The Utah court of appeals has sanctioned a lawyer after he was discovered to have used ChatGPT for a filing he made in which he referenced a nonexistent court case. Earlier this week, the Utah court of appeals made the decision to sanction Richard Bednar over claims that he filed a brief which included false citations. According to court documents reviewed by ABC4, Bednar and Douglas Durbano, another Utah-based lawyer who was serving as the petitioner's counsel, filed a "timely petition for interlocutory appeal". Upon reviewing the brief which was written by a law clerk, the respondent's counsel found several false citations of cases. "It appears that at least some portions of the Petition may be AI-generated, including citations and even quotations to at least one case that does not appear to exist in any legal database (and could only be found in ChatGPT and references to cases that are wholly unrelated to the referenced subject matter," the respondent's counsel said in documents reviewed by ABC4.

It's something that's drilled into you from the first essay you write in school: Always check your sources. Yet, New York attorney Steven Schwartz relied on ChatGPT to find and review them for him -- a decision that's led a judge to issue a $5,000 fine to him, his associate Peter LoDuca and their law firm Levidow, Levidow and Oberman, The Guardian reports. Schwartz used it for a case in which a man was suing Colombian airline Avianca alleging he was injured on a flight to New York City. In this case, ChatGPT produced six cases as precedent, such as "Martinez v. Delta Airlines" and "Miller v. United Airlines," that were either inaccurate or simply didn't exist. In the decision to fine Schwartz and co., Judge P Kevin Castel explained, "Technological advances are commonplace and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings."

A US judge has fined two lawyers and a law firm $5,000 (£3,935) after fake citations generated by ChatGPT were submitted in a court filing. A district judge in Manhattan ordered Steven Schwartz, Peter LoDuca and their law firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman to pay the fine after fictitious legal research was used in an aviation injury claim. Schwartz had admitted that ChatGPT, a chatbot that churns out plausible text responses to human prompts, invented six cases he referred to in a legal brief in a case against the Colombian airline Avianca. The judge P Kevin Castel said in a written opinion there was nothing "inherently improper" about using artificial intelligence for assisting in legal work, but lawyers had to ensure their filings were accurate. "Technological advances are commonplace and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance," Castel wrote.