Hilarious ChatGPT Fail in Legal Research!

Hilarious ChatGPT Fail in Legal Research!

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Background of the Case
3. The Plaintiff's Response
4. The Defendant's Reply
5. The Judge's Order
6. The Affidavit of the Plaintiff's Attorney
7. The Role of Chat GPT
8. The Judge's AI Certification Policy
9. Implications and Future Pledges
10. Conclusion

Introduction

In this article, we will be exploring a recent and groundbreaking development in the world of law and artificial intelligence (AI) that has the potential to Shape the way technology is used in our justice system. This unique case involves the use of Generative AI tools, particularly chat GPT, in the legal profession. We will Delve into the details of the case, examining the responses of the plaintiff's attorney, the defendant's reply, and the judge's order. Furthermore, we will discuss the role of AI in the legal research and writing process and the implications it carries for the practice of law. Finally, we will explore the introduction of an AI certification policy by a federal judge and its potential impact on attorneys appearing in court.

Background of the Case

The case we will be focusing on is Mata versus Avianca Inc, where plaintiff Roberto Mata sued Colombian Airline Avianca Inc for injuries sustained on an airplane due to a flight attendant's negligence. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the personal injury claim, prompting the plaintiff's attorney to respond with an argument against the dismissal. The attorney cited several case laws to support his client's claim. However, the defendant's reply pointed out the non-existence of the cited cases, raising suspicions regarding their legitimacy.

The Plaintiff's Response

Upon receiving the defendant's reply, the plaintiff's attorney filed an affidavit as per the court's order. The affidavit contained what appeared to be the cited cases, including the controversial vargesi case. However, it was later discovered that these cases were completely fabricated, leading to further scrutiny from the court and the judge's issuance of an order to Show cause.

The Defendant's Reply

The defendant's reply shed light on the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's citations. They highlighted the non-existence of the cases cited by the plaintiff's attorney, claiming that they could not locate most of the case law. The defendant's reply effectively blew the whistle on the fraudulent nature of the plaintiff's citations, bringing the matter to the Attention of U.S District Judge Kevin Cast.

The Judge's Order

U.S District Judge Kevin Cast was appalled by the fraudulent citations presented by the plaintiff's attorney. After confirming with his law clerks that the cases cited were indeed non-existent, the judge issued an order to the plaintiff's attorney, demanding an explanation and the filing of an affidavit attaching legitimate copies of the cited cases. The judge's order emphasized the seriousness of citing non-existent cases and the potential consequences the attorney may face.

The Affidavit of the Plaintiff's Attorney

In response to the judge's order, the plaintiff's attorney filed another affidavit, this time attaching copies of the ostensible cited cases, including the vargesi case. However, it was later revealed that these cases were also fake and not legitimate legal opinions. The attorney's affidavit did not address the filing of fabricated opinions, further exacerbating the situation.

The Role of Chat GPT

The use of generative AI Tools, specifically chat GPT, played a pivotal role in this case. The plaintiff's attorney consulted chat GPT for legal research and writing, relying on its ability to generate Relevant case laws and legal opinions. However, this incident highlighted the critical flaws of using such tools without proper verification and validation. The unreliability and potential biases of AI systems raised questions about their suitability for legal briefing purposes.

The Judge's AI Certification Policy

In light of this case and the inherent risks posed by generative AI tools, Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Texas took the initiative to implement an AI certification policy. This policy requires attorneys appearing in his court to sign a generative AI pledge, ensuring that all filings are either not drafted by generative AI or are thoroughly checked for accuracy using traditional legal databases by a human being.

Implications and Future Pledges

This case serves as a wake-up call for the legal community, highlighting the dangers of relying solely on generative AI tools for legal research and writing. The incident showcases the urgent need for a reliable version of AI tools that can perform legal tasks without the risk of hallucinations or biases. The introduction of AI certification policies by judges might become more widespread to safeguard the integrity and reliability of court proceedings.

Conclusion

The Mata versus Avianca Inc case, coupled with the fraudulent use of generative AI tools, has sparked a crucial discussion surrounding the ethical and practical implications of AI in the legal profession. While AI tools have undeniable potential for efficiency and innovation, their Current limitations and risks necessitate cautious implementation and verification. The legal community must navigate the complex intersection of AI and the law to ensure the preservation of justice and the accuracy of legal processes.