A New York lawyer is facing a court hearing of his own after his firm used AI tool ChatGPT for legal research.

A judge said the court was faced with an "unprecedented circumstance" after a filing was found to reference example legal cases that did not exist.

The lawyer who used the tool told the court he was "unaware that its content could be false".

ChatGPT creates original text on request, but comes with warnings it can "produce inaccurate information".

The original case involved a man suing an airline over an alleged personal injury. His legal team submitted a brief that cited several previous court cases in an attempt to prove, using precedent, why the case should move forward.

But the airline's lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases that were referenced in the brief.

"Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations," Judge Castel wrote in an order demanding the man's legal team explain itself.

Over the course of several filings, it emerged that the research had not been prepared by Peter LoDuca, the lawyer for the plaintiff, but by a colleague of his at the same law firm. Steven A Schwartz, who has been an attorney for more than 30 years, used ChatGPT to look for similar previous cases.

In his written statement, Mr Schwartz clarified that Mr LoDuca had not been part of the research and had no knowledge of how it had been carried out.

Mr Schwartz added that he "greatly regrets" relying on the chatbot, which he said he had never used for legal research before and was "unaware that its content could be false".

He has vowed to never use AI to "supplement" his legal research in future "without absolute verification of its authenticity".



Screenshots attached to the filing appear to show a conversation between Mr Schwarz and ChatGPT.

"Is varghese a real case," reads one message, referencing Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, one of the cases that no other lawyer could find.

ChatGPT responds that yes, it is - prompting "S" to ask: "What is your source".

After "double checking", ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.

It says that the other cases it has provided to Mr Schwartz are also real.

Both lawyers, who work for the firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, have been ordered to explain why they should not be disciplined at an 8 June hearing.

Millions of people have used ChatGPT since it launched in November 2022.

It can answer questions in natural, human-like language and it can also mimic other writing styles. It uses the internet as it was in 2021 as its database.

There have been concerns over the potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI), including the potential spread of misinformation and bias.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65735769

A.I is a threat in many aspect of humanity

Charge and Bail

He should have used spin bot to rephrase.
Even google will know and flag your content with plagiarism if you directly use chatgpt.
The rational use is to get ideas and spin it in your favour.

I heard the owner of this App is into sodomy with his fellow male gender!

Extremely appalling and disgusting!

You see one thing, the human brain can't be compared to all these AIs. But fools will think it's a copy and paste stuff. Na so a doctor go follow AI give drugs and surgery procedures to a client and the person will kick the baf and he will lose his licence.

AIs are assistant to your brain

Using AI is going to make the next generation, less intelligent

Giveaway

I love AI

You all should embrace the future
#AI.

No wam

Lmao. Far from reality

it emerged that the research had not been prepared by Peter LoDuca, the lawyer for the plaintiff, but by a colleague of his at the same law firm. Steven A Schwartz, who has been an attorney for more than 30 years, used ChatGPT to look for similar previous cases.






The name and the case reminds me of the Nigerian fraud of a drunkard that lost his manhood.... His gullible supporters keep using chat gpt to interprete the constitution of FCt to us....

Like Peter LoDuca like obituary giringories

Wahala!

Kingjite1:
Using AI is going to make the next generation, less intelligent

💯

Everyone wants it easy…

Akwamkpuruamu:
You see one thing, the human brain can't be compared to all these AIs. But fools will think it's a copy and paste stuff. Na so a doctor go follow AI give drugs and surgery procedures to a client and the person will kick the baf and he will lose his licence.

AIs are assistant to your brain

💯

kelvine:
He should have used spin bot to rephrase.
Even google will know and flag your content with plagiarism if you directly use chatgpt.
The rational use is to get ideas and spin it in your favour.

It’s not about plagiarism. ChatGPT gave them fake reference case that never happened.

Even human lie, so why would something created by human can’t lie.

I’m wondering if this A.I is not what someone that came 3rd in a general election is depending on, to claim he is the president-elect

kelvine:
He should have used spin bot to rephrase.
Even google will know and flag your content with plagiarism if you directly use chatgpt.
The rational use is to get ideas and spin it in your favour.

That's not the point. The point is the tool invented cases that don't exist. Please read again for better understanding.

Lmaoooooo. Reminds me of those days in the university when we cooked during exams 😅😭😂😂😂

Otun ti zeh 😂

One of the proofs that AI has not come to replace humans, the secret behind ChatGPT is that there are humans that work behind the scene as a moderator. The success of AI lies in the hand of humans AI can only make our work less stressful but not be substituted for human intelligence.

Nothing can stand in place of human. God created human in His own image

kelvine:
He should have used spin bot to rephrase.
Even google will know and flag your content with plagiarism if you directly use chatgpt.
The rational use is to get ideas and spin it in your favour.

Read well werèy. It's not plagiarism. He cited cases that didn't exist

It ll put many for trouble

BarrElChapo:
Lmaoooooo. Reminds me of those days in the university when we cooked during exams 😅😭😂😂😂

But pesin no go fit cook for bar exams shaa… 🥱

kelvine:
He should have used spin bot to rephrase.
Even google will know and flag your content with plagiarism if you directly use chatgpt.
The rational use is to get ideas and spin it in your favour.

Read the article again. ChatGpt referenced a case that never happened and the lawyer used it in court.