https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/23/two-us-lawyers-fined-submitting-fake-court-citations-chatgpt [p] Skip to main contentSkip to navigation Print subscriptions Sign in Search jobs Search US edition[ ] * US edition * UK edition * Australia edition * International edition The Guardian - Back to homeThe Guardian [ ] * News * Opinion * Sport * Culture * Lifestyle ShowMoreShow More * [ ]News + View all News + US news + World news + Environment + Soccer + US politics + Business + Tech + Science + Newsletters + Fight for democracy * [ ]Opinion + View all Opinion + The Guardian view + Columnists + Letters + Opinion videos + Cartoons * [ ]Sport + View all Sport + Soccer + NFL + Tennis + MLB + MLS + NBA + NHL + F1 + Golf * [ ]Culture + View all Culture + Film + Books + Music + Art & design + TV & radio + Stage + Classical + Games * [ ]Lifestyle + View all Lifestyle + Fashion + Food + Recipes + Love & sex + Home & garden + Health & fitness + Family + Travel + Money * Search input [ ] google-search Search + Support us + Print subscriptions * [ ]US edition + UK edition + Australia edition + International edition * + Search jobs + Digital Archive + Guardian Puzzles app + Guardian Licensing + The Guardian app + Video + Podcasts + Pictures + Inside the Guardian + Guardian Weekly + Crosswords + Wordiply + Corrections * + Facebook + Twitter * + Search jobs + Digital Archive + Guardian Puzzles app + Guardian Licensing * US * World * Environment * Soccer * US Politics * Business * Tech * Science * Newsletters * Fight for democracy The ChatGPT app displayed on an iPhone screen [ ] The judge said one of the fake decisions had 'some traits that are superficially consistent with actual judicial decisions' but other portions contained 'gibberish' and were 'nonsensical'. Photograph: Richard Drew/AP The judge said one of the fake decisions had 'some traits that are superficially consistent with actual judicial decisions' but other portions contained 'gibberish' and were 'nonsensical'. Photograph: Richard Drew/AP ChatGPT Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT Law firm also penalised after chatbot invented six legal cases that were then used in an aviation injury claim Dan Milmo and agency Fri 23 Jun 2023 05.14 EDTLast modified on Fri 23 Jun 2023 12.59 EDT * * * A US judge has fined two lawyers and a law firm $5,000 (PS3,935) 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. "But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings." The judge said the lawyers and their firm "abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted nonexistent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question." Levidow, Levidow & Oberman said in a statement on Thursday that its lawyers "respectfully" disagreed with the court that they had acted in bad faith. "We made a good-faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth," it said. Lawyers for Schwartz told Reuters he declined to comment. LoDuca did not immediately reply to a request from Reuters for comment, and his lawyer said they were reviewing the decision. ChatGPT had suggested several cases involving aviation mishaps that Schwartz had not been able to find through usual methods used at his law firm. Several of those cases were not real, misidentified judges or involved airlines that did not exist. Chatbots such as ChatGPT, developed by the US firm OpenAI, can be prone to "hallucinations" or inaccuracies. In one example ChatGPT falsely accused an American law professor of sexual harassment and cited a nonexistent Washington Post report in the process. In February a promotional video for Google's rival to ChatGPT, Bard, gave an inaccurate answer to a query about the James Webb space telescope, raising concerns that the search company had been too hasty in launching a riposte to OpenAI's breakthrough. Chatbots are trained on a vast trove of data taken from the internet, although the sources are not available in many cases. Operating like a predictive text tool, they build a model to predict the likeliest word or sentence to come after a user's prompt. This means factual errors are possible, but the human-seeming response can sometimes convince users that the answer is correct. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to TechScape Free weekly newsletter Alex Hern's weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion The judge said one of the fake decisions generated by the chatbot had "some traits that are superficially consistent with actual judicial decisions" but that other portions contained "gibberish" and were "nonsensical". In a separate written opinion, the judge threw out the underlying aviation claim, saying the statute of limitations had expired. Reuters and Associated Press contributed to this report Topics * ChatGPT * Chatbots * OpenAI * news * * * * * * Reuse this content More on this story More on this story * [4997] AI watch: from Wimbledon to job losses in journalism 11h ago * [3573] Wimbledon to introduce AI-powered commentary to coverage this year 2d ago * [3500] German tabloid Bild cuts 200 jobs and says some roles will be replaced by AI 3d ago * [6409] British film board turns to AI to help spot bad language, sex and violence 15 Jun 2023 * [6000] EU moves closer to passing one of world's first laws governing AI 14 Jun 2023 * [5315] Discrimination is a bigger AI risk than human extinction - EU commissioner 14 Jun 2023 * [4146] 'Late in the game': Sunak and Starmer in policy scramble as AI surges ahead 9 Jun 2023 * [5447] Rishi Sunak's AI summit: what is its aim, and is it really necessary? 9 Jun 2023 Most viewed Most viewed * US * World * Environment * Soccer * US Politics * Business * Tech * Science * Newsletters * Fight for democracy * News * Opinion * Sport * Culture * Lifestyle Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning Sign up for our email * About us * Help * Complaints & corrections * SecureDrop * Work for us * Privacy policy * Cookie policy * Terms & conditions * Contact us * All topics * All writers * Digital newspaper archive * Facebook * YouTube * Instagram * LinkedIn * Twitter * Newsletters * Advertise with us * Guardian Labs * Search jobs Back to top (c) 2023 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. (modern)