Lawyers Still Haven’t Learned ChatGPT Just Isn’t For Them
Attorney Jae S. Lee has been referred to a grievance panel by the Second Circuit for including a fake case in a complaint without verifying its authenticity. This incident sheds light on the continued lack of caution exhibited by lawyers while using AI-powered tools like ChatGPT.
Lee’s reliance on ChatGPT in her filing came to light when she struggled to find a relevant case to establish a minimum wage for an injured worker who had no previous income records for compensation determination. In an attempt to overcome this hurdle, Lee turned to the ChatGPT service, to which she is a subscribed and paying member.
Lee had previously found success with ChatGPT, using it to locate sources for finding an antique furniture key. However, this time, she faced consequences for blindly trusting the AI-generated suggestion. Lee clarified that she did not cite any specific reasoning or decision from the mentioned fake case.
The grievance panel highlighted the responsibility attorneys bear in reading and verifying cases before citing them. In this instance, Lee’s brief presented a false statement of law to the court, suggesting that she failed to carry out due diligence. The panel emphasized that attorneys have a duty to ensure the accuracy of their submissions, as upheld by Rule 11 and longstanding precedent.
While some argue that specific rules governing the use of AI might be beneficial, the panel reiterated that licensed attorneys must already be aware of their obligation to ensure the accuracy of their submissions. They stressed that no additional rule is necessary to inform an attorney, who is a member of the bar, about the need for accuracy.
This incident serves as a reminder to legal professionals that the use of AI tools should complement their work, not replace their critical thinking and investigative skills. Lawyers need to exercise caution and verify the information provided by AI applications to avoid any ethical lapses that may undermine their credibility.
As the legal industry continues to embrace AI technologies, it is crucial for attorneys to adhere to established standards and undertake reasonable inquiries to validate the information generated by AI platforms. Balancing the convenience of AI with the necessity of accuracy is paramount to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
This case involving attorney Jae S. Lee serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the importance of lawyers taking the time to personally and thoroughly vet the cases they reference in their work. Only through a diligent and informed approach can legal professionals ensure the integrity of their arguments and avoid potential pitfalls that may arise from relying on AI-generated content.
