Mike Lindell’s lawyers used AI to write brief—judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
A judge criticized Lindell's brief for numerous defects, including references to non-existent cases, undermining its credibility.
MAIN POINTS
- The brief contains references to cases that do not exist.
- A judge highlighted multiple defects in Lindell's submission.
- The credibility of the brief is significantly undermined.
- The judge's critique suggests serious issues with the document's validity.
TAKEAWAYS
- Legal documents must be thoroughly vetted for accuracy and validity.
- Non-existent case references can severely damage a legal argument.
- Judicial critiques can expose fundamental flaws in legal submissions.
- Ensuring factual accuracy is crucial in maintaining a document's credibility.