“We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing, including respondents' counsel's unfounded insinuation that appellant's counsel "used ChatGPT to write [his] brief" without verifying the accuracy of cited case authorities. The court reminds respondents' counsel that, as an officer of the court, such representations must be substantiated, and without evidence, these insinuations can undermine trust and damage one's reputation (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.00] rule 3.3[a][1]). Counsel's response at oral argument when questioned about his claim was dismissive and his attempt to defend and modulate his accusatory contention was disingenuous.
Upon review of the cases relied upon by appellant, we find no support for respondents' counsel's position.”
Vanguard v 400 Times Sq

“…I consider that it would have been negligent for this barrister, if she used AI and did not check it, to put that text into her pleading.”

Mr Justice Ritchie

"Transparency, explainability, and fairness are becoming more than just regulatory buzzwords, as they’re likely to be the standards by which lenders are going to be judged in the years to come."

“...AI is already capable of providing reasonably accurate legal advice. Many of you will have tried some of the dedicated programmes offering advice on employment, property and other issues. They may be scary for lawyers, but they will not actually replace them, in my view at least, since many of the issues that arise concern the explanations that need to accompany legal advice. Persuading people to accept legal advice is a peculiarly human activity.”

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls

"…All legal representatives are responsible for the material they present before the court or tribunal and have a professional obligation to ensure its accuracy and appropriateness. Provided AI is used responsibly, there is no requirement for legal representatives to disclose its use, although this depends on the context.
However, until the legal profession becomes fully acquainted with these new technologies, it may occasionally be necessary to remind lawyers of their obligations and to confirm that they have independently verified the accuracy of any research or case citations generated with the assistance of an AI chatbot…"

“[26] It is important that Ms LJY, and other litigants before the Tribunal, understand that including non-existent information in submissions or other material filed in the Tribunal weakens their arguments. It raises issues about whether their submission can be considered as accurate and reliable. It may cause the Tribunal to be less trusting of other submissions which they make. It wastes the time for Tribunal members in checking and addressing these hallucinations. It causes a significant waste of public resources.” Judge Dann

Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary…