Two New York lawyers received fines after submitting a legal brief that included fake citations generated by the ChatGPT chatbot. Steven Schwartz of the law firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman admitted to using the AI technology to research legal precedents in a client’s personal injury case against airline Avianca. However, the lawyers representing the airline accused Schwartz of using fabricated citations in the brief. The District Judge Peter Kevin Castel ruled that Schwartz and colleague Peter LoDuca acted in bad faith and made false and misleading statements to the court.
Several of the examples cited by Schwartz were entirely fictitious, while others misidentified judges or involved airlines that did not exist. Portion of the brief were declared nonsensical and gibberish according to Judge Castel. The lawyers continued to support the fake opinions even after the court had questioned them.
ChatGPT, when contacted for comment, admitted that while it can provide general information and assistance, it is imperative to note that it is an AI language model and not a qualified legal professional.
Judge Castel declared that lawyers using AI for assistance is inherently improper. He emphasized that lawyers have a duty to ensure their filings are accurate, and they are responsible for reviewing all material before submitting it.
Schwartz, LoDuca, and their law firm were ordered to pay a total of $5,000 (£3,926) in fines. Levidow, Levidow & Oberman is considering appealing the decision, citing a good faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Related to the Above News
What happened to the two New York lawyers in the Avianca case?
The two New York lawyers were fined for submitting a legal brief that included fake citations generated by the ChatGPT chatbot.
What did Steven Schwartz admit to doing in the case?
Steven Schwartz of the law firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman admitted to using the AI technology to research legal precedents in a client's personal injury case against airline Avianca.
What did the lawyers representing Avianca accuse Schwartz of doing in the brief?
The lawyers representing the airline accused Schwartz of using fabricated citations in the brief.
What ruling did the District Judge Peter Kevin Castel make regarding the lawyers' conduct?
The District Judge Peter Kevin Castel ruled that Schwartz and colleague Peter LoDuca acted in bad faith and made false and misleading statements to the court.
Was all the information cited in the brief legitimate?
No, several of the examples cited by Schwartz were entirely fictitious, while others misidentified judges or involved airlines that did not exist.
What did Judge Castel say about lawyers using AI for assistance?
Judge Castel declared that lawyers using AI for assistance is inherently improper.
What responsibility do lawyers have regarding their filings?
Lawyers have a duty to ensure their filings are accurate, and they are responsible for reviewing all material before submitting it.
What was the outcome for Schwartz, LoDuca, and their law firm?
Schwartz, LoDuca, and their law firm were ordered to pay a total of $5,000 (£3,926) in fines.
Is ChatGPT a qualified legal professional?
No, ChatGPT is an AI language model and not a qualified legal professional.
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.
