So when little Bobby Tables grew up he fought the law and the law won?

While he is technically hacking the system, when it comes to attacks like this I am going to blame the people consuming the documents.

Like SQL injection attacks of old, prompt injection is just reality. It is just basic competence to design your systems to prevent it. When these attacks are successful it is evidence of gross negligent incompetence on the people who built the system. Frankly neglect to the point where there should be legal consequences for building something so bad.

An analogy would be if a bank was so incompetent that they fogot to build walls andleft a giant hole in their vault. Sure the people walking down the street and taking things out of the vault are technically stealing, but the real problem would be the bank's negligence and incompetence.

On the list of things I'd like to avoid, pissing off a Federal judge is pretty high up the list, which this seems to be a good way to do.

I don't think this is a Federal Judge? This seems to be a Connecticut State Court?

While he is technically hacking the system, when it comes to attacks like this I am going to blame the people consuming the documents.

Like SQL injection attacks of old, prompt injection is just reality. It is just basic competence to design your systems to prevent it. When these attacks are successful it is evidence of gross negligent incompetence on the people who built the system. Frankly neglect to the point where there should be legal consequences for building something so bad.

An analogy would be if a bank was so incompetent that they fogot to build walls andleft a giant hole in their vault. Sure the people walking down the street and taking things out of the vault are technically stealing, but the real problem would be the bank's negligence and incompetence.

I generally agree with you. But court IT is grossly under funded like everything else in the judicial system except prosecutors offices. Until legislatures give courts the resources to do this right, they don’t stand a chance.

The plan didn’t work, but Elliott faced modest sanctions anyway because he continued adding hidden text to filings even after the court warned him that he could face penalties for what was ultimately deemed a “serious litigation abuse.”

He should've been held in contempt and jailed. Serious consequences for serious offences.

He basically defrauded the court, trying to game the system in a sneaky, corrupt way, and then he ignored a judge's directions and continued to do so.

Outrageous. If he were a lawyer, he'd almost certainly be up for discipline and possible disbarment.

I’d say regardless of what the input is, if you fail to check the output of an LLM for accuracy, you’re the one at fault.

The problem is that pro se parties aren't going to be qualified to do that. In most cases (outside of small claims court) "pro se" means "no lawyer thought this was winnable".

LLMs are particularly bad at saying "no, that's not possible". And I'll wager it's using TV and movie representations of court cases too.

Why are e-fillings systems accepting formatted documents? They should work on plain txt files to prevent people trying to hide things.

Because courts and lawyers can be really anal about having a specific document format

Wow, I hope this guy sends that judge a nice thank-you note when he comes back to his senses. It seems extremely generous of the judge not drop some massive “messing with the court system” type punishments on the guy.

If he keeps it up maybe the judge will enter a default judgement against him - if you refuse to cooperate with the court, that is one of the possible outcomes - just ask Alex Jones.

He should've been held in contempt and jailed. Serious consequences for serious offences.

He basically defrauded the court, trying to game the system in a sneaky, corrupt way, and then he ignored a judge's directions and continued to do so.

Outrageous. If he were a lawyer, he'd almost certainly be up for discipline and possible disbarment.

Courts are extremely gentle with pro se litigants. Any kind of sanction is almost unheard of.

WOO

I would think that having some kind of boilerplate Ai notification prompt in your filing would be a good thing -- but out in plain sight so everyone knows it's there. Which may defeat the purpose, but if the system isn't corrupted, it would be a good flag.

Why are e-fillings systems accepting formatted documents? They should work on plain txt files to prevent people trying to hide things.

Having done e-filings and formally typeset legal documents, I agree with you. But lawyers care too much about the aesthetics.

Because courts and lawyers can be really anal about having a specific document format

This is true. But an irritated enough judge could easily require plain text submissions if he thought it was worth the trouble. Probably won’t, but it’s the easiest solution to this specific problem.

Courts are extremely gentle with pro se litigants. Any kind of sanction is almost unheard of.

Sure, I get that. Inadvertent breaches of procedural rules would be rampant.

But this is different. He deliberately tried to game the system and defraud the court. And it's not like it was one and done - he got caught and the book was thrown at him. He was warned, and he did it again.

If he keeps it up maybe the judge will enter a default judgement against him - if you refuse to cooperate with the court, that is one of the possible outcomes - just ask Alex Jones.

Yep. And would be justified in doing so. There's a doctrine known as "clean hands" - as in, if you come to the court seeking redress, you need to have clean hands yourself.

Deliberately trying to game the system and defraud the court definitely dirties his hands.

On the list of things I'd like to avoid, pissing off a Federal judge is pretty high up the list, which this seems to be a good way to do.

May I present the first of Cipolla's Basic Laws of Stupidity:

Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

Courts are extremely gentle with pro se litigants. Any kind of sanction is almost unheard of.

Clearly this judge has already been extremely gentle with this knucklehead. . . there is a limit to anything, though.

Having done e-filings and formally typeset legal documents, I agree with you. But lawyers care too much about the aesthetics.

Not sure in the US, but here in Australian courts, the formatting etc is set out by the Court's rules and effectively become law via regulations, and by its Practice Notes.

It's less about aesthetics, and more about consistency and avoiding issues like "I" (capital I) versus "1" (digit 1), "0" (digit 0) and "O" (capital Oh) etc.

It's also about making documents easier/quicker to read, ensuring sufficient line spacing, font size, text colour vs page background etc.

When you're reading thousands upon thousands of pages of filings every week, it does make a difference. A huge one, actually.

I don't think this is a Federal Judge? This seems to be a Connecticut State Court?

Oops, my bad. Point applies to both though.

If he keeps it up maybe the judge will enter a default judgement against him - if you refuse to cooperate with the court, that is one of the possible outcomes - just ask Alex Jones.

So, I guess Elliott is actually the plaintiff? I'm not sure it's called a default judgement when it's the plaintiff, but more just dismissing the case, I guess? Although I also wonder if this could rise to a contempt of court jail stint or something like obstruction of justice?

This is true. But an irritated enough judge could easily require plain text submissions if he thought it was worth the trouble. Probably won’t, but it’s the easiest solution to this specific problem.

Actually he did -- the article notes all of the plaintiff's documents must now be submitted on paper.

Be careful not to make generalisations out of court cases about AI.

Just because he tried to game the system does not mean that he did not have a point, and vice versa: even if he did have a point does not justify gaming the system.

Not sure in the US, but here in Australian courts, the formatting etc is set out by the Court's rules and effectively become law via regulations, and by its Practice Notes.

It's less about aesthetics, and more about consistency and avoiding issues like "I" (capital I) versus "1" (digit 1), "0" (digit 0) and "O" (capital Oh) etc.

It's also about making documents easier/quicker to read, ensuring sufficient line spacing, font size, text colour vs page background etc.

When you're reading thousands upon thousands of pages of filings every week, it does make a difference. A huge one, actually.

All the more reason to only allow plain text submissions and do the formatting on presentation then.

It occurs to me that there may be a risk that even though the COURT doesn't process the document through AI, that putting hidden AI prompts is still malicious because the court filing may be picked up by third parties who monitor court filings, and then processed by AI, leading to those third parties being deceived by the AI - e.g. maybe the AI rewrites the court document and presents something different to, e.g. some half-assed podcaster/youtuber "reporting" on the case by having AI write a summary of the case for them.

Which seems like... They should just... not be using AI then?

All the more reason to only allow plain text submissions and do the formatting on presentation then.

That's a non-starter. Once a document is filed, it's formally accepted by the court (if it complies with filing rules, orders of the judge, etc etc), sealed (stamped) by the court - and then it's not touched.

Any changes - if allowed - require a new filling.

Most things filed with the court require service upon all parties - the court is not going to involve itself with distributing documents to parties (and certainly not formal service, where a process server physically hands a document to a party, so they can then attest under oath that the party received the document), etc. etc.