Following up on my previous post, New York Times, Here’s What Happens When A Lawyer Uses ChatGPT:
Eugene Volokh (UCLA; Google Scholar), Federal Judge Requires All Lawyers to File Certificates Related to Use of Generative AI:
The certificates must "attest[] either that no portion of the filing was drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence was checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being."
David Lat (Original Jurisdiction), Judge of the Week: Judge Brantley Starr:
Remember the debacle I discussed last week involving lawyers who filed a brief replete with multiple citations to fake cases, courtesy of ChatGPT? One judge is already taking action to prevent that from happening in his court.
As reported by Professor Eugene Volokh, Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.) issued a standing order for a “Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence” … Judge Starr identified two problems with AI tools: “hallucinations,” when they just make stuff up, and bias, when they “act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle.”
Judge Starr’s order generated ample buzz, positive and negative.
Experts who spoke to Jack Karp of Law360 sounded mostly positive. For example, Professor Maura Grossman said that “it was a swift reaction for sure, but understandable, given that we cannot expect busy judges to check every citation or source in the papers they receive.” On the critical side, lawyer and legal commentator Carolyn Elefant wrote on LinkedIn, “I completely disagree with this judge’s ridiculous requirement…. Why single out Chat GPT or other AI for this treatment?” She argued that the order “does nothing that Rule 11 doesn’t already address,” but instead “will stymie innovation and scare lawyers from using a powerful tool. We should not be applauding this judge, but unfortunately, many ethics regulators will probably follow his lead.”
I fall somewhere in between. … Could complying with Judge Starr’s standing order serve as a helpful reminder to some lawyers about the need to double-check any work product generated by AI? Possibly. But my guess is that it will mostly generate unnecessary paperwork, with the burdens outweighing the benefits.
Judge Brantley Starr, Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence:
All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must, together with their notice of appearance, file on the docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being. These platforms are incredibly powerful and have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests, suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral argument. But legal briefing is not one of them. Here’s why. These platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up—even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle. Any party believing a platform has the requisite accuracy and reliability for legal briefing may move for leave and explain why. Accordingly, the Court will strike any filing from a party who fails to file a certificate on the docket attesting that they have read the Court’s judge-specific requirements and understand that they will be held responsible under Rule 11 for the contents of any filing that they sign and submit to the Court, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing. A template Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements is provided here.
- ARS Technica, Federal Judge: No AI in My Courtroom Unless a Human Verifies Its Accuracy
- Bloomberg Law, Attorneys Must Certify AI Policy Compliance, Judge Orders
- Courthouse News Service, Texas Federal Judge Forces Lawyers to Sign Pledge Against Using AI in Filings
- Fortune, ‘Prone to Hallucinations and Bias’: A Texas Judge Puts A.I. In Its Place
- The Hill, Texas Judge Bans Legal Filings That Rely on AI-Generated Content
- Law360, Texas Judge's AI Order Not Unreasonable, And Not The Last
- Reuters, Judge Orders Lawyers to Sign AI Pledge, Warning Chatbots 'Make Stuff Up'
- Tech Crunch, No ChatGPT in My Court: Judge Orders All AI-Generated Content Must Be Declared and Checked
