Lord Justice Birss employed an AI chatbot to assist in crafting a judgment, marking the first known instance by a British judge
A Court of Appeal judge utilized ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot, to deliver a legal summary and expressed its usefulness. Lord Justice Birss, an expert in intellectual property law, requested an area of law summary from the AI tool, which provided a satisfactory paragraph as a response. During a Law Society conference, he highlighted the significant potential of generative large language models, as reported by The Law Gazette.
What I find particularly intriguing is the ability to request information summaries from these extensive language models. It proves beneficial, and I can attest to personally using it,” he stated.
“I bear full responsibility for the content of my judgment; I’m not attempting to delegate responsibility to anyone else. ChatGPT simply performed a task I was about to undertake, and I recognized its response as acceptable.”
This marks the inaugural instance of a British judge employing ChatGPT to contribute to a judgment.
Back in June, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls and head of civil justice, raised concerns about the use of AI systems like ChatGPT in the legal profession. He suggested that legal regulators and courts might need to establish control measures and mechanisms for handling generative AI within the legal system.
In Colombia, a judge has openly acknowledged the use of ChatGPT to determine whether an autistic child’s medical insurance should cover the entirety of their treatment expenses.
Judge Juan Manuel Padilla, situated in the Caribbean city of Cartagena, concluded that the child’s medical and transportation costs should be covered by the insurance plan, considering the parents’ financial constraints.
Padilla posed specific legal inquiries to the AI tool, such as, “Is an autistic minor exempt from therapy fees?” The response from ChatGPT aligned with the judge’s ultimate decision.
In New York, two attorneys faced fines for utilizing ChatGPT to assist with a legal case.
The attorneys were handling a personal injury lawsuit against the airline Avianca for their client. They presented a legal document containing fabricated case references generated by ChatGPT.
Peter Kevin Castel, a district judge in Manhattan, accused Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca from the law firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman of making false and deceptive statements to the court.
While the judge acknowledged that utilizing reliable AI tools for assistance was not inherently “inappropriate,” he contended that the lawyers and their firm had neglected their responsibilities when they submitted fictitious judicial opinions containing fabricated quotes and references created by the AI tool ChatGPT. Furthermore, they continued to assert the authenticity of these fabricated opinions even after the court questioned their validity.
Rosie Burbidge, an intellectual property partner at Gunnercooke LLP, emphasized that AI, including chatbots, presents significant opportunities for the legal profession, including judges. However, lawyers must remain cautious of various risks, including the potential disclosure of confidential information, waiver of privilege, and the risk of losing ownership of critical intellectual property assets like standard legal precedents.
