In a ruling underscored by a quote from Karel Čapek’s 1920 play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots), U.S. District Judge Kai N. Scott from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed another instance where lawyers faced repercussions for utilizing artificial intelligence inappropriately in legal proceedings. This comes shortly after a recent Virginia case where a judge chose not to sanction a lawyer for similar AI-generated errors, considering them an “honest mistake” as detailed in previous coverage.
However, the outcome was different for Raja Rajan, who faced a $2,500 penalty and was ordered to undertake a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program focused on AI and legal ethics. Judge Scott criticized Rajan for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that lawyers verify the accuracy of their court submissions. The decision emphasized that the duty to “Stop, Think, Investigate and Research” lies with legal professionals, not the algorithms.
This case reflects a growing trend: lawyers inadvertently or intentionally relying on AI software that sometimes produces hallucinated cases—fabrications of non-existent legal precedents. Here, Rajan admitted to using ChatGPT, a tool he was unfamiliar with, which led to his erroneous filings. The court found this reliance unsatisfactory, noting that he failed to conduct necessary background research into ChatGPT’s reliability compared to traditional legal research tools like Casetext. Additionally, he neglected to independently verify the authenticity of the cases presented by the AI.
Judge Scott highlighted that while technology continues to evolve, it is imperative for legal professionals to exercise due diligence when incorporating AI tools into their practices. The burden rests on the practicing attorney to ensure the veracity of their filings, regardless of the method used to compile them. This incident serves as a cautionary tale for the legal community as it adapts to increasingly sophisticated AI technologies.
The full opinion on this case, Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations, Inc., offers further insights and is accessible here.