Lawyers Fined for Using AI Tool in Court Brief
A judge in the United States has ordered two lawyers to pay a $5,000 fine after they filed a court brief using the popular artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT. The tool generated a series of fictitious legal precedents.
Judge Kevin Castel found that attorney Steven Schwartz and his partner Peter LoDuca knowingly disregarded warning signs that the cases included in the brief were false. Furthermore, they provided misleading statements to the court, indicating bad faith on their part.
The judge emphasized that while there is “nothing inherently improper in the use of a reliable artificial intelligence tool as an assistant, regulations impose a duty on lawyers to ensure the accuracy of their statements.”
The ruling also highlights that both lawyers “failed in their responsibilities by presenting non-existent judicial opinions accompanied by fabricated quotes. These were created by the artificial tool ChatGPT. Despite being aware of this, they continued to assert the validity of these false opinions even after doubts were raised by the court.”
Lawyers working on a lawsuit
Both lawyers were involved in a lawsuit against the airline Avianca. The case was filed by a passenger who claims to have been injured when struck by a service cart during a flight.
Schwartz, representing the plaintiff, utilized ChatGPT to draft a brief opposing a defense request to dismiss the case.
In the ten-page document, the lawyer cited several judicial decisions to support his arguments. However, it did not take long to discover that the well-known chatbot developed by OpenAI had fabricated these decisions.
“The Court is facing an unprecedented situation. The filing submitted by the plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to the motion to dismiss is filled with references to non-existent cases,” wrote Judge Kevin Castel at the time.
The lawyer himself submitted an affidavit admitting to using ChatGPT to prepare the brief. He also acknowledged that the only verification he conducted was asking the application if the cited cases were real.
Schwartz justified his actions by claiming that he had never used such a tool before and therefore “was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.”
The lawyer emphasized that he had no intention of misleading the court and also absolved another lawyer from the firm who may face potential sanctions.
Independent journalism relies on the support of its readers to continue providing access to the uncomfortable news they don’t want you to read. With your support, we will continue working tirelessly for uncensored journalism!