Generative AI in the Courts - The Business Risks

 Many, especially in law firms, are aware that what generative AI produces can be inaccurate. At this phase of its development - ChatGPT had been released November 2022 - those in-the-know know to verify all results. The accuracy situation is such that some law firms even block the use of AI chatbots by their lawyers.

 

Well, those-in-the-know recently discovered that the situation goes beyond unreliable data. That's through the saga of Steven A. Schwartz of the law firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman. Both he and the firm face possible sanctions in June by Judge Kevin Castel.

 

That is related to the first time Schwartz used ChatGPT. It was in personal injury case filed by plaintiff Roberto Mata against Columbian airliner Aviance. The defendant contended the statute of limitations had passed. 

 

ChatGPT cited three airline-related court cases. Schwartz included them in his brief. They turned out to be fabrications, that is, they don't exist. When Schwartz "interrogated" the generative AI platform about the validity of what it had dug out in its research, it downright lied. 

 

Yahoo Finance reports:

 

"He [Schwartz] said he even pressed the AI to confirm that the cases it cited were real. ChatGPT confirmed it was. Schwartz then asked the AI for its source.

"ChatGPT's response? 'I apologize for the confusion earlier,' it said. The AI then said the Varghese case could be located in the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases."

 

How Judge Castel treats this situation could disrupt how law firms manage AI chatbots. Right now law firm chairs and senior partners, typically risk-averse players, might be pressing "pause" on the pace of implementing generative AI or for introducing the technology in the first place. 

 

However, simultaneously those law firms which have Artificial Intelligence practices (whether those use generative AI as a tool or not) could become in-demand. They could be contracted to defend those who find themselves in the kind of pickle Schwartz and Levidow are in. Those include Gibson Dunn, Mintz, Epstein Becker, Quinn Emanuel, and Paul Weiss. 

 

In addition, the SCOTUS decision in "Andy Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith" raises questions about copyright and fair use. Those introduce plenty of legal ambiguity. Here is a copy of the opinion. 

 

Small business could be scared off from using the graphic functions of ChatGPT4. Meanwhile it's small business which could achieve major cost-control by producing promotional imagery through generative AI. In my coaching practice I have flagged business owners about the risks. 

 

Generative AI can evolve into the kind of legal battlefield ESG issues have, as with Disney. 

 

What is your career story? Or, what do you assume it is? That narrative may be ot-of-date and holding you back.

Take advantage of a complimentary consultation. Please contact intuitive career coach Jane Genova at janegenova374@gmail.com or text 203-468-8579.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Kirkland & Ellis Reported to Be Building Moat Around Firm to Deter Poaching of Stars

Akin Gump Julia Ghahramani's March 2021 Cocaine+ Death - So?

Up-or-Out: McKinsey Raises the Pressure, In Contrast Some Law Firms Ease It through Nonequity Partner Tier