A New York lawyer finds herself in potential trouble after relying on artificial intelligence to research a case, leading to the citation of a non-existent legal precedent. The incident underscores the challenges legal professionals and courts face in navigating the implications of emerging AI technologies.
Allegations and Disciplinary Referral
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken action against lawyer Jae Lee, referring her to the attorney grievance panel following her use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Lee failed to verify the validity of a case she cited, prompting criticism from a three-judge panel for the Manhattan-based court. The judges deemed Lee’s conduct as falling short of the expected standards of legal representation.
Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.
Response and Explanation
While practicing at JSL Law Offices, P.C. in New York, Lee expressed surprise at the disciplinary referral, affirming her commitment to upholding professional standards. She acknowledged including the non-existent case in an appeal to revive a client’s lawsuit but asserted no malicious intent or prejudice toward any party involved.
Ramifications and Precedents
This incident is not an isolated one in the legal sphere. AI-generated citations finding their way into court filings have raised concerns about the reliability of AI tools in legal research. Similar cases involving fictitious citations have drawn attention, including one involving Michael Cohen’s attorney. The legal community distinguishes between accurate and fabricated information from generative AI programs.
Judicial Response and Future Considerations
Acknowledging the growing prevalence of AI tools in legal practice, courts are increasingly addressing the need for guidelines governing their use. While the 2nd Circuit did not find it necessary to establish specific rules regarding AI usage, other courts are contemplating or implementing measures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of legal submissions.
Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.
Conclusion and Further Actions
The 2nd Circuit’s referral of Lee to the grievance panel signals a broader examination of the implications of AI in legal proceedings. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, attorneys are urged to exercise diligence in verifying the accuracy of their submissions. The case underscores the importance of maintaining ethical standards amidst technological advancements shaping law practice.
The case in question is Park v. Kim, heard by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals under docket number 22-2057.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
