Another Judicial Order Related to Lawyer Use of Generative AI

An order governing filings before Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes (N.D. Ill.), adopted May 31 (paragraph breaks added):

The Court has adopted a new requirement in the fast-growing and fast-changing area of generative artificial intelligence ("AI") and its use in the practice of law. The requirement is as follows:

Any party using any generative AI tool in the preparation or drafting of documents for filing with the Court must disclose in the filing that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used to conduct legal research and/or to draft the document.

Further, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continues to apply, and the Court will continue to construe all filings as a certification, by the person signing the filed document and after reasonable inquiry, of the matters set forth in the rule, including but not limited to those in Rule 11(b)(2). Parties should not assume that mere reliance on an AI tool will be presumed to constitute reasonable inquiry, because, to quote a phrase, "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that …. This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (MetroGoldwyn-Mayer 1968). One way to jeopardize the mission of federal courts is to use an AI tool to generate legal research that includes "bogus judicial decisions" cited for substantive propositions of law. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC), 2023 WL 3966209, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023) (issuing show cause order where "[a] submission filed by plaintiff's counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss is replete with citations to nonexistent cases."); Mata, supra, Attorney Affidavit (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2023) (D.E. 32-1) (responding to show cause order by stating that the case authorities found by the district court to be nonexistent "were provided by Chat GPT which also provided its legal source and assured the reliability of its content.").

Just as the Court did before the advent of AI as a tool for legal research and drafting, the Court will continue to presume that the Rule 11 certification is a representation by filers, as living, breathing, thinking human beings, that they themselves have read and analyzed all cited authorities to ensure that such authorities actually exist and that the filings comply with Rule 11(b)(2). See Hon. Brantley Starr, "Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence [Standing Order]," (N.D. Tex.) (stating that unlike attorneys, "generative artificial intelligence … hold[s] no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth.")) (www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-brantley-starr) (last visited May 31, 2023).

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I think he should have thrown in a bogus citation, either his own or from ChatGPT, just to sink in the message.

Of course, I haven't checked his "Mata, supra, Attorney Affidavit (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2023) (D.E. 32-1)", so maybe he did.

[arch1]

It might be useful to require the tool user to specify
-the precise version number and release date of the tool
-if available, the nature and date of the most recent dataset used to train the tool

(To remind both users and the Court that e.g. AI-generated assertions concerning events happening after these dates deserve special scrutiny).

[The Turtle Dove]

"...for reason is the life of the law, nay the common law itselfe is nothing else but reason; which is to be understood of an artificiall perfection of reason, gotten by long study, observation, and experience, and not of every man’s naturall reason; for Nemo nascitur artifex. This legall reason est summa ratio. And therefore if all the reason that is dispersed into so many severall heads were united into one, yet could he not make such a law as the law in England is; because by many successions of ages it hath beene fined and refined by an infinite number of grave and learned men, and by long experience growne to such a perfection, for the government of this realme, as the old rule may be justly verified of it, Neminem oportet esse sapientorem legibus: no man out of his own private reason ought to be wiser than the law, which is the perfection of reason."

Co. Litt. 97.

(Via Bartleby's online, since cut & paste from Google Books is a bother.)

Mr. D.

[MikeVoj]

At the advent of computer-assisted case-checking tools, did federal judges require litigants to certify that they used Shepards Online, Lex Cite, or whatever tool? The Judge's rule will become pointless dicta when, by the end of the summer, the big two research apps all include generative AI in their features, so was this necessary?