Rapper Pras’ lawyer used AI to defend him in criminal case—it did not go well - Ars Technica

After being convicted of federal crimes related to a foreign influence campaign, rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel says he should get a new trial because his lawyer “used an experimental AI program to write his closing argument.” In a motion for a new trial filed Monday, the Fugees rapper’s new lawyers say Michel’s previous representation used “an experimental AI program in which they had a financial stake to write the closing argument, resulting in a frivolous and ineffectual closing argument.”

Michel was represented at trial by defense counsel David Kenner, who is accused of failing to provide a cogent defense and misattributing two songs to the Fugees. The allegations about Kenner’s use of AI are reminiscent of a previous incident in which a lawyer admitted using ChatGPT to help write court filings that cited six nonexistent cases invented by the artificial intelligence tool.

According to the motion for a new trial, “Kenner failed to familiarize himself with the charged statutes, causing him to overlook critical weaknesses in the Government’s case,” and he “did not understand the facts or allegations.”

Kenner “outsourced trial preparations to inexperienced contract attorneys who worked for an e-discovery vendor, Business Intelligence Associates, Inc. (BIA),” the motion said. His trial team included BIA co-founder Alon Israely, “a non-practicing attorney with no white collar or even litigation experience.” The motion said that Kenner generated his closing argument “using a proprietary prototype AI program in which he and Alon Israely appear to have had an undisclosed financial stake.”

“Far from hiding this fact, Kenner boasted about it after Michel was convicted, stating; ‘The system turned hours or days of legal work into seconds,’” the motion said. “The AI company touted it as the first use of ‘generative AI in a federal trial.’ It showed. Kenner’s closing argument made frivolous arguments, misapprehended the required elements, conflated the schemes, and ignored critical weaknesses in the Government’s case. The closing was damaging to the defense.”