Lawyers sanctioned for filing briefs with fictitious AI-generated citations from ChatGPT

In a significant development, a US District Judge, P. Kevin Castel, imposed sanctions on two New York lawyers and their law firm, Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, for submitting a legal brief containing six fabricated case citations. The fictitious references were generated by ChatGPT. Judge Castel found the lawyers, Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca, guilty of acting in bad faith and making false and misleading statements to the court. Consequently, the judge ordered the lawyers and their firm to collectively pay a $5,000 fine.

Levidow, Levidow & Oberman released a statement expressing respectful disagreement with the court's conclusion that they acted in bad faith. They attributed the inclusion of the AI-generated citations to an unintended mistake, acknowledging their failure to anticipate that a technological tool could fabricate cases. Schwartz's lawyers refrained from commenting on the matter, while LoDuca's lawyer stated that they are currently reviewing the decision.

Schwartz admitted in May that he had utilised ChatGPT to aid in researching a personal injury case against Colombian airline Avianca AVT_p.CN. However, he unknowingly included the false citations in the brief, and LoDuca's name was the only one on the document prepared by Schwartz.

The initial concern regarding the credibility of the citations was raised by Avianca's lawyers in March. They informed the court that certain cases cited in the brief could not be located.

In response to the sanctions, Bart Banino, representing Avianca, remarked that irrespective of the lawyers' use of ChatGPT, the court reached the appropriate conclusion by dismissing the personal injury case. A separate order issued by the judge supported Avianca's motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of it being filed after the statute of limitations.

In his sanctions order, Judge Castel clarified that there is nothing inherently improper about lawyers using AI tools for assistance. However, he emphasised that legal ethics rules impose a responsibility on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings and act as gatekeepers. The judge further noted that the lawyers persisted in defending the fictitious opinions even after the court and Avianca questioned their authenticity. The order also required the lawyers to inform the respective judges, who were falsely identified as authors of the fabricated cases, about the imposed sanctions.

Also Read

'Buying Netflix at $4 billion would've been better instead of...': Former Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer

ChatGPT beats top investment funds in stock-picking experiment