Lord Justice Birss employs AI chatbot in unprecedented use by British judge to draft a portion of judgment
In a noteworthy development, a court of appeal judge, specializing in intellectual property law, utilized ChatGPT to generate a summary of a legal area. Lord Justice Birss, impressed by the artificial intelligence-powered chatbot, deemed it “jolly useful” after receiving a satisfactory paragraph in response to his request.
During a Law Society conference, he expressed that generative large language models possess “real potential,” as reported by The Law Gazette. He emphasized the utility of these models in summarizing information, stating, “It is useful and it will be used, and I can tell you, I have used it.
I am fully accountable for the content in my judgment; I’m not deflecting responsibility. ChatGPT performed a task I was about to do, providing an answer I recognized as acceptable.
This marks the inaugural use of ChatGPT by a British judge to contribute to a judgment.
In June, Sir Geoffrey Vos, master of the rolls and head of civil justice, proposed the need for legal regulators and courts to oversee lawyers’ use of AI systems like ChatGPT. He emphasized the necessity for mechanisms to address the incorporation of generative AI within the legal system.
In Colombia, a judge acknowledged employing ChatGPT to determine whether an insurance policy for an autistic child should cover the entirety of his medical treatment expenses.
Juan Manuel Padilla, the judge in Cartagena, on the Caribbean coast, ruled in favor of the child, stating that the medical plan should cover both the medical expenses and transportation costs, considering the financial constraints of the child’s parents.
Padilla utilized the AI tool to pose specific legal queries, such as, “Is an autistic minor exempt from fees for their therapies?”
The ChatGPT response aligned with the judge’s ultimate decision.
In New York, two attorneys faced fines for utilizing ChatGPT in their case.
While handling a personal injury case against the airline Avianca, the attorneys, Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca from the law firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, faced fines for presenting a legal brief with fabricated case citations generated by ChatGPT. District Judge Peter Kevin Castel in Manhattan stated that the lawyers had provided the court with false and misleading statements.
Though the judge acknowledged the legitimacy of utilizing dependable AI tools for support, he asserted that the lawyers and their firm had neglected their duties. They had submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fabricated quotes and citations from the AI tool ChatGPT. Furthermore, they persisted in maintaining the authenticity of these fabricated opinions even after the court questioned their existence.
Rosie Burbidge, an intellectual property partner at Gunnercooke LLP, expressed, “AI, including chatbots, presents a significant opportunity for the legal profession, including judges.
Nevertheless, attorneys must be cautious about various risks, including the potential sharing of confidential information, unintentional waiver of privilege, and the peril of relinquishing ownership of crucial intellectual property assets, such as standard precedents.