by HAL MOUNTSAUERKRAUTEN, Alternate Reality News Service Justice Writer
"AI!" despaired Founder and Executive Director of Bastard AI Governance and Safety, Canada Wyatt Tessari L'Allie (his real name). "Bastard AI!"
When I told L'Allie the article hadn't started yet, he responded: "Sorry. Kid's got a dental appointment this afternoon, so I wanted to get this out of the way early."
Harlan Cacaw never wanted to be a lawyer; throughout his youth and well into his third year of torts (so close, and yet so far), his dream was to become an international pastry chef of mystery. Now, it looks like his dream is about to come true. Of not being a lawyer, I mean. It's difficult to become an international pastry chef of mystery when one has been booted from his first career in disgrace.
Cacaw, a lawyer with the firm Levitade, Levitadus, Monk, had been working on Stubbins v. Hateful Plateful, a lawsuit in which a man sued a restaurant for emotional distress when it served him a dish made up of worms on a sesame seed bun. Carl Steubing (so close, and yet...) claimed that the bun was overtoasted, ruining his dining experience.
Attorneys for Hateful Plateful, a restaurant in New York that specializes in "disgusting dishes from your childhood that you would only eat on a dare," filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Cacaw responded with a ten page brief insisting the case proceed, a well-argued brief which cited such precedents as Gargantua v Gargantua, One Corp v Another Corp and Ludic Moravian v The Insatiable Maw.
The problem, as Judge Philip P. Dreddloch pointed out, was that half a dozen of the precedents referred to in the filing didn't exist. Nobody claimed "severe injury to the mouth" from eating a hot pocket straight out of the oven in Gargantua v Gargantua. No judge ruled that "this was the most egregious example of pepperoni abuse it has been my sad duty to rule on in over seven hundred years on the bench!" in a case called Gargantua v Gargantua. There was never a case called Gargantua v Gargantua.
As they say in legal circles, oops.
When Judge Dreddloch demanded to know why his brief was riddled with non-existent precedents, Cacaw stated, "I wrote it using YakTNT. Isn't that what the cool kids do?"
When the judge angrily pointed out that cool kids don't make up cases to make their filings look more legally, Cacaw shrugged and said, "Artificial Intelligence lies. Who knew?"
"Anybody who has been paying attention," claimed Bob the tech guru. According to BobTG, AIs occasionally "hallucinate," creating facts which do not correlate to anything in the known universe. "Nobody knows why they do it," BobTG said, "but so far nobody has perfected a digital Perphenazine that could adequately deal with the problem. So, caution when using AIs is called for. Hunh. Maybe they do deserve status as human beings!"
The legal community is split on the case. Many members laughed so hard they were unable to put together a coherent response. Almost as many members clucked their disapproval with such obvious disdain that they felt no need to use their words. Could go either way, really.
What are the possible consequences for Cacaw? The judge could pat him on the head affectionately and coo, "Who's a good lawyer now? Eh? Who's a good lawyer? Yes. Yes, you're a good lawyer!"
As far as legal pundit Charles "Beef Cut" Rosenberg is concerned, this is highly unlikely.
Judge Dreddloch could have Macaw put in stocks on O-K Street in Washington where people could throw phones with Rotten Tomatoes on their screens at him. "I find that highly unlikely," Rosenberg weighed in.
It is just as likely that Judge Dreddloch will issue a ruling that gives Cacaw a heavy tutting and recommends that he take a remedial technology course so as not to make the mistake in the future, but that actually stops short of recommending that the lawyer be disbarred. "Yeah, that sounds like something Judge Dreddloch would do," Rosenberg said. "The Goldilocks Ruling. It may not satisfy the public, but it's a good rule of sore thumb for judges groaning under a heavy case load."
BREAKING: In a petition to the court, Cacaw has asked that the case be adjourned for three days to give him time to use his Home Universe GeneratorTM to find a reality in which Gargantua v Gargantua was an actual thing.
Judge Dreddloch threw the book at him. The book was California Case Law, 1837 to 1842 (Excluding Bullock v Sunnyside Horse Rustler Retirement Home). It was a very thick book. Over a thousand pages. Cacaw needed three stitches.
So close to justice, and yet...