By now, we’re all familiar with the travails of lawyers who use gen AI to draft court papers, but fail to check them and file briefs including fake cases, as well as other significant maladies, resulting from AI hallucinations and being sanctioned for their carelessness. Out of Brazil, however, comes a new twist: according to media
As fearsome as Godzilla has proven to be over the decades, the indomitable kaiju may have found its foil in Japanese copyright law. A Tokyo court recently found several individuals guilty of violating Japanese law for publishing spoiler-heavy posts, including in relation to a recent Godzilla movie, on an entertainment review website. The penalty for
In our recent webinar, “Trade Secrets Audits: Strengthening Your Company’s IP Protection,” Seyfarth’s Intellectual Property Partner, Lauren Leipold, along with Trade Secret Attorneys Eddy Salcedo and James Yu, shared essential strategies for enhancing IP protection in today’s complex landscape. As corporate espionage and data breaches become increasingly prevalent, the session provided valuable insights on effective
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific
For more information and to register, click here.
In a world where corporate espionage and data breaches are increasingly common, protecting your company’s
We previously wrote about the widely-publicized Southern District of New York case involving lawyers who submitted papers citing non-existent cases generated by the artificial intelligence program ChatGPT, Mata v. Avianca, Inc. The judge overseeing the matter held a lengthy, and tense, hearing on June 8, 2023, before a packed courtroom, and then issued a decision on June 22, 2023 sanctioning the lawyers involved. The case has grabbed attention by highlighting some of the real risks of using AI in the legal profession, but the case’s primary lessons have nothing to do with AI.
On June 8, 2023, the judge in the Mata case held a hearing on the issue of whether to sanction two of plaintiff’s lawyers, and the law firm at which they worked, for their conduct. The courtroom was filled to capacity, with many would-be observers directed to an overflow courtroom to watch a video feed of the hearing.
As set forth in our prior update, the plaintiff’s first lawyer submitted an affirmation on March 1, 2023, in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was written by the second lawyer, but contained citations to non-existent cases. Thereafter, the defendant pointed out that it could not find these cases in a filing on March 15, and the Court issued an order on April 11 directing the plaintiff’s lawyer to submit an affidavit attaching the identified cases. The first lawyer did so on April 25 (attaching some of the “cases”, and admitting he could not find others), but did not reveal that all of the identified cases were obtained via ChatGPT. Only after the Court issued a further order on May 4 directing the lawyer to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for citing non-existent cases did the first lawyer finally reveal the involvement of the second lawyer and the role of ChatGPT in the preparation of the submissions.
Continue Reading Update on the ChatGPT Case: Counsel Who Submitted Fake Cases Are Sanctioned
You may have recently seen press reports about lawyers who filed and submitted papers to the federal district court for the Southern District of New York that included citations to cases and decisions that, as it turned out, were wholly made up; they did not exist. The lawyers in that case used the generative artificial