Cases when AI is used in judicial and legislative practices of different countries by both judges and lawyers are happening more and more often, but not everyone is happy about it. Some judges even consider such use to be contempt of court. However, an attempt by a U.S. law firm to justify exorbitant fees by seeking advice from ChatGPT during a trial is definitely a new precedent in the field of law.

Cuddy Law from the United States, which handled a case regarding the Education of Persons with Disabilities Act, decided to ask ChatGPT how much money to take from its clients. The chatbot indicated the amount of $200-500 per hour, the lawyers thought “good, but not enough”, and billed clients for $113,484 (up to $600 per hour), changing the fee right during the trial. New York Court Judge Paul Engelmeier did not appreciate such creativity – more precisely, he did not rate it as highly as ChatGPT, called the AI justifications completely unconvincing and added that ChatGPT did not identify the data on the basis of which it drew its conclusions, which makes it difficult to assess its truthfulness and relevance.

In addition, Judge Engelmeier recalled fictional court cases, actually generated by AI, which gullible lawyers tried to pass off as precedents (the definition is similar to an oxymoron, but if lawyers say they believe ChatGPT, then how can you deny it?) and as a result, with a court decision, reduced the appetites of lawyers by more than half. And he advised not to refer to AI in the future to justify the amount of payment for services.

Літературний редактор.

Commentary