[dennisw]

Mega-Thanks!

[RoosterRedux]

Actually, the case in which the lawyers relied on a legal citations generated by ChatGBT is a little more complicated than presented above.

The judge wrote in his sanction order:

“Technological advances are commonplace and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance,” Castel wrote. “But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings.” Source: AP

The lawyers in this case didn't bother confirming what they were told by ChatGPT and that was the subject of the sanction and the reason for the fine. They just printed off ChatGPT's response to the question(s) and introduced it into the proceedings.

As an aside, ChatGPT is not trained on case law and the legal/tax code (unlike some others).

Most lawyers now use AI legal assistants like Co-Counsel (developed by Thompson Reuters) which is intensively trained on case law, the legal/tax code, and law school texts and research.

Source: Reuters