A New York City suburban attorney, Jae Lee from JSL Law Offices, located in Uniondale, faces a potential penalty for citing a nonexistent court ruling in a legal filing which was generated through the artificial intelligence tool, ChatGPT. The US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit declared that this misconduct was substantially below the necessary obligations required of counsel, and have subsequently referred Lee to a grievance panel. The actions of the panel could lead to disciplinary actions such as penalties and suspensions. Bloomberg Law was cited for this information.
Responding through email, Lee stated her intention to uphold high professional standards and expressed her commitment to addressing this sitting as it should be treated. There were limitations on any further commentary due to the confidentiality surrounding the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. She is now among a growing list of attorneys who have received flak from courts for perceived wrongful use of AI tools like ChatGPT to generate documentation or pronouncement prompts.
Looking back, US District Judge P. Kevin Castel had earlier issued a $5000 fine to Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca, Manhattan attorneys, for filing a ChatGPT-created court brief. This brief infamously contained fabricated quotations from nonexistent cases. In an unrelated, but similar incident, former attorney to President Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, unknowingly referenced fabricated cases generated by Google’s AI, arguing his plea for release from post-imprisonment supervision.
Coming back to Lee’s case, the appellant was looking for relief from the lower court’s dismissal of her client’s medical malpractices suit. For her defense, she cited two cases, one of them being Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Services which, as per the 2nd Circuit judges, does not exist. Lee confessed to having found it challenging to source an appropriate case before she resorted to using ChatGPT, which recommended the counterfeit case of Bourguignon. The judges established that Lee did not verify or confirm the authenticity of the false decision she cited.
For professionals seeking detailed insights, the case can be referred to under the name Park v. Kim, 2nd Circuit, 22-02057, 1/30/24.