That is the fault of the affiant, in not confirming the sources provided by Chat GPT of the legal opinions it provided.ġ0.
That your affiant has never utilized Chat GPT as a source for conducting legal research prior to this occurrence and therefore was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.ġ1. That your affiant relied on the legal opinions provided to him by a source that has revealed itself to be unreliable.ġ0. Excerpts from the queries presented and responses provided are attached hereto.ĩ. That the citations and opinions in question were provided by Chat GPT which also provided its legal source and assured the reliability of its content. It was in consultation with the generative artificial intelligence website Chat GPT, that your affiant did locate and cite the following cases in the affirmation in opposition submitted, which this Court has found to be nonexistent: …Ĩ. As the use of generative artificial intelligence has evolved within law firms, your affiant consulted the artificial intelligence website Chat GPT in order to supplement the legal research performed.ħ. The court therefore ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned and on Thursday, plaintiff's counsel filed an affidavit in response, explaining that he was relying on the work of another lawyer at his firm, and the other lawyer (who had 30 years of practice experience) also filed an affidavit, explaining that he was relying on ChatGPT:Ħ. The following five decisions submitted by plaintiff's counsel contain similar deficiencies and appear to be fake as well …. The bogus "Varghese" decision contains internal citations and quotes, which, in turn, are non-existent: … Neither Westlaw nor Lexis has the case, and the case found at 925 F.3d 1339 is A.D. 18-13694, is for a case captioned George Cornea v.
He further states that the docket number appearing on the "opinion" furnished by plaintiff's counsel, Docket No. The Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in response to this Court's inquiry, has confirmed that there has been no such case before the Eleventh Circuit with a party named Vargese or Varghese at any time since 2010, i.e., the commencement of that Court's present ECF system.
Plaintiff's counsel, in response to the Court's Order, filed a copy of the decision, or at least an excerpt therefrom. In support of his position that there was tolling of the statute of limitation under the Montreal Convention by reason of a bankruptcy stay, the plaintiff's submission leads off with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Varghese v China South Airlines Ltd, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. The Court begins with a more complete description of what is meant by a nonexistent or bogus opinion. Set forth below is an Order to show cause why plaintiff's counsel ought not be sanctioned. Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations. When the circumstance was called to the Court's attention by opposing counsel, the Court issued Orders requiring plaintiff's counsel to provide an affidavit annexing copies of certain judicial opinions of courts of record cited in his submission, and he has complied. A submission filed by plaintiff's counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss is replete with citations to non-existent cases. The Court is presented with an unprecedented circumstance. From Judge Kevin Castel (S.D.N.Y.)'s May 4 order in Mata v.
0 kommentar(er)
