Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its applications are increasingly seen across various sectors, including the legal profession. As generative AI engines such as ChatGPT become more advanced, its impact on legal work is hard to ignore, but it has also flagged cases wherein irresponsible usage has led to serious implications. Despite the precedent set by previous incidents, two more disturbing cases emerged this week, this time in Missouri and Massachusetts.
First, in Missouri, a Kruse v. Karlen case saw a litigant, not a lawyer, filing an appellate brief where 22 out of 24 cases cited were non-existent. Reportedly, these citations were borrowed from an alleged online lawyer and boasted such generic names as Smith v. ABC Corporation and Jones v. XYZ Corporation, that should have aroused suspicion. The court denounced this behavior and not only dismissed the appeal but also issued a $10,000 penalty against the litigant for misuse of legal procedure.
The second incident unfolded in Massachusetts, where the Smith v. Farwell case involved a practicing lawyer. Three separate legal memoranda filed by him had referenced fictitious cases. The lawyer, upon being confronted, blamed the mistake on his limited understanding of AI. A probe revealed that the preparation of these memoranda involved two recent law school graduates and an associate lawyer, who, unbeknownst to the lawyer, used an AI system for drawing out relevant legal authorities. The court was lenient considering the lawyer’s ignorance and sincere regret but stressed the lawyer’s failure in doing the necessary cross-verification before presenting them to the court. Consequently, the lawyer was slapped with a $2,000 fine.
Both incidents underscore the need for carefully evaluating the use of AI in the legal profession. As technology becomes more integral, it’s critical to understand these tools and verify any AI-generated content before it impacts the cases. It’s clear from these cases that screening AI outputs is not just advisable but essential in upholding the sacrosanctity of legal practice. Dismissal of the ‘defense based on ignorance’ underscores the responsibility of practitioners to keep abreast of all tools they employ, AI being no exception.
For further details on these cases, please follow the link here.