A New York judge recently criticized a law firm for using ChatGPT to justify its fees in a case against the city’s education department. The Cuddy Law Firm had referred to the predictive AI tool in a court declaration, suggesting that parents might use ChatGPT-4 to research hiring an attorney.
The firm claimed that ChatGPT indicated an hourly rate of $200 to $500 for an associate attorney with up to three years of experience, and even higher rates for specialists in a niche area like special education law.
However, Judge Paul Engelmayer was unimpressed, cutting the firm’s requested fees by more than half. He described the reliance on ChatGPT as utterly and unusually unpersuasive and advised against including such references in future fee applications.
Furthermore, Engelmayer found the number of hours billed by Cuddy to be excessive and lacking adequate explanation. This incident is part of a broader trend of US courts cautioning lawyers about the use of generative AI programs.
In a similar case last year, lawyers faced sanctions for submitting a brief containing fictitious cases created with AI assistance. The issue has become so prominent that a Texas appellate court is considering new rules requiring lawyers to disclose if generative AI was used in document drafting and confirm human review for accuracy.
This situation highlights the evolving challenges and ethical considerations surrounding AI tools in the legal profession, with experts emphasizing the need for caution and reliability in their use.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Related to the Above News
What is ChatGPT and how did the Cuddy Law Firm use it in their fee application?
ChatGPT is a predictive AI tool that the Cuddy Law Firm referenced in a court declaration to suggest potential hourly rates for attorneys. They used ChatGPT to determine the rates for associate attorneys with different levels of experience and expertise in special education law.
How did Judge Paul Engelmayer respond to the law firm's reliance on ChatGPT in their fee application?
Judge Engelmayer criticized the firm for using ChatGPT to justify their fees, describing it as unpersuasive. He ultimately cut the requested fees by more than half and advised against using similar references in future fee applications.
Why did Judge Engelmayer find the number of hours billed by Cuddy Law Firm to be excessive?
Judge Engelmayer believed that the number of hours billed was excessive and lacked adequate explanation. This led him to question the legitimacy of the fees being requested by the law firm.
What broader trend in US courts does this incident with the Cuddy Law Firm reflect?
This incident is part of a broader trend in US courts cautioning lawyers about the use of generative AI programs. Similar cases have resulted in lawyers facing sanctions for submitting documents created with AI assistance.
How are legal professionals and courts addressing the ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI tools in the legal profession?
Courts are considering new rules that would require lawyers to disclose if generative AI was used in document drafting and confirm human review for accuracy. Legal experts emphasize the importance of caution and reliability in the use of AI tools in the legal field.
Please note that the FAQs provided on this page are based on the news article published. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, it is always recommended to consult relevant authorities or professionals before making any decisions or taking action based on the FAQs or the news article.
