From Choose Paul Engelmayer’s order Thursday in J.G. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Ed. (S.D.N.Y.), deciding on legal professional charges to be awarded beneath the People with Disabilities Schooling Act:
The Cuddy Legislation Agency additionally states that its requested hourly charges are supported by suggestions it obtained from the synthetic intelligence instrument “ChatGPT-4.”
In equity, the Cuddy Legislation Agency doesn’t predominantly depend on ChatGPT-4 in advocating for these billing charges. It as an alternative presents ChatGPT-4 as a “cross-check” supporting the problematic sources above. As such, the Courtroom needn’t dwell at size on this level.
It suffices to say that the Cuddy Legislation Agency’s invocation of ChatGPT as assist for its aggressive price bid is totally and unusually unpersuasive. Because the agency ought to have appreciated, treating ChatGPT’s conclusions as a helpful gauge of the affordable billing charge for the work of a lawyer with a selected background finishing up a bespoke task for a consumer in a distinct segment observe space was misbegotten on the bounce.
In two current instances, courts within the Second Circuit have reproved counsel for counting on ChatGPT, the place ChatGPT proved unable to differentiate between actual and fictitious case citations. In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Choose Castel sanctioned attorneys who “deserted their obligations once they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with pretend quotes and citations created by the synthetic intelligence instrument ChatGPT.” And in Park v. Kim, the Second Circuit referred an legal professional to the Circuit’s Grievance Panel for additional investigation after discovering that her temporary relied on “non-existent authority” generated by ChatGPT.
In claiming right here that ChatGPT helps the price award it urges, the Cuddy Legislation Agency doesn’t determine the inputs on which ChatGPT relied. It doesn’t reveal whether or not any of those have been equally imaginary. It doesn’t reveal whether or not ChatGPT anyplace thought-about a really actual and related information level: the uniform bloc of precedent, canvassed beneath, by which courts on this District and Circuit have rejected as extreme the billing charges the Cuddy Legislation Agency urges for its timekeepers.
The Courtroom subsequently rejects out of hand ChatGPT’s conclusions as to the suitable billing charges right here. Barring a paradigm shift within the reliability of this instrument, the Cuddy Legislation Agency is properly suggested to excise references to ChatGPT from future price functions.
