By now, the story of two New York attorneys facing scrutiny for citing nonexistent cases generated by the artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool ChatGPT has made national (and international) headlines. Late last month, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York sanctioned the attorneys and their firm $5,000. The court’s decision (Roberto Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (ECF No. 54)) provides a humbling reminder of both an attorney’s responsibilities in ensuring the accuracy of his or her filings, and the limits of certain technologies in the legal profession.
Recent Updates
- AI Standing Orders in Ohio Federal Courts: Scope and Proof of Violations
- The Courthouse Banned Your AI Glasses: What New York’s Smart Glasses Rule Means for Litigants and Counsel
- Fall 2026 SCOTUS Preview: Cases to Watch
- Same Trade Secret Dispute, Different Injunction Standards: PCC Airfoils v. Daugherty, et al., and Forum Choice in Ohio
- ABA and FWA: Compliance Best Practices