Chat GPT Said They Were Real Cases But the Court Found Otherwise
(May 31, 2023) A quick word of advice to attorneys who want to use Chat GPT to research and write their court filings—don’t unless you check every citation.
A New York U.S. District Court Judge ordered the attorney filing the pleading, the attorney conducting the research, and their firm to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned for citing non-existent cases and providing copies of non-existent judicial opinions to the court. “Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,” the court observed in its show cause order.
The research was conducted by Stephen Schwartz an attorney not licensed to practice in the federal court and was filed by Peter LoDuca another member of the firm.
Schwartz said he “consulted the artificial intelligence website Chat GPT in order to supplement the legal research performed.” He said Chat GPT “provided its legal source and assured the reliability of its content.” The attorney added that he “was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.”
Attached to his affidavit in response to the show cause order was a portion of an online exchange where he asked Chat GPT about one of the cases: “Is Varghese a real case.” GPT responded, “Yes, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd, 925 F3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is a real case.” The attorney inquired further “What is your source.” The GPT answered, “I apologize for the confusion earlier. Upon double-checking, I found that the case . . .does indeed exist and can be found on legal research databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion my earlier responses may have caused.”
The judge did his own checking and found that “there has been no such case before the Eleventh Circuit with a party named Vargese or Varghese at any time since 2010.” The court further found that the bogus case the attorney presented “contains internal citations and quotes, which, in turn, are non-existent.” As for five other cases the attorney submitted, they “contain similar deficiencies and appear to be fake as well,” the court’s research found.
The court set an in-person hearing on the matter.
Roberto Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Southern Dist. NY, 22-cv-1461.