WEBVTT - Judges Admit AI Mistakes & NBA Gambling Scandal 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:11.959 A lot of work goes into legal research and writing, 0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.880 so using AI seems like a way to replicate some 0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:19.640 of the very time consuming tasks, such as researching court 0:00:19.720 --> 0:00:23.360 cases and citing them in legal briefs. And the legal 0:00:23.400 --> 0:00:25.880 profession has seen a rise in the use of AI 0:00:26.040 --> 0:00:31.160 in recent years. With lawyers facing increasing scrutiny and sometimes 0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:36.040 finds from judges for the alleged misuse of AI as 0:00:36.080 --> 0:00:40.360 fake case citations and other errors show up in legal filings, 0:00:41.080 --> 0:00:44.680 you may ask how can lawyers fail to vet the 0:00:44.760 --> 0:00:49.839 output of AI generated legal documents? And now another question, 0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:55.400 how can judges fail to vet AI generated orders before 0:00:55.440 --> 0:00:58.520 they go out from their chambers. In a response to 0:00:58.560 --> 0:01:03.800 an inquiry from Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, two federal judges, 0:01:04.000 --> 0:01:07.080 one in New Jersey and the other in Mississippi, have 0:01:07.200 --> 0:01:11.600 admitted that members of their staff used artificial intelligence to 0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:16.440 help prepare orders that Grassy said were ever ridden. Joining 0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:19.800 me is former federal judge Paul Grimm. He's the director 0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:23.600 of the Bolt Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. Are 0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:28.440 clerks and interns are they using AI? And doing research 0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:31.560 and drafting opinions. Is that sort of the norm. 0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:34.040 Yeah, I think right now the genies out of the 0:01:34.080 --> 0:01:36.840 bottle on that Two or three years ago, the law 0:01:36.880 --> 0:01:40.360 schools were really struggling with whether or not students should use, 0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:44.360 be able to use artificial intelligence in their class work, 0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:48.520 particularly during exams. And I think that probably the needles 0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:50.760 moved to the point where the law schools recognize that 0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:54.880 this demographic, these young people, they're using this in all 0:01:54.960 --> 0:01:58.480 their aspects of their lives, and to try to expect 0:01:58.560 --> 0:02:01.360 them not to use it in the practice of law, 0:02:01.960 --> 0:02:07.000 especially when law firms have invested heavily in the use 0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:11.880 of generative AI in their own business and practices, is 0:02:11.919 --> 0:02:14.480 a futile thing. And so I think what the law 0:02:14.480 --> 0:02:18.240 schools are trying to do now are teach the students 0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:21.840 the proper use of it and are trying to teach them, 0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:24.320 you know, the dues and don'ts of how it should 0:02:24.360 --> 0:02:27.480 be used. And I think that as for the intern, 0:02:27.600 --> 0:02:29.600 I think it was in the District of New Jersey 0:02:30.000 --> 0:02:33.800 that use of AI was inconsistent with the judge's own 0:02:34.000 --> 0:02:37.040 internal policy and chambers and also inconsistent with what the 0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:40.640 law school policy was for use of this, So I 0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:43.440 think that while there's no way of knowing whether it's 0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:46.600 most students coming out of law school now, I think 0:02:46.680 --> 0:02:50.440 probably it is the overwhelming majority are using this and 0:02:50.560 --> 0:02:54.040 probably are at schools where they're being taught the proper 0:02:54.080 --> 0:02:57.720 way to use it. And it's clear that, you know, 0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:01.880 it's been over a year that the American Bar Association 0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:08.200 it's Ethics Committee released formal ethics opinion five one two, 0:03:08.480 --> 0:03:12.440 five twelve that deals with the ethical issues associated with 0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.160 the use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. 0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:17.799 So that's over a year old, and the fact that 0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:20.560 the ethics people are already starting to tell people how 0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:23.919 you use it ethically is pretty clear indication that it's 0:03:23.960 --> 0:03:27.040 being used broadly in law schools. And I think that 0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:29.679 the students realize that they're going to be expected to 0:03:30.280 --> 0:03:33.320 have this skill because the law firms are expecting it, 0:03:33.400 --> 0:03:35.920 and that's how they're going to survive and thrive in 0:03:35.960 --> 0:03:38.800 the law school environment. So I think that probably the 0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:42.080 answer is, yes, they're using it, and that will only increase. 0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:46.560 In the New Jersey case, the use of AI resulted 0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:51.320 in a temporary restraining order that referred to parties allegations 0:03:51.360 --> 0:03:55.320 and quotes unconnected to the case. So even if you 0:03:55.840 --> 0:03:59.760 proofread the restraining order, wouldn't you see that there were 0:03:59.840 --> 0:04:01.119 all these problems? 0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:04.520 Yeah, in both of those cases, both the Southern District 0:04:04.520 --> 0:04:07.360 of Mississippi and also the Digitut of New Jersey. I 0:04:07.400 --> 0:04:09.720 think that in retrospect, it looks like if there had 0:04:09.760 --> 0:04:14.480 been rigorous proofreading by the law clerks led by the 0:04:14.480 --> 0:04:17.400 court the judge themselves, that this should have been caught. 0:04:17.720 --> 0:04:21.360 And indeed, the Administrative Office of the US Court has 0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:25.320 a task force which is dealing with the use of 0:04:25.360 --> 0:04:28.719 AI by judges and chambers. That should be a national 0:04:28.760 --> 0:04:31.400 policy across the United States in all of this SCT courts, 0:04:31.600 --> 0:04:34.160 and that was issued on July thirty first of twenty 0:04:34.240 --> 0:04:38.840 twenty five. And in his response to Senator Grassley's letter 0:04:38.960 --> 0:04:42.440 asking for comments from the Federal Administraty Office of the 0:04:42.480 --> 0:04:45.520 US Course about any policies dealing with the use of 0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:48.440 the generals of AI and chambers, Judge Conrad, who is 0:04:48.480 --> 0:04:51.520 the director of the AO, made reference to that. So 0:04:51.640 --> 0:04:54.479 there's even interim guidance, and I think that one of 0:04:54.520 --> 0:04:57.200 the things that is pretty clear from that guidance is 0:04:57.240 --> 0:05:02.160 that the judges are responsible with in their chambers to 0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:05.560 make sure that AI is not used for any core 0:05:05.680 --> 0:05:10.000 judicial functions such as decision making or adjudication, and strongly 0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:15.160 recommends independent verification before any generative AI is used for 0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:18.520 any purpose. There are a number of purposes for which 0:05:18.520 --> 0:05:22.120 it probably safely can be used, and there's guidance on that. 0:05:22.360 --> 0:05:25.120 The National Center for State Courts, which is a terrific 0:05:25.240 --> 0:05:28.600 organization that focuses on the state courts, and of course 0:05:28.600 --> 0:05:31.120 they are far more state court judges than there are 0:05:31.160 --> 0:05:35.120 federal judges, issued a seventeen page document on August seventh 0:05:35.200 --> 0:05:39.640 of twenty twenty four titled Artificial Intelligence Guidance for the 0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:43.800 Use of AI and Generative AI in the Courts, And 0:05:44.040 --> 0:05:49.240 again it goes through extensive definitions of what AI is, 0:05:49.320 --> 0:05:52.160 what kind of software applications, There are the ones that 0:05:52.200 --> 0:05:55.560 are problematic, the ones that are more useful, how chambers 0:05:55.560 --> 0:06:00.200 should operate. And similarly, this year, the Sedona Conference, which 0:06:00.240 --> 0:06:02.599 is a think tank that has been around for many 0:06:02.720 --> 0:06:05.800 years and is very influential in dealing with cutting edge 0:06:05.800 --> 0:06:08.919 technology issues as they apply in the law, issued a 0:06:08.960 --> 0:06:13.240 monograph in their journal called Navigating AI in the Judiciary 0:06:13.279 --> 0:06:16.719 that was co authored by three statehourt judges and two 0:06:16.760 --> 0:06:20.800 federal judges and a professor from Waterloo University that gives 0:06:21.080 --> 0:06:24.000 an eight pages some really good guidance to judges as 0:06:24.000 --> 0:06:27.040 to how they should and shouldn't use it. So I 0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:29.679 think the key takeaway here is, you know, the genies 0:06:29.720 --> 0:06:32.040 have a bottle. The stuff is being used. There's a 0:06:32.240 --> 0:06:34.760 growing guidance in terms of how it can properly be 0:06:34.839 --> 0:06:37.599 used and how it should probably not be used. And 0:06:37.839 --> 0:06:42.440 just like courts initially were sanctioning and cautioning lawyers who 0:06:42.880 --> 0:06:46.360 didn't use it correctly when they were citing JENAI created 0:06:46.560 --> 0:06:50.400 content without checking it, I think the judges themselves are 0:06:50.600 --> 0:06:53.440 learning that lesson that they're responsible crediting comes out of 0:06:53.440 --> 0:06:56.240 their chambers and they have to manage interns in law 0:06:56.320 --> 0:06:59.760 works and make sure that their procedures are complied with. 0:07:00.360 --> 0:07:03.960 Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Judge Grimm. 0:07:04.360 --> 0:07:07.479 So how much do judges actually vet the work of 0:07:07.560 --> 0:07:13.520 their clerks? You're listening to Bloomberg. Two federal judges have 0:07:13.600 --> 0:07:17.840 blamed faulty rulings on the use of artificial intelligence tools 0:07:17.880 --> 0:07:21.680 by staff members at raises questions about how much they 0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:26.880 scrutinize documents issued under their names. Federal judge Julian Neils 0:07:26.880 --> 0:07:30.760 in New Jersey and Henry Wingate in Mississippi admitted to 0:07:30.800 --> 0:07:34.840 the ai foibles in letters to the Administrative Office of 0:07:34.840 --> 0:07:38.760 the US Courts. The answers were sent in response to 0:07:38.880 --> 0:07:44.040 questions by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley. I've been 0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:47.480 talking to former federal judge Paul Grimm, director of the 0:07:47.520 --> 0:07:52.560 Bolt Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. So you have interns, 0:07:52.640 --> 0:07:55.640 you have clerks. Does it depend on the judge how 0:07:55.720 --> 0:07:58.760 much a judge puts into let's say, an opinion. Do 0:07:58.920 --> 0:08:00.880 most judges at least read them over. 0:08:01.240 --> 0:08:03.600 Yeah, it's a great question, and the answer is it 0:08:03.800 --> 0:08:07.200 varies greatly with the chambers. I think as a bottom line, 0:08:07.320 --> 0:08:09.920 I don't think it's a federal judge on the court. Now, 0:08:10.040 --> 0:08:13.640 where it's take court judge who's hearing cases, they wouldn't 0:08:13.680 --> 0:08:17.200 say that they read everything that goes out of their 0:08:17.240 --> 0:08:19.760 chambers with their name on it. I mean, unless it's 0:08:19.760 --> 0:08:22.640 a scheduling order, it's automatic. You know that says you know, 0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:25.880 counselor will by such and such a date provide me 0:08:26.040 --> 0:08:28.640 with the following information and we'll have a scheduling call, 0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:31.600 but certainly no order coming out of a judges chamber 0:08:31.640 --> 0:08:34.319 that deals with a substantive ruling on a case or 0:08:34.360 --> 0:08:37.400 an evidentrary motion, you know, something that's going to decide 0:08:37.400 --> 0:08:40.000 the merits. I don't think any judge would say that 0:08:40.080 --> 0:08:43.440 it's appropriate or a judge to issue in order that 0:08:43.600 --> 0:08:45.839 deals with the resolution of a substantive issue in a 0:08:45.880 --> 0:08:49.720 case without having read it and verifying to the satisfaction 0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:53.640 of that judge that it's legitimate. Now, some judges have 0:08:53.679 --> 0:08:56.120 different ways of doing it. What I would do is, 0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:58.640 once I had the initial conversation with them and they 0:08:58.679 --> 0:09:01.280 sent me a draft, I would ask them to attach 0:09:01.360 --> 0:09:04.600 to the draft a PDF copy of the cases that 0:09:04.640 --> 0:09:08.640 they cited as this positive. Now, as you're aware, lots 0:09:08.679 --> 0:09:10.440 of times there are cases that are just sort of 0:09:10.520 --> 0:09:14.920 like a string site in five cases, and there's one 0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:17.400 at a recent Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court case 0:09:17.440 --> 0:09:19.600 that had the ruling and you're going to rely on it, 0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:22.120 I would have them attached a PDF copy of that 0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:26.480 and highlight for me in yellow highlighting the language that 0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:29.160 they were relying on for what they said, and so 0:09:29.200 --> 0:09:31.800 I can independently check it. That way. By giving it 0:09:31.840 --> 0:09:33.560 to me that way, it's sped it up for me. 0:09:33.600 --> 0:09:36.319 I didn't have to go on West Law or Nexus 0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:39.840 and input it all and read it a lot of times. 0:09:39.880 --> 0:09:41.600 You know, there's a lot of part of the case, 0:09:41.640 --> 0:09:45.400 the initial part talking about the jurisdiction or the standard review. 0:09:45.440 --> 0:09:47.400 That's really not important to what the ruling is. But 0:09:47.480 --> 0:09:49.480 you want to look at the discussion on one particular 0:09:49.520 --> 0:09:52.120 point of law. And by having the actual case and 0:09:52.160 --> 0:09:55.720 having the highlighted section, I then had at my fingertips 0:09:55.800 --> 0:09:57.840 what I needed to go through. Look at the opinion, 0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:01.120 look at the authority, decide whether I thought, you know, 0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:04.120 it was adequate for what was necessary, look at the 0:10:04.160 --> 0:10:07.960 parties briefing again, and verify that before it went out. 0:10:08.280 --> 0:10:12.040 But to your question, to you know, the caseloads of 0:10:12.080 --> 0:10:15.760 an average federal judge probably runs between a low of 0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:19.280 two hundred to three hundred cases to a high of 0:10:19.360 --> 0:10:22.719 a thousand cases. And it depends upon what kind of 0:10:22.760 --> 0:10:24.959 an order it is and how busy the court is. 0:10:25.160 --> 0:10:27.960 And you know, no matter how hard the judges working 0:10:28.080 --> 0:10:30.400 or what kind of safe cards they have in their chambers, 0:10:30.760 --> 0:10:33.920 it's possible for things to slip through the cracks and 0:10:33.960 --> 0:10:36.520 when it deals with new technology that people are perhaps 0:10:36.520 --> 0:10:39.000 not as familiar with. There's going to be a learning 0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:42.120 curve at the start, but I think the I think 0:10:42.160 --> 0:10:44.400 the cast out of the bag now that the learning 0:10:44.400 --> 0:10:46.640 curve time is over and you need to start using it, 0:10:46.720 --> 0:10:48.520 you've got guidance that tells you how to do it. 0:10:49.040 --> 0:10:54.880 I am quite sure. I'm quite sure that Judge Robin Rosenberg, 0:10:54.960 --> 0:10:57.839 who is the director of the Federal Judicial Center, which 0:10:57.920 --> 0:11:01.400 is the legal education arm for the Federal judiciary, she's 0:11:01.400 --> 0:11:04.360 a fantastic judge. And I am quite sure that the 0:11:04.400 --> 0:11:08.200 Baby Judge schools, the judge training programs that they have 0:11:08.400 --> 0:11:13.400 every year for new judges and for judges, magestate judges, 0:11:13.440 --> 0:11:17.440 bankruptcy judges, district judges, and circuit judges. I am sure 0:11:17.520 --> 0:11:19.920 that there will be a segment on the proper use 0:11:19.920 --> 0:11:22.319 of AI there because Judge Rosenberg will want to make 0:11:22.360 --> 0:11:25.640 sure that the judges have the most recent guidance and 0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:29.559 are aware of the pros and the pitch balls. 0:11:29.880 --> 0:11:32.840 Let's say, have both sides using AI. Do you think 0:11:32.880 --> 0:11:37.240 that this will lead to less innovative legal theories or 0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:41.760 legal thinking because they're both using you know, whatever is 0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:42.280 on AI. 0:11:43.160 --> 0:11:46.800 That is a worry. There's a worry among law professors 0:11:47.080 --> 0:11:50.000 that if students are taught to use AI, that their 0:11:50.040 --> 0:11:54.640 own sort of creative approach to a subject will actucy 0:11:54.760 --> 0:11:57.920 the critical reasoning skills. And I suppose if the lawyers 0:11:57.920 --> 0:12:00.480 are doing that as well, there's always a risk that 0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:04.240 it applies to them as well. What they submit, even 0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:06.040 if they verify it and they get rid of the 0:12:06.080 --> 0:12:09.160 whucinations and they submit the stuff which is real that 0:12:09.240 --> 0:12:13.920 they got there through a curated analysis that was done 0:12:14.000 --> 0:12:18.400 for them by AI. There's some law and technology people 0:12:19.360 --> 0:12:23.600 computer scientists who have raised the specter of a problem 0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:27.520 that can occur when you've got these large language model 0:12:29.040 --> 0:12:32.839 programs like generative AI, is that you know, one of 0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:35.680 the things that you worry about with AI is biased, 0:12:35.840 --> 0:12:38.000 and it could be intentional bias, or it can be 0:12:38.440 --> 0:12:42.679 inadvertent bias. But when you use a generative AI tool 0:12:42.720 --> 0:12:45.200 and you put sort of a narrative inquiry, you know, 0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:48.959 what are the key defenses to an any trust case 0:12:49.000 --> 0:12:52.840 to the legs the following things in the second circuit 0:12:52.880 --> 0:12:55.600 of the United States courts. And you ask a question 0:12:55.720 --> 0:12:57.600 like that and it comes out and gives you a list, 0:12:58.400 --> 0:13:01.040 and you follow up with a series of follow on questions, 0:13:01.040 --> 0:13:05.360 which is sort of a natural progression that the algorithm 0:13:05.760 --> 0:13:10.360 senses what you're interested in, senses what you're looking to do, 0:13:10.880 --> 0:13:14.200 and starts to provide you with answers, even if they're 0:13:14.200 --> 0:13:17.480 based upon legitimate legal sources, consistent with what it into 0:13:17.600 --> 0:13:22.880 its your desired outcome is. And that's a real problem 0:13:23.080 --> 0:13:26.920 because you know, I'm a dinosaur. When I started doing 0:13:27.000 --> 0:13:30.880 legal research, you know, we had digests. There were no computers. 0:13:30.880 --> 0:13:33.520 You would go to like contracts and you'd look through 0:13:33.520 --> 0:13:37.320 this digest. It was like an old fashionist cyclopedia and 0:13:37.360 --> 0:13:39.559 you'd be looking, you know, and you say, it's this 0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:41.280 close to the problem I have. And then you would 0:13:41.280 --> 0:13:42.880 go to a real book and you'd open it up, 0:13:42.880 --> 0:13:45.400 you read the case, and then when you got a case, 0:13:45.440 --> 0:13:48.000 you had a whole series of processes to make sure 0:13:48.040 --> 0:13:52.400 the case was had not been overruled or modified, called shepherdization. 0:13:53.640 --> 0:13:57.040 And what you did was in reading and kind of 0:13:57.040 --> 0:14:00.720 going triangulating to all these different things. You might say, well, 0:14:00.720 --> 0:14:03.439 you know, I thought it was contract, but it's really warranty, 0:14:03.480 --> 0:14:06.280 which is sort of a sub issue of contract, but 0:14:06.320 --> 0:14:08.400 it has its own set of rules, and you kind 0:14:08.440 --> 0:14:12.840 of would learn through this trial and error that this 0:14:13.040 --> 0:14:16.640 intuitive approach to what the answer was, and sometimes it 0:14:16.679 --> 0:14:19.480 would be from a different field that you had initially 0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:22.680 thought it might be from you miss all that when 0:14:22.720 --> 0:14:25.320 you don't have that kind of give and take thinking 0:14:25.320 --> 0:14:27.520 about it, I can remember sitting in the law library 0:14:27.960 --> 0:14:32.160 with like fifty books open, you know, all surrounding me, 0:14:32.720 --> 0:14:35.160 you know, looking at something to try and figure out 0:14:34.880 --> 0:14:38.440 what my particular case really needed to have to be 0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:41.880 the solution for the position that I was taking. And 0:14:41.960 --> 0:14:45.360 I think there's worry that you lose that now. Some 0:14:45.400 --> 0:14:48.680 people would tell you, though, June, that if the parties, 0:14:48.760 --> 0:14:51.200 one thing you can do one accepted use of AI, 0:14:52.000 --> 0:14:55.680 if it's done properly, is you can feed into the 0:14:55.840 --> 0:15:01.000 artificial intelligence generator of AI search program the briefs of 0:15:01.040 --> 0:15:05.520 the party and ask the particular tool if any of 0:15:05.560 --> 0:15:09.440 the cases cited by the parties our host nations are 0:15:09.440 --> 0:15:12.960 not proper And you can also say did they miss 0:15:13.080 --> 0:15:17.680 any controlling cases in this jurisdiction that deal with this 0:15:17.760 --> 0:15:21.560 subject matter? And so it may be possible that AI 0:15:21.720 --> 0:15:24.240 will allow the judge to sort of check to see 0:15:24.280 --> 0:15:28.600 whether or not the lawyer's joint use of it has 0:15:28.640 --> 0:15:31.520 been siloed to where they missed some authority that the 0:15:31.600 --> 0:15:35.360 judge really thinks needs to be reflected upon. But I 0:15:35.400 --> 0:15:39.280 think that right now, people who talk about the appropriate 0:15:39.360 --> 0:15:44.280 use of AI worry that that sort of initial creative 0:15:44.280 --> 0:15:48.320 and analytical process, the thought process that law schools have 0:15:48.560 --> 0:15:53.240 championed for decades as to critical thinking skills that lawyers 0:15:53.240 --> 0:15:56.200 have to have, that they may become a sort of 0:15:56.280 --> 0:16:00.760 atrophy and a little bit less well used if people 0:16:00.800 --> 0:16:03.840 rely upon AI too much to the exclusion of the 0:16:03.880 --> 0:16:08.120 old skills that are that are learned. Now. We heard 0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:11.040 some of those same kind of problems about the use 0:16:11.080 --> 0:16:15.480 of computers back in the day. I remember lawyers saying that, well, 0:16:15.520 --> 0:16:17.840 you could never use computers in litigation. You could use 0:16:17.880 --> 0:16:20.960 it in wills and the states because you're using basically 0:16:21.040 --> 0:16:23.160 forms the same forms over again, but you'll never use 0:16:23.200 --> 0:16:26.720 it in litigation. I think that people would split their 0:16:26.760 --> 0:16:30.760 size open laughing at that notion today, because computers are 0:16:30.840 --> 0:16:33.400 used in every aspect of law. So you know, we're 0:16:33.400 --> 0:16:36.520 at the beginning of this. And keep in mind, you know, 0:16:36.600 --> 0:16:39.520 AI has been around since the nineteen fifties, right in 0:16:39.560 --> 0:16:44.120 one form or another, but generative AI because of technological advances. 0:16:44.320 --> 0:16:47.320 No one was talking about generative AI. I know this 0:16:47.440 --> 0:16:50.840 because I used to write opinions as a judge and 0:16:51.280 --> 0:16:54.680 scholarship as an adjunct professor and a professor of Duke 0:16:55.280 --> 0:17:00.160 about evidentiary issues associated with technical evidence, and no one 0:17:00.320 --> 0:17:03.320 was talking about generative AI until about twenty twenty two 0:17:03.400 --> 0:17:06.359 when the whole chat GPTV came out. So this is 0:17:06.520 --> 0:17:11.240 still relatively recent. And what's confounding is how explosive the 0:17:11.359 --> 0:17:13.360 use is become in such a short period of time. 0:17:13.960 --> 0:17:16.920 Explosive is the right word. Thanks so much as always, 0:17:17.000 --> 0:17:20.359 Judge grim that's Judge Paul Grimm, director of the Bolt 0:17:20.480 --> 0:17:25.840 Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver 0:17:26.080 --> 0:17:30.680 spoke out on Friday about the bombshell gambling scandal that's 0:17:30.800 --> 0:17:31.720 rocked the league. 0:17:31.960 --> 0:17:35.919 I was deeply disturbed. There's nothing more important to the 0:17:36.000 --> 0:17:41.120 league and expands and the integrity of the competition, and 0:17:41.200 --> 0:17:44.200 so I had a pit in my stomach. It was 0:17:44.280 --> 0:17:44.840 very upsetting. 0:17:45.320 --> 0:17:50.120 Shock Waves ripple through the sports world after Courtland, Trailblazer's 0:17:50.160 --> 0:17:54.520 head coach Chauncey Billups and Miami Heat player Terry Roser 0:17:54.840 --> 0:17:58.359 along with thirty others, were indicted as part of two 0:17:58.400 --> 0:18:03.720 separate criminal schemes related to illegal sports betting. Joseph Nocella, 0:18:03.840 --> 0:18:07.400 the top federal prosecutor for the Eastern District of New York, 0:18:07.880 --> 0:18:11.800 described the two schemes. The first involved sports betting. 0:18:12.560 --> 0:18:16.680 Between December twenty twenty two and March twenty twenty four, 0:18:17.320 --> 0:18:21.879 these defendants perpetrated a scheme to defraud by betting on 0:18:22.000 --> 0:18:28.040 inside non public information about NBA athletes and teams. The 0:18:28.080 --> 0:18:32.280 non public information included when specific players would be sitting 0:18:32.280 --> 0:18:35.720 out future games or when they would pull themselves out 0:18:35.760 --> 0:18:38.320 early for purported injuries or illnesses. 0:18:38.960 --> 0:18:41.720 The second involved rigged poker games. 0:18:42.280 --> 0:18:47.520 These defendants, which include former professional athletes, used high tech 0:18:47.760 --> 0:18:51.840 cheating technology to steal millions of dollars from victims in 0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:56.720 underground poker games that were secretly fixed. The games in 0:18:56.720 --> 0:19:00.639 the New York area were backed by the Banano, Ambino 0:19:01.119 --> 0:19:03.040 and genal Vezy crime families. 0:19:03.680 --> 0:19:08.680 Billings and Rosier face money laundering and wirefront conspiracy charges. 0:19:09.440 --> 0:19:12.400 Joining me is Derek Hogan, a partner at Tully Rinky, 0:19:12.640 --> 0:19:14.520 tell us about the charges here. 0:19:14.520 --> 0:19:18.680 Broadly, you know the first one involved providing let's say 0:19:18.760 --> 0:19:23.800 inside or confidential information to people placing wagers on games. So, 0:19:23.880 --> 0:19:27.720 for example, the NBA player involved, Terry Rogier. There are 0:19:27.760 --> 0:19:30.400 certain bets that an individual can places, you know, whether 0:19:30.440 --> 0:19:32.960 a team wins or loses, the score goes over a 0:19:32.960 --> 0:19:36.280 certain amount of points, or there's something called individual prop 0:19:36.320 --> 0:19:40.399 bets where betters can make bets on whether a certain 0:19:40.400 --> 0:19:42.720 individual is going to score more or less than a 0:19:42.720 --> 0:19:45.159 certain number of points, get a certain amount of rebounds, 0:19:45.359 --> 0:19:48.520 certain amount of assists, whatever statistical categories they put out there. 0:19:48.600 --> 0:19:51.880 And in this instance, it's been alleged that mister Rogier 0:19:52.400 --> 0:19:55.919 purportedly told individuals that he was going to leave a 0:19:55.960 --> 0:19:59.080 game early, you know, before he reached a certain amount 0:19:59.080 --> 0:20:03.040 of points, rebounds, sist, and that if the individuals bet 0:20:03.040 --> 0:20:05.160 the under on that, then you know, they would obviously 0:20:05.200 --> 0:20:08.320 win their bets. So it's alleged that he passed along 0:20:08.359 --> 0:20:12.280 that information and then that other people took that information, 0:20:12.760 --> 0:20:16.480 distribute that information to others, and distributed information to others 0:20:16.520 --> 0:20:19.520 to make bets on them. And I think it's important 0:20:19.520 --> 0:20:22.960 to note in those types of situations that each league, 0:20:22.960 --> 0:20:27.200 whether it's the NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball, national hockey, league. 0:20:27.240 --> 0:20:30.919 At some point they issue like an injury report, and 0:20:30.960 --> 0:20:34.359 that injury report will let people know who's playing, who's 0:20:34.400 --> 0:20:37.800 not playing, who may be playing, probable, questionable things of 0:20:37.800 --> 0:20:41.520 that nature, and that information is released, so ultimately the 0:20:41.560 --> 0:20:44.840 book makers can put odds out there that are, you know, 0:20:44.920 --> 0:20:48.240 the equivalent to who's playing, who's not And so what 0:20:48.280 --> 0:20:52.240 was happening mister Rosier's situation. You know that information was 0:20:52.280 --> 0:20:56.080 allegedly being disclosed to others prior to any type of 0:20:56.080 --> 0:20:59.200 injury report or not even making it on your injury report. 0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:02.960 Inside information think about like in a stock tip, right, 0:21:03.359 --> 0:21:05.680 Like you might know about a company going public before 0:21:05.720 --> 0:21:08.280 it's supposedly out there, and then then you use that 0:21:08.320 --> 0:21:12.240 inside information to benefit to yourself. The other involved an 0:21:12.280 --> 0:21:15.119 illegal poker game in a sense that it was a 0:21:15.200 --> 0:21:17.800 cheated card game. It was through the use of technology 0:21:17.800 --> 0:21:21.239 from what I read, whether it's like technology within the 0:21:21.280 --> 0:21:24.480 table that the players were using, technology within the cars 0:21:24.480 --> 0:21:27.080 that they were using. Essentially that it was a rigged 0:21:27.119 --> 0:21:31.800 poker game. And where the high profile bendit, mister Chauncey Billips, 0:21:31.800 --> 0:21:34.320 who was the head coach of the Portland Trailblazers. It's 0:21:34.359 --> 0:21:37.359 being alleged that he was kind of used to lure 0:21:37.359 --> 0:21:40.920 individuals to that game, to lure like an unsuspecting victim 0:21:40.960 --> 0:21:44.040 to that game, because think about it, that person might say, oh, Wow, 0:21:44.040 --> 0:21:46.640 I'm gonna play poker with Chauncey Billups. Well, I don't 0:21:46.680 --> 0:21:50.439 believe mister Billips has been accused of, you know, cheating 0:21:50.480 --> 0:21:53.120 the individual a lot of money. What it's been alleged 0:21:53.200 --> 0:21:55.439 is at those poker games, it was a rigged poker 0:21:55.480 --> 0:21:58.720 game and then ultimately some person loses a lot of 0:21:58.720 --> 0:22:01.080 money and then that money is distributed among the co 0:22:01.080 --> 0:22:04.320 conspirators and the individuals that ran that game. 0:22:04.920 --> 0:22:08.280 Is there a connection between these two indictments or they 0:22:08.440 --> 0:22:11.560 just decided to announce them on the same day. And 0:22:11.720 --> 0:22:14.320 you know, out of more than thirty people, just three 0:22:14.440 --> 0:22:16.400 are associated with the NBA. 0:22:17.160 --> 0:22:19.240 Right, So I mean, I think it's yes and no. 0:22:19.320 --> 0:22:22.920 Obviously it's a whole high profile matter. And when you're 0:22:22.920 --> 0:22:26.359 talking about Terry Rogier, he's a current NBA player, Chauncey 0:22:26.400 --> 0:22:29.560 Billups Hall of Fame player, current NBA coach, they are 0:22:29.920 --> 0:22:33.399 kind of interrelated. But also it's been alleged and you 0:22:33.440 --> 0:22:36.600 can't really you can't really tell from the indictment involving 0:22:36.640 --> 0:22:40.800 mister Rosier, but that indictment mentions a co conspirator who 0:22:40.920 --> 0:22:43.720 lived in Oregon at the time and had previously played 0:22:43.720 --> 0:22:47.320 in the NBA. The co conspirator, it can surmised to 0:22:47.320 --> 0:22:51.160 be it's Chauncey Billups and the reason that is related 0:22:51.200 --> 0:22:54.280 to the indictment with mister Rogier. It's alleged that the 0:22:54.320 --> 0:22:56.359 individuals and I don't even think mister Rogier, but the 0:22:56.400 --> 0:23:00.800 other co defendants in that indictment receive specific information about 0:23:00.920 --> 0:23:04.919 certain individuals on the Portland Trailblazers that weren't going to 0:23:04.920 --> 0:23:07.679 play that night prior to any release to the public. 0:23:07.880 --> 0:23:10.320 That's who Chuncey Billibs was coaching at the time. So 0:23:10.520 --> 0:23:13.399 while mister Bilbs has not been charged in connection with 0:23:13.440 --> 0:23:16.480 the call it the betting scandal, the NBA betting scandal, 0:23:16.800 --> 0:23:19.520 it is potentially he's listed as a co conspirator. But 0:23:19.960 --> 0:23:22.680 to your question, no, I think these were more released 0:23:22.680 --> 0:23:25.359