Lawyer Uses AI Tool in Court Case, Fails to Verify Cited Cases, Sanctioned for $59,000.
A former lawyer and her law firm have been sanctioned nearly $60,000 for improperly using artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT in a court case. The case involves the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), which was sued by two families whose children were poisoned by lead paint in their homes.
The lawyer, Danielle Malaty, used ChatGPT to generate a legal motion, but failed to verify the accuracy of the cited cases. As a result, the CHA's opposing counsel argued that some of the citations were fictional and had no basis in law. The court eventually ruled in favor of the families, awarding them more than $24 million in damages.
Malaty was fired from her law firm after discovering the error. However, the firm Goldberg Segalla was sanctioned for $49,500 and its lawyer Larry Mason was fined $10,000. The sanctions were imposed by Cook County Circuit Judge Thomas Cushing, who criticized Goldberg Segalla's conduct as a "serious failure" of professionalism.
The CHA was not penalized in this case, but the agency has taken steps to address its own lead exposure issues and improve its safety standards for residents. The agency has also implemented new measures to educate its lawyers on proper AI use policies and to prevent similar mistakes in the future.
In other news, a jury recently ruled that two families whose children were poisoned by lead paint should receive an additional $8 million in attorney's fees. The CHA will be responsible for paying this amount, which brings the total damages awarded to the agency to over $32 million.
The case highlights the importance of verifying the accuracy of cited cases and sources when using AI tools in legal work. It also underscores the need for lawyers and law firms to prioritize professionalism and take responsibility for their mistakes.
Meanwhile, Goldberg Segalla has been required to implement "firm-wide measures" to re-educate its attorneys on its AI use policy. The firm has also established "preventative measures" to prevent similar mistakes in the future. However, some critics have expressed concerns that these measures may not be enough to ensure compliance with court standards.
The case also raises questions about the role of AI tools in legal work and their potential impact on accuracy and fairness. As AI technology continues to evolve and become more widely used in law firms and courts, it is likely that we will see more cases like this in the future.
A former lawyer and her law firm have been sanctioned nearly $60,000 for improperly using artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT in a court case. The case involves the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), which was sued by two families whose children were poisoned by lead paint in their homes.
The lawyer, Danielle Malaty, used ChatGPT to generate a legal motion, but failed to verify the accuracy of the cited cases. As a result, the CHA's opposing counsel argued that some of the citations were fictional and had no basis in law. The court eventually ruled in favor of the families, awarding them more than $24 million in damages.
Malaty was fired from her law firm after discovering the error. However, the firm Goldberg Segalla was sanctioned for $49,500 and its lawyer Larry Mason was fined $10,000. The sanctions were imposed by Cook County Circuit Judge Thomas Cushing, who criticized Goldberg Segalla's conduct as a "serious failure" of professionalism.
The CHA was not penalized in this case, but the agency has taken steps to address its own lead exposure issues and improve its safety standards for residents. The agency has also implemented new measures to educate its lawyers on proper AI use policies and to prevent similar mistakes in the future.
In other news, a jury recently ruled that two families whose children were poisoned by lead paint should receive an additional $8 million in attorney's fees. The CHA will be responsible for paying this amount, which brings the total damages awarded to the agency to over $32 million.
The case highlights the importance of verifying the accuracy of cited cases and sources when using AI tools in legal work. It also underscores the need for lawyers and law firms to prioritize professionalism and take responsibility for their mistakes.
Meanwhile, Goldberg Segalla has been required to implement "firm-wide measures" to re-educate its attorneys on its AI use policy. The firm has also established "preventative measures" to prevent similar mistakes in the future. However, some critics have expressed concerns that these measures may not be enough to ensure compliance with court standards.
The case also raises questions about the role of AI tools in legal work and their potential impact on accuracy and fairness. As AI technology continues to evolve and become more widely used in law firms and courts, it is likely that we will see more cases like this in the future.
they're supposed to be thier own ppl not relying on a machine 2 do all the work 4 them... and now thry firm is gonna have 2 pay $59k cuz of it... what's next? are we just gonna let lawyers use AI toolz without checking if dey even know what dey're talking about?? 
. But seriously, it's all about being professional and taking responsibility for your work, you know? And it's not just about AI tools, but also verifying sources and making sure what you're saying is true 
.
. It's not just about using AI tools, it's about verifying facts and being transparent in your work 
. And I'm glad to see that Goldberg Segalla is taking steps to re-educate its attorneys, but we'll have to wait and see if it's enough 
.
. And yeah, I get that mistakes can happen, but $59k is pretty steep 
. The fact that Goldberg Segalla didn't even bother to verify those cases is just unacceptable 
.
. Instead of owning up and fixing the problem, they're just trying to brush it under the rug 
.
. We need to make sure that lawyers and law firms are using AI tools in a way that doesn't compromise justice 
. It's all about being transparent and honest 
.
.
But seriously, this is a huge red flag for law firms and lawyers everywhere. Like, what if this happens in a real trial? The whole case could be ruined! 
It's like they said, "professionalism" is key here. Firms need to step up their game and make sure their attorneys are using AI tools responsibly. And yeah, the CHA getting off scot-free is weird... but I guess that's just how it goes sometimes 
crazy talk! I mean, I know they're trying to stay ahead of the curve with AI tech, but not at the expense of accuracy and professionalism 
The fact that the firm was fined $10k is just a drop in the bucket compared to the damage control they need to do here 
.
, but also about accountability 
. The firm Goldberg Segalla should've done better research 
before relying on ChatGPT 
! This case highlights the importance of responsible AI use in law 
. Fingers crossed 
that future cases will be handled with more caution 
Anyway, the fact that ChatGPT was used in the first place raises so many questions about trust and accountability in the legal system. How can we really know what's going on if we're relying on machines for our arguments? 
... its not just about getting the job done, u gotta make sure its done right! I mean, lawyers r supposed 2 be experts in their field, so how can they trust some AI tool more than themselves? Goldberg Segalla should've double checked those citations before submitting them to court. And now they're facing the consequences 
.
. I guess you could say Goldberg Segalla got a little too caught up in trying to be all tech-savvy and lost sight of what's really important: accuracy and professionalism 
.
. It's not just about the money; it's about maintaining trust and integrity in the legal system 
. Time to bring it back down to earth and focus on the facts 
its like, so unfair that they only got $24 million instead of $32 million 
. And what about all the cases where humans just make mistakes? Shouldn't we be focusing on actual competence rather than AI tool proficiency? 
... anyway, so this lawyer thingy with the AI tool... yeah I don't get why they didn't fact check first? Like, what's the point of using AI if you're not gonna make sure it's right? 