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
- Bump Stock Ruling May Presage Loper—and Clearer Answers to Immigration and Bankruptcy Questions - SCOTUS Today
- FDA Wins Mifepristone Case, NLRB Denied Lower Injunctive Relief Standards, and “Trump Too Small” Denied Trademark - SCOTUS Today
- A Day for Specialists - SCOTUS Today
- “Unsworn” Attorney Affirmations: Overlooked Side Effect of Changes to CPLR 2106
- Preemption, the First Amendment, and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Today’s Decisional Menu - SCOTUS Today