Technological advances are commonplace and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings. [...] Respondents abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question.
Curated from caselaw.findlaw.com · 22 June 2023 →
Roberto Mata sued Avianca over an injury on a flight. His lawyer, Steven Schwartz of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, used ChatGPT to find supporting authority and filed a brief citing at least six decisions that do not exist, with quotations and internal citations that do not exist either. Asked for copies, he went back to ChatGPT, which asserted the cases were real and produced them. On 22 June 2023 Judge Castel fined Schwartz, his colleague Peter LoDuca and the firm 5,000 US dollars jointly and required them to write to every judge falsely named as an author. It is the first case of its kind and the reason the rest exist: Damien Charlotin's tracking database has since passed 1,500 filings worldwide.
