Judge Brantley Starr of the Texas federal court has taken measures to prevent the recurrence of a recent incident involving an attorney who allowed an AI to assist in legal research. To ensure that such incidents do not happen again in his courtroom, Judge Starr has introduced a new requirement for all attorneys appearing before him.
According to the new rule, attorneys must now affirm in writing that no part of their filing was generated by artificial intelligence (AI). If AI was used, they must confirm that a human being has thoroughly reviewed and verified its accuracy. The aim is to prevent the submission of misleading or fabricated information that could adversely affect the integrity of the court proceedings.
Last week, attorney Steven Schwartz made the mistake of incorporating content generated by ChatGPT, an AI language model, in a federal filing. This content consisted of six cases and relevant legal precedents, all of which were entirely fabricated by the AI. Schwartz now deeply regrets this decision. Although the extensive media coverage of this incident likely deterred other lawyers from attempting similar actions, Judge Starr is determined to reinforce the safeguard.
As a federal judge presiding over the Texas Northern District, Judge Starr has the authority to establish specific rules for his courtroom. Recently, he introduced the "Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence." While it is unclear whether this rule was implemented in response to the aforementioned filing, its purpose is clear. The news of this requirement was first reported by Eugene Volokh.
Under this rule, all attorneys appearing before the court are obliged to file a certificate on the docket. The certificate must affirm either that no part of their filing was generated by AI systems like ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard, or that any AI-generated language was thoroughly verified for accuracy by a human using reliable print sources or traditional legal databases.
A provided form enables lawyers to sign the certification, covering various aspects such as quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis. As AI excels in summarization and the identification of precedent or past cases, which can be valuable for legal work, it is anticipated that this certification requirement may come into play more frequently than anticipated.
The memorandum from Judge Starr's office addressing this matter demonstrates a keen understanding of the issue at hand. It includes a comprehensive and persuasive explanation of the necessity for this certification requirement, emphasizing the need to maintain the credibility and reliability of legal proceedings.
Комментарии