For months, the news has been inundated with mentions of ChatGPT. In a world where there seems to be an endless and constant evolution of technology, the mere mention of a new software or system did not fully captivate me to investigate further. However, as ChatGPT has become more prevalent and more frequently used, I decided to take a closer look at just what is ChatGPT.
According to OpenAI, the company responsible for producing not only ChatGPT, but also InstructGPT:
“ChatGPT is a model which interacts in a conversational way. The dialogue format makes it possible for ChatGPT to answer follow-up questions, admit to its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate questions.”
To further expand, ChatGPT is a natural language processing tool driven by AI technology that allows you have a human-like conversation and, apparently, much more, with a chatbot. The language model can answer questions and assist one with completing tasks, such as composing emails, essays, and code after gathering pertinent information from the user to do so. Important to note that ChatGPT is still in its research and feedback-collection phase; though it works incredibly well, it still has potential issues not yet fully understood.
As an attorney, formatting documents for filing with various Courts and to send to clients is a daily activity. It can be time-consuming depending on the subject-matter and equally as costly depending on the complexity of the legal and factual issues. It therefore comes as no surprise that lawyers are now looking towards the new horizon and relying on ChatGPT to help expedite their work, marking a new era for AI that can produce human-like responses based on vast amounts of data.
Recently, two New York lawyers were representing an individual who accused Avianca Airlines, a Columbian airline, of negligence for injuries the Plaintiff alleges he suffered in 2019. (see Roberto Mata vs. Avianca, Inc., United States District Court – Southern District of NY; Docket No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC)). One of these attorneys consulted with ChatGPT for legal research as he drafted documents to be submitted for review.
The problem? According to the Court, about half a dozen fake cases were cited to support the legal arguments of the Plaintiff. Though the cites appeared to be real, they were actually invented by ChatGPT and included references to past court cases that involved aviation mishaps that said attorney had not been able to find through using traditional methods of research and writing (i.e., use of Lexis and/or Westlaw).
Lawyers representing Avianca were the first to blow the whistle about the citations and alerted the Court to the non-existent cases cited by Plaintiff’s counsel in March of 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel did not act quickly to correct the bogus legal citations which in turn has caused the two attorneys to face possible sanctions over the error-riddled brief that was drafted and submitted to the Court using the help of ChatGPT.
For example, and to help put into perspective the cites that were listed, the Judge overseeing the Sanctions Hearing on June 8th confronted the two Plaintiff’s attorneys with one legal case invented by ChatGPT. It was initially described as a wrongful death case brought by a woman against an airline only to morph into a legal claim about a man who missed a flight to New York and was forced to incur additional expenses. The Judge asked at the Hearing: “Can we agree that’s legal gibberish?”
Another case cited was nonexistent; the case Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., ChatGPT referenced appeared to cite to another real case, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., but got the date (and other details) wrong, saying it was decided twelve years after its original 1996 decision.
It is a scenario that legal ethics experts have warned about since the inception of ChatGPT in November of 2022: that its involvement with the drafting of legal documents will allow for lawyers to negate their responsibilities outlined in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Some of these challenges and ethical considerations are as follows:
- Ensuring that ChatGPT produced accurate and reliable results. As ChatGPT is trained on large amount of text data, it may not always provide the most accurate and/or up-to-date relevant legal information.
- ChatGPT may not always be able to account for the nuances and complexities of the law. Because ChatGPT is a machine learning system, it may not have the same level of understanding and judgment as a human lawyer when it comes to interpreting legal principles and precedent. This could lead to problems in situations where a more in-depth legal analysis is required.
- There are concerns that ChatGPT could be used to replace human lawyers and legal professionals, possibly leading to job losses and economic disruption.
- The potential for ChatGPT to be used to manipulate or deceive others by generating false or misleading legal documents.
Overall, as can be seen in the New York case referenced above, there are many pitfalls to using ChatGPT in the legal profession. One can only hope that the ethical considerations surrounding the same should be carefully considered before adopting such technology. It is equally important to ensure that any potential benefits of using ChatGPT are balanced against the potential risks and drawbacks, and that the technology is used in a responsible and transparent manner.
When attorneys fail to properly revise and review their work, they are bound to make mistakes. It appears now, for the moment and possibly until after all the kinks have been worked out, that casting aside the tried and true way of conducting legal research for ChatGPT will only cause to create more confusion and inaccuracies.
Caroline B. Zook is an Associate Attorney at Weber Kracht and Chellew. She is a thoughtful, thorough, and persuasive advocate for her clients who puts her keen analytical skills to work primarily in the areas of plaintiff and defense litigation while also expanding her practice in family law. Caroline values the importance of keeping her clients informed as she pursues the most favorable outcomes on their behalf. Caroline is a member of the Bucks County Bar Association and is a volunteer for their ABA Mock Trial competition.
This article is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.
