Many people in the legal profession have embraced the emergence of generative AI (artificial intelligence). This technology makes certain routine tasks simpler and more efficient. However, generative AI has its limits. Attorneys who have allowed it to do too much of their work for them sometimes have submitted court documents with glaring inaccuracies. This has resulted in embarrassment and sometimes sanctions.
Now, it turns out that attorneys aren’t the only members of the profession who sometimes rely too heavily on the technology. Two federal judges withdrew orders in cases this summer after realizing that they contained major substantive errors. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley followed up earlier this month, suspecting that AI might have played a role in this bizarre turn of events.
Both judges recently confirmed in letters responding to Grassley that the errors resulted from AI use. Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey said that a law school student working for him as an intern had used the popular ChatGPT model produced by OpenAI to do legal research. Neal explained that this violated his AI policy. However, he had communicated this policy only verbally to his staff. Neal now has put it in writing to avoid these types of mistakes moving forward.
Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi said that a law clerk used an AI tool called Perplexity to help them draft the ruling. He noted that the clerk didn’t put any confidential information into the tool. Wingate said that the opinion hadn’t gone through his usual review process before posting. He also explained that he will now require a second law clerk to review these rulings before they reach him.
The judges deserve credit for their candid explanations and careful efforts to prevent these problems from recurring. However, these incidents serve as a cautionary tale for judges and their staff. As much as generative AI can help in some areas, it doesn’t substitute for the research and analytical skills of trained legal professionals. Anyone using it, whether a lawyer, a judge, or someone who assists them, should proceed with caution and carefully check materials for which they’ve used AI before finalizing them.
Photo Credit: Merch Hub / Shutterstock.com