Nobody could find the decisions or the quotations cited and summarised in the brief because ChatGPT had invented everything. Photograph: Gabby Jones/BloombergThe legal action began like so many others: A man named Roberto Mata sued the airline Avianca, saying he was injured when a metal serving cart struck his knee during a flight to Kennedy International Airport in New York.
The lawyer who created the brief, Steven Schwartz of the firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, threw himself on the mercy of the court, saying in an affidavit that he had used the artificial intelligence program to do his legal research — “a source that has revealed itself to be unreliable”.Mr Schwartz, who has practiced law in New York for three decades, told Judge P. Kevin Castel that he had no intent to deceive the court or the airline.
The real-life case of Roberto Mata v Avianca Inc shows that white-collar professions may have at least a little time left before the robots take over. The judge ordered Mr Mata’s attorneys to provide copies of the opinions referred to in their brief. The lawyers submitted a compendium of eight; in most cases, they listed the court and judges who issued them, the docket numbers and dates.The copy of the supposed Varghese decision, for example, is six pages long and says it was written by a member of a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit.
Mr LoDuca said in an affidavit this week that he did not conduct any of the research in question and that he had “no reason to doubt the sincerity” of Mr Schwartz’s work or the authenticity of the opinions.
Source: Law Daily Report (lawdailyreport.net)
Ireland Latest News, Ireland Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: IrishMirror - 🏆 4. / 98 Read more »
Source: businessposthq - 🏆 8. / 71 Read more »
Source: The42_ie - 🏆 5. / 86 Read more »
Source: businessposthq - 🏆 8. / 71 Read more »
Source: image_magazine - 🏆 17. / 59 Read more »
Source: thejournal_ie - 🏆 32. / 50 Read more »