Attorneys who used ChatGPT to generate a motion riddled with inaccuracies and citations of non-existent laws and precedents were sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine. and made–up quotes were used in a plane crash insurance claim. While the judge acknowledged that the use of artificial intelligence in legal work is not inherently flawed, he ruled that attorneys must ensure the accuracy of their presentations. The law firm claimed that they did not act in bad faith, but that they made a mistake, as they were unaware that the chatbot could fabricate non-existent information and legal cases from scratch.

Technological advances are a natural part of every profession and there is nothing inherently wrong with using an artificial intelligence tool, as long as it is reliable, to simplify one’s work. But existing rules impose a supervisory role on lawyers to ensure the accuracy of everything they present in the courtroom

 Judge Kevin Castel ruled .

An obligation that would have been violated by the lawyers, despite themselves, protagonists of this story. “You have abandoned your role of responsibility, deciding to present non-existent jurisprudential citations”, reiterated the judge, who accused the lawyers of having blindly relied on “phrases invented from scratch by an artificial intelligence”. All things considered, the judge was lenient: at the material time, many had speculated that the lawyers of the Levidow firm risked being disbarred from the register.