Posted on 06/23/2023 4:30:20 PM PDT by DFG
Two New York lawyers have been fined $5,000 in a legal first after they relied on fake research created by ChatGPT for a submission in an injury claim against Avianca airline.
Judge Kevin Castel said attorneys Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca acted in bad faith by using the AI bot's submissions - some of which contained 'gibberish' - even after judicial orders questioned their authenticity.
Schwartz and LoDuca had been representing Roberto Mata, who claimed his knee was injured when he was struck by a metal serving cart on an Avianca flight from El Salvador to Kennedy International Airport in New York in 2019.
When the Colombian airline asked a Manhattan judge to throw out the case because the statute of limitations had expired, Schwartz submitted a 10-page legal brief featuring half a dozen relevant court decisions.
But six cases cited in the filing - including Martinez v. Delta Air Lines, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines and Varghese v. China Southern Airlines - did not exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That’s probably not even a days pay.
Fake cases? Does it think it’s a real lawyer?
That’s what happens when you let others do your work
So they kept their license, I guess?
Where does the fine $ go?
He didn’t actually sanction them solely for using ChatGPT, he sanctioned them for pretending they actually searched the cases provided to them by the AI platform. I believe that even after the opposing party pointed out to them the cases either didn’t exist or else support their position, the attorneys insisted they did. There is a more in-depth and less sensational look at the sanctions here:
Fake cases? Does it think it’s a real lawyer?
Nope. a Politician.. Since a fine was levied I’d say a republican one or Rino at a minimum.
A robot ate my honework.
The lawyer actually ASKED the AI if it made up the citations, and it said yes, so it checked out.
This lawyer is an idiot.
I had used chat GPT for no more than 3 questions when it became obvious it produced jibberish.
It’s very interesting in how well it handles interpreting and generating text, but the actual content, particularly when looking for specifics, it falls down quickly.
And used it anyway? Lordy that’s priceless
They didn’t even check one of the citations. If they had even checked one, they would have found out.
Terrible publicity for those lawyers. They apparently just submitted Chat GPT without checking the authenticity of the cases or revising the writing! If I were the client, I would not be happy. They should be disciplined by the bar association or whatever.
That takes work
Using ChatGPT for legal research? Professor Kingsfield would disapprove.
They should have been disbarred.
Can the client request a delay to obtain new counsel?
It should damage their law firm Levidow, Levidow, and Oberman. I would think people would think twice before retaining them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.