Judge Considers Sanctioning Attorneys for Using Chat Service During Court Proceedings

Lawyers using artificial intelligence to boost their legal research have come under scrutiny after one attorney submitted a ChatGPT-prepared brief that contained fake case law. Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca filed an opposition to a motion to dismiss their client’s case citing cases that could not be verified by opposing counsel. Judge Kevin Castel caught on to the false citations and has demanded an affidavit containing the nonexistent cases or the case will be dismissed. Schwartz and LoDuca apologized for their mistake, stating that they relied on ChatGPT, which they initially thought was a different search engine and did not believe that it could make up a case. The presiding judge, however, stated that the use of ChatGPT was the beginning of the narrative, not the end and only part of the problem. Lawyers argue that while Schwartz and LoDuca exercised poor judgment, it is insufficient to warrant sanctions. The case has led to a judge in Texas requiring lawyers to certify that their work has not been produced by artificial intelligence without being checked by humans.