对的，那些判例格式都是完全正确的，名字看起来也很真，反正法官都傻眼了，叫这个unprecedented circumstance. ... the plaintiff’s submission leads off with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Varghese v China South Airlines Ltd, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019). ... the clerk ... confirmed that there has been no such case before the Eleventh Circuit with a party named Vargese or Varghese at any time since 2010. ...the docket number appearing on the “opinion” furnished by plaintiff’s counsel, Docket No. 18-13694, is for a case captioned George Cornea v. U.S. Attorney General, et al. Neither Westlaw nor Lexis has the case, and the case found at 925 F.3d 1339 is A.D. v Azar, 925 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir 2019).
法官要求律师提交判例原文，律师交了一份节选。
结果在法官仔细核实后，发现这个所谓的判例完全是编造的，而且在所谓的“节选”中，还存在好几个其他子虚乌有的判例。
你猜怎么回事？对了，律师偷懒，使用chatGPT帮自己做legal research,结果一个大活人被AI给骗了。
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/lawyer-used-chatgpt-cite-bogus-cases-what-are-ethics-2023-05-30/
太贴切了。chatgpt就是一本正经的胡说八道
对的，那些判例格式都是完全正确的，名字看起来也很真，反正法官都傻眼了，叫这个unprecedented circumstance.
... the plaintiff’s submission leads off with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Varghese v China South Airlines Ltd, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019). ... the clerk ... confirmed that there has been no such case before the Eleventh Circuit with a party named Vargese or Varghese at any time since 2010. ...the docket number appearing on the “opinion” furnished by plaintiff’s counsel, Docket No. 18-13694, is for a case captioned George Cornea v. U.S. Attorney General, et al. Neither Westlaw nor Lexis has the case, and the case found at 925 F.3d 1339 is A.D. v Azar, 925 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir 2019).