Co-author Emily Morris*

Last month Tilting blogged about Peter LoDuca, Steven A. Schwartz and their New York law firm who New York Federal Judge Kevin Castel chastised for submitting non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT. Worse yet, they continued to stand by the fake opinions after Judge Castel challenged their brief. Though LoDuca and Schwartz claimed they were “unaware of the possibility that [ChatGPT’s] content could be false,” Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered them to appear earlier this month to evaluate whether sanctions were warranted.Continue Reading Lawyers and ChatGPT — Averting a Possible Disaster

Claiming that he was injured when a metal serving cart struck his knee during a flight from El Salvador to New York in 2019, Robert Mata recently sued Avianca Airlines. Avianca filed a motion to dismiss in New York federal court arguing the lawsuit was too late; the statute of limitations had expired. Vehemently objecting, Mata’s lawyers filed a 10-page reply brief citing more than half a dozen apparently-relevant court decisions. Among them was Varghese v. China Southern Airlines which purported to offer a learned discussion of federal law and “the tolling effect of the automatic stay on a statute of limitations.” What if none of Mata’s reply brief was true?Continue Reading Legal Research Gone Wrong: A Cautionary Tale About Relying on ChatGPT