By now, the story of two New York attorneys facing scrutiny for citing nonexistent cases generated by the artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool ChatGPT has made national (and international) headlines. Late last month, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York sanctioned the attorneys and their firm $5,000. The court’s decision (Roberto Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (ECF No. 54)) provides a humbling reminder of both an attorney’s responsibilities in ensuring the accuracy of his or her filings, and the limits of certain technologies in the legal profession.
Recent Updates
- Powerful Tool, but Not an Attorney: Massachusetts Court Rejects Work Product Protection for AI-Generated Documents
- SCOTUS: Venue in White-Collar Case Tied to Proscribed Conduct, Not Intended Effects
- Washington Arbitration Agreements Are Failing Employers in Wage and Hour Cases
- New York’s AVOID Act: Strict Deadlines for Third-Party Practice
- Watch: DOJ’s New Self-Disclosure Rules: Decide Fast or Lose the Credit – Speaking of Litigation