The sanctions hearing for ChatGPT, a legal research tool, did not go well for two lawyers associated with the case. The lawyers, Peter LoDuca and Steven Schwartz, had used the tool to generate fake cases, which they included in their legal filings. They blamed their mistake on ChatGPT, claiming the tool had provided them with these citations. However, they failed to do basic legal research and failed to verify the cases provided by ChatGPT. When called to explain themselves, the lawyers threw themselves on the mercy of the court and claimed they were ignorant and stupid, but not malicious. They also claimed that everyone mocking them was punishment enough.
Their lawyer filed a response to the judge’s order to show cause, which was 29 pages long, and included issues within itself. The document made mention of the made-up cases, which they had included in their original legal brief. The cases appeared in the Table of Authorities, which is a citation list for all the cases referenced in a filing. However, this further emphasized the fact that their lack of due diligence had caused the problem, rather than the ChatGPT tool they used. During the hearing, the judge pressed the lawyers further, and Schwartz admitted to not using fundamental legal research tools like Shepardizing the citations to check if they’re still good law. He also admitted to asking ChatGPT to effectively make his argument for him.
The judge criticized Schwartz and LoDuca, pointing out their many mistakes along the way and questioning their competence. When pressed further, Schwartz even showed unfamiliarity with basic legal terminologies like F. 3d (Federal Reporter) and a complete lack of knowledge about federal court research tools like LexisNexis. The hearing also had an additional side note where someone tried to file an amicus brief explaining the beneficial uses of AI technology in legal research, but the court tends to hate amicus briefs.
The judge will issue a decision soon, and Avianca, the company on the other side of the case, just wants the case dismissed. This incident is a classic example of how not to conduct legal research, and the lawyers’ lack of due diligence has caused them tremendous embarrassment, highlighting the importance of attention to detail in the legal profession.
