Lawyer Uses ChatGPT In Federal Court And It Goes Horribly Wrong

The Dreadful Day

It was one of those days. Everything seemed to be going wrong. Rebecca had already missed her train, spilled coffee on her shirt, and was on the verge of tears. To top it all off, she realized that she had forgotten her written notes in her office. She had to present an argument in a federal court in just a few hours, and she had no idea what to say.

Feeling desperate, she decided to use ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot that analyzes questions and generates answers. She had used it before to help draft briefs, and it had helped her greatly. Thinking it couldn't hurt, she typed in the question, seeking the best relevant response. She then copied and pasted the response verbatim onto her legal pad, ready to argue her case.

In five minutes, she was inside the courtroom. Nervous and stressed, she took a deep breath, stood up, and began presenting her argument. Everything was going fine until the presiding judge asked a simple question: "What case law supports your argument?"

Rebecca's heart fell. She had no idea what to say. Hesitantly, she turned to her legal pad and read the response she had gotten from ChatGPT. The judge looked at her incredulously and told her that her answer was not only irrelevant but also a cut-and-paste from a Wikipedia article. At that moment, Rebecca knew she was in serious trouble.

The Lesson Learned

Rebecca learned a valuable lesson that day: AI-powered chatbots are not substitutes for extensive research and analysis, particularly when involved in legal proceedings. Chatbots can be very helpful, but they should not be relied upon solely for legal advice.

Moreover, Rebecca's story illustrates the danger of over-reliance on technology. Technology should aid lawyers in their work, not replace them. Lawyers should not become complacent, relying on chatbots to do their jobs for them. The practice of law involves critical thinking and complex legal analysis and is one that should not be outsourced to technology.

In conclusion, technology can help lawyers dramatically improve their workflow and increase their productivity. However, it should never be used as a replacement for good judgment, legal thinking, and thorough research. Lawyers should always check the accuracy and relevance of any information they receive, whether it comes from a human or a chatbot. Ultimately, the practice of law is one that involves human skills and judgment and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

Quantifiable Examples

Rebecca's case is not an isolated instance. In a survey conducted by legal publisher Sweet & Maxwell, nearly 38% of the respondents believed that AI could replace lawyers in many areas of law. However, in the same survey, 61% of the respondents believed that legal providers could not be entirely replaced by AI.

Another study conducted by the European Patent Office found that AI-based systems were only able to predict the outcome of patent examination questions in 52-69% of cases, compared to 85-96% when humans attempted the same task. There is still a long way to go before chatbots like ChatGPT can rival the expertise and experience of human lawyers.

In practical terms, lawyers can use AI chatbots as a tool to augment their practice. Chatbots can help lawyers with tasks such as drafting basic legal documents, doing background research, and maintaining client communication. However, lawyers should also beware of specific ethical and practical considerations in using chatbots, such as privacy, data security, liability, and bias concerns.