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.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Sentencing Commission Seeks Public Input on Amendments to Fraud Sentencing Guidelines
- Agentic AI’s Next Iteration: From Super-AIs to Teams of Specialized Agents — and What It Means for Law & Business
- Divided Court Clarifies Limits on Federal Habeas Appeals - SCOTUS Today
- A Pattern of Uncertainty: Judicial Decision-Making During Federal Shutdowns
- Navigating FDA’s Stance on DSHEA Disclaimer Placement