Amidst the iconic backdrop of the Thurgood Marshall courthouse in New York, a legal saga unfolds, thrusting the legal community into the throes of artificial intelligence turbulence. In a recent turn of events, a New York lawyer, under the banner of JSL Law Offices P.C., faces potential disciplinary action for weaving a tale of legal fiction spawned by an artificial intelligence chatbot.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a consequential Tuesday order, propelled attorney Jae Lee into the realms of the attorney grievance panel. Lee, in her legal pursuits, harnessed the capabilities of OpenAI’s ChatGPT for research in a medical malpractice lawsuit, unknowingly referencing a non-existent case. The court, unimpressed by this technological misstep, expressed its disapproval, asserting that Lee’s conduct “falls well below the basic obligations of counsel.”
In a twist that echoes the unpredictability of AI, Lee included the phantom state court decision in an appeal aiming to resurrect her client’s lawsuit, accusing a Queens doctor of an abortion procedure gone awry. The court, grappling with the absence of the cited decision, called upon Lee to produce a copy, to which she responded with an inability to furnish one.
Lee, defending her actions, admitted to incorporating a case merely “suggested” by ChatGPT. Despite asserting the absence of bad faith or prejudice, the three-judge panel deemed her transgression worthy of disciplinary scrutiny.
This incident echoes a broader trend, where AI-generated case citations find their way into legal proceedings, causing judges and courts to grapple with the challenge of ensuring accuracy in submissions. The legal community has witnessed similar instances, from the representation of Donald Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen to the sanctions imposed on two New York lawyers for fictitious citations.
As the 2nd Circuit addresses this nuanced intersection of law and AI, it refrains from mandating a new rule but acknowledges the growing necessity for guidance on the use of AI tools in legal practices. While other circuits contemplate committees to delve into this emerging issue, Lee finds herself referred to the grievance panel for further investigation, with the added directive to provide her client with a copy of the elusive ruling.
In the unfolding legal drama encapsulated by the case of Park v. Kim, the reverberations underscore the evolving challenges posed by the integration of AI in legal research and the imperative for legal practitioners to navigate this brave new world with utmost caution.
