"Apparently Without Professional Supervision" Lawyer Files Nullity Complaint with AI

The Supreme Court (OGH) has dismissed an appeal for nullity in a criminal case that was evidently created by artificial intelligence, in which the AI apparently relied on allegedly highest court decisions that it had invented for its argumentation. Additionally, the appeal, which was "apparently created without professional oversight," was riddled with misquotations - the OGH therefore refused to address it substantively.

Defendant's Lawyer Relied on AI

The initial case is not very spectacular: A man was convicted by the Regional Court for Criminal Matters Graz, among other things, for drug trafficking. An appeal for nullity and an appeal were filed against this.

In drafting the appeal for nullity, the legal representation of the convicted person seems to have primarily relied on the AI - and the OGH noticed this. There were likely factual problems: "Allegedly unaddressed (...) procedural results regarding 'medication influence and psychological overload' of the appellant during his (originally partly confessing) statement to the criminal police (...) are not found at the location in the file indicated by the complaint of deficiencies." Or: "Contrary to the objection of incorrect records (...) the statement of the separately prosecuted XXXX (in the investigation procedure) is correctly reproduced in the judgment."

AI Relied on Non-Existent Jurisprudence

The most egregious issue was that the appellant or the AI relied on alleged highest court decisions that do not exist and were apparently invented by the artificial intelligence. The OGH found clear words for this approach: "The further submission, riddled with numerous misquotations (concerning on the one hand alleged procedural results, on the other hand, for the most part, non-existent or at least not on the specified topic existing highest court decisions), apparently created without professional oversight (...) by so-called 'artificial intelligence' does not meet the requirement to clearly and definitively specify grounds for nullity, i.e., to present a nullity-justifying fact at a level of argumentation appropriate to the Supreme Court as the highest court (...) not even remotely, and therefore eludes a substantive response."

(APA/Red)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.