Introducing Ctrl–Alt–OMG!!! by Ms. Bizz

Modern Dilemmas Decoded with Caffeine, Charm, and a Very Sharp Pen

Welcome to Ctrl–Alt–OMG!!!, a wholly unserious advice column from Ms. Bizz — your ink-stained correspondent in the swirling vortex of modern absurdity.

Letters to Ms. Bizz are completely fabricated (and often motivated by something really sill), so the responses given are intended for humorous purposes only. No actual ethical guidance, legal strategy, or emotional clarity should be extracted without supervision. Ms. Bizz is here to offer tea (sometimes scalding), sympathy (often conditional), and commentary (hopefully amusing) on the increasingly blurry line between life, tech, and whatever that chatbot just said.

Today’s Letter

The agony when your lawyer turned to artificial intelligence for help but forgot to bring a red pen.

Dear Ms. Bizz,

My attorney used AI to write a legal brief for my case. It cited multiple court decisions that, as it turns out, do not exist.

When the judge demanded proof, my lawyer actually asked ChatGPT to confirm the cases — and the chatbot “confirmed” them, which apparently is not legally binding. The judge was, quote, “not amused.” My motion was denied with prejudice, and the phrase “manifest disregard for truth and procedure” is now in the permanent record next to my name.

So here’s my question: can I sue that lawyer for malpractice… using another AI-assisted lawyer? Or does that count as a recursive legal disaster?

Yours in unwanted precedent,
Cited But Not Heard

---

Dear Cited,

First, let me offer my condolences. Not for your case — for the moment your legal representation decided to outsource due diligence to a chatbot like it was drafting a brunch review.

Let’s be clear: AI doesn’t make lawyers obsolete. It just makes lazy ones louder.

Your attorney’s error wasn’t in using AI; it was in believing it — without checking. In federal court. That’s not strategy. That’s malpractice in a necktie.

Now, to your question: Can you sue them for malpractice? Possibly. But if you hire another lawyer who’s also prompt-happy and proofreading-averse, you’re not filing a case — you’re launching a spin-off series titled Law & Uh-Oh.

Here’s what I suggest:

1. Hire a human lawyer with a bar number, a bibliography fetish, and visible neck tension.

2. Do not — I repeat, do not — let anyone use AI for original filings without review. You wouldn’t let a chatbot bake your wedding cake and write your ex’s restraining order.

3. Learn the phrase “hallucinated precedent.” It may come up again.

And no, the chatbot’s “confirmation” isn’t admissible in court. Neither is a Ouija board, a vibes-based argument, or a TikTok video explaining the Constitution.

If you pursue this, may your next attorney be blessed with curiosity, caution, and a PDF subscription to Westlaw.

Yours in legal clarity,
Ms. Bizz

Ms. Bizz is loosely based on a very real, very opinionated black Labrador of a certain age. While famously sweet and cuddly, she is also known to bark at the void — with no explanation, no remorse, and no pattern. A champion in conformation, she chose instead the noble path of living with a normal family and now spends her days basking in affection, sunshine, and the joy of not having to prove anything to anyone. She is voiced by Judith and Hikaru (provided she receives regular treatos, as per union rules).