The court recently made a decision to reject the use of ChatGPT-4 as a ‘cross-check’ in plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs petition. The court emphasized its skepticism of the chatbot’s ability to generate legal opinions complete with official-looking yet entirely fabricated citations and quotations, noting that this has led to courts being cautious about its use in judicial proceedings.
In a specific case, J.G. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., the plaintiff’s attorneys, the Cuddy Law Firm, sought prevailing party attorneys’ fees following successful due process complaints against the Department of Education. While the law firm cited various reputable sources to support the reasonableness of their hourly rates, they also referenced feedback from ChatGPT-4 as a ‘cross-check.’
However, the court was unimpressed by this reliance on ChatGPT-4. It found the law firm’s invocation of the chatbot as support for its fee petition to be utterly and unusually unpersuasive. The court highlighted that previous cases in the Second Circuit had admonished counsel for relying on ChatGPT, particularly due to the bot’s inability to differentiate between real and fictitious case citations.
Additionally, the court pointed out several crucial gaps in the law firm’s use of ChatGPT-4. These included the failure to identify the inputs used by the chatbot, disclose whether any inputs were imaginary, and consider the precedents established by courts in the region regarding billing rates.
As a result of these shortcomings, the court outright rejected ChatGPT-4’s conclusions on the appropriate billing rates. It advised the Cuddy Law Firm to refrain from including references to the chatbot in future fee applications unless there is a significant improvement in its reliability.
While ChatGPT-4 offers valuable resources, the court’s decision underscores the importance of transparency and caution when utilizing AI tools in legal proceedings. Until these tools demonstrate greater accuracy and reliability, courts are likely to continue scrutinizing their use in determining legal outcomes.
