Lawyer uses AI to write report but bills full time, sparking controversy
Understand this story
A user found that a report submitted by a lawyer was of poor quality and had abnormally high billed hours, and one of the references was entirely fabricated, a typical AI hallucination. The AI detection tool Pangram flagged about one-third of the report's content as AI-generated, including the fabricated citation. Several pieces of evidence the user submitted in the first instance were directly rejected by the judge; because the opposing party holds multiple prominent positions and the cost of appeal is too high, the user is considering giving up.
AI overview based on source reports · Updated 2 days ago
Coverage timeline
Follow the coverage to explore different perspectives.
- Hacker News AIA lawyer used AI to write a report, but billed full time. What should I do?
A client says a lawyer delivered a poor-quality report with a fabricated reference typical of AI hallucination and billed a surprising number of hours, and that a first-level judge rejected the evidence presented. The client says Pangram later flagged about a third of the report as AI-generated, including the hallucinated reference, but the client does not plan to appeal due to cost and risk. The post asks what others would do in this situation.
Activity for this story
- Current comparable activity
- 3
- Peak comparable activity
- 9Nov 13 01:00
- Change in the past 24 hours
- -51%
Trends compare the same fully observed participants, which may cover fewer participants than current activity. Move the pointer or tap the chart to inspect hourly activity; use the left and right arrow keys with a keyboard.