The advent of AI-powered language models, such as ChatGPT, has revolutionised various industries, including the legal profession. These models can generate human-like text, making them valuable tools for legal research, drafting documents, and even assisting in litigation.
However, as the use of AI-powered language models becomes more prevalent in legal proceedings, the need for regulators and courts to establish controls and guidelines has become increasingly vital.
In the Mata v. Avianca, Inc. [1] case in the United States, the use of ChatGPT garnered significant attention within the legal community. It was discovered thatthe respondents relied extensively on ChatGPT and submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT.
During this particular case, the court argued that using AI for research purposes was not improper and technological advances were common, however, it noted ethical concerns about the unregulated use of AI and the accuracy of the research and subsequent legal filings. In the conclusion of the case, it was found that the respondents had neglected their responsibilities by relying on un-substantiated AI-generated research.
Similarly, in South Africa, in the recent case of Parker v. Forsyth N.O. and Others [2], lawyers were found to have used non-existent judgments generated by ChatGPT to support their client’s case. Magistrate Arvin Chaitman noted significant fictitious supporting material and arguments. The court went on to further highlight the importance of independent, traditional reading when it comes to legal research.
Based on our observations, we recognise that the use of AI technology will have a significant impact on the legal landscape, however, there is a need for professional bodies to govern its use. Attorneys or other legal practitioners still need to confirm the accuracy and validity of AI-generated sources and findings, to maintain competence in the legal field.
By implementing clear regulations, disclosure requirements, and judicial guidance, we can warrant the responsible and fair integration of AI in the legal profession while still upholding the principles of justice.
[1] Mata v. Avianca, Inc., F. Supp. 3d, 22-cv-1461 (PKC), 2023 WL 4114965, (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023)
[2] Parker v Forsyth N.O. and Others (1585/20) [2023] ZAGPRD 1 (29 June 2023)