistakenly given his lawyer bogus legal citations generated by the artificial intelligence program Google Bard. Cohen explained that he had not kept up with “emerging trends (and related risks) in legal technology and did not realize that Google Bard was a generative text service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not.” Of course, the fact that Cohen’s lawyer accepted the research done by a disbarred lawyer who was never reliable to begin with means that he is still responsible for the botch, and could be sanctioned.






