The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the adoption of a rule that, if approved, would create a legal precedent in federal appeals courts. Lawyers and self-represented litigants would be obligated to certify whether artificial intelligence (AI) was used to prepare court filings. If AI was indeed used, they’re required to confirm that the document was reviewed by a member of their team for accuracy. This is the homepage of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for reference.
The introduction of AI-related rules isn’t entirely new in the legal landscape. Approximately 14 federal trial courts have already adopted regulations related to the use of AI technology; however, it appears to be the first time an appellate court is contemplating such guidelines.
This move comes in the aftermath of a high-profile case, Mata v. Avianca, where attorneys were penalized for filing a brief replete with fictitious cases generated by ChatGPT, an AI tool. This case amplified the debate on the use of generative AI in the legal profession and led many courts to reconsider their rules.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has published the proposed change and is currently accepting public comments through January 4, 2024. The revision suggests amending Rule 32.3, which currently requires attorneys to confirm their compliance with various filing guidelines. The amendment aims to certify the use, or lack thereof, of generative AI in producing the document.
Under the proposed rule, any material misrepresentation regarding the use of AI during document drafting could result in the rejection of the document and potential sanctions against the submitting party. As part of this change, the court also plans to update Form 6, which is a certificate of compliance, incorporating checkboxes for pertinent AI-related certifications.
The complete text of the proposed rule change, the new form, and instructions for submission of comments can be accessed here.
This development, prominent in its potential implications and intertwining of technology and legal practice, symbolizes the inevitable and delicate conflict between law, traditional practices, and emerging technologies.