How to Use ChatGPT to Ruin Your Legal Career

Summary

In this legal debacle, two attorneys, Schwartz and LoDuca, faced sanctions after using ChatGPT to generate fake case law for a federal filing. The AI-created cases were cited without verification, leading to significant errors and a dramatic court hearing. The lawyers failed to read the cases or cross-check their authenticity, relying entirely on ChatGPT, which ultimately generated non-existent cases. This incident highlights the dangers of using generative AI in legal work without understanding its limitations and the importance of thorough verification in professional research.

Takeaways

• 😀 Schwartz and LoDuca relied on ChatGPT to find legal cases for their federal court filing, but ended up citing fake cases that did not exist.
• 🤖 ChatGPT was used by Schwartz to supplement legal research, but he failed to verify the authenticity of the cases it provided.
• ⚖️ The court was furious after discovering the fabricated case law and called Schwartz and LoDuca to testify under oath about their actions.
• 📝 Schwartz filed an affidavit stating that he mistakenly relied on ChatGPT without realizing it could produce false information, which the court found unconvincing.
• 🔍 LoDuca admitted under oath that he did not read the cases he signed off on and had no idea they were fake.
• 🕵️‍♂️ The judge questioned Schwartz and LoDuca about their research process, revealing that they did not perform proper legal research or verify their sources.
• 🚨 The use of a false and fraudulent notarization in one of the affidavits was also flagged by the court, increasing the severity of the situation.
• 📚 Schwartz misrepresented ChatGPT as a search engine rather than a language model, which led to his failure to understand its limitations in providing accurate legal information.
• 💼 The case highlighted the critical importance of reading and verifying legal cases before citing them in court, especially when using AI tools.
• 📉 The court's investigation and the attorneys' testimonies revealed their lack of diligence and responsibility in performing legal research, which ultimately led to the potential for sanctions.

Q & A

What was the main legal issue in the case involving Schwartz and LoDuca?

The main issue was that Schwartz and LoDuca cited non-existent case law in a legal filing, which was fabricated by ChatGPT. This led to accusations of negligence and deception in their legal submission.

How did Schwartz justify using ChatGPT for legal research?

Schwartz claimed he thought ChatGPT was a search engine and that it was simply supplementing his research. He admitted to not verifying the cases it produced before citing them in his legal brief.

What role did LoDuca play in the case and what was his defense?

LoDuca signed off on the legal documents without verifying the cases cited. He admitted to not reading the cases or ensuring their authenticity, and he claimed he relied on Schwartz for the accuracy of the citations.

What did the court discover about the cases cited in the legal brief?

The court found that the cases cited in the brief were entirely fabricated by ChatGPT. The formatting was wrong, the judges and parties mentioned in the cases were incorrect, and the legal analysis was nonsensical.

How did the judge react to Schwartz and LoDuca's explanations during the hearing?

The judge was extremely critical and skeptical of both Schwartz and LoDuca's explanations. He caught Schwartz in multiple inconsistencies, and both attorneys were unable to provide satisfactory answers, leading to further scrutiny and potential sanctions.

What is the significance of the term *fremdschamen* introduced in the video?

*Fremdschamen* is a German term for secondhand embarrassment, and it was used to describe the feeling of shame one might experience when witnessing someone else's embarrassing actions, such as the mistakes made by Schwartz and LoDuca in court.

What did Schwartz admit about his use of ChatGPT in his legal research?

Schwartz admitted that he had never used ChatGPT for legal research before and did not realize that the AI could generate false or fabricated information. He believed ChatGPT was a valid tool for legal research but failed to verify the results it provided.

What is the potential consequence of using generative AI tools like ChatGPT without proper verification?

The potential consequence is the submission of incorrect, fabricated, or misleading information, which can mislead courts, damage professional credibility, and lead to legal sanctions or even disbarment.

What lessons can be drawn from this case for legal professionals using AI tools?

Legal professionals should always verify the information provided by AI tools like ChatGPT, as these tools are not infallible and can generate incorrect or fabricated data. Relying on AI without proper checks can lead to serious legal and professional consequences.

Why did LoDuca lie about going on vacation, and what was the result?

LoDuca falsely claimed he was going on vacation to justify delays in his response to the court's request for case citations. The lie was discovered, and the judge emphasized the importance of truthfulness in legal proceedings, especially when under oath.