The judge praises ChatGPT as “highly beneficial” for legal summarization

Lord Justice Birss utilized an AI chatbot to aid in composing a judgment, representing the initial documented case involving a British judge

A judge from the Court of Appeal utilized ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot, to generate a legal summary and acknowledged its utility. Lord Justice Birss, an authority in intellectual property law, sought a summary on a specific legal area from the AI tool, receiving a satisfactory paragraph in response. He emphasized the substantial potential of generative large language models during a Law Society conference, as reported by The Law Gazette.

What captures my interest is the capability to seek information summaries from these expansive language models. It proves advantageous, and I can personally vouch for its use,” he remarked.

I take complete responsibility for the content of my judgment; I am not trying to shift responsibility to anyone else. ChatGPT merely carried out a task I was about to undertake, and I deemed its response acceptable.

This represents the first occurrence of a British judge utilizing ChatGPT to contribute to a judgment.

In June, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls and head of civil justice, expressed reservations about the utilization of AI systems like ChatGPT in the legal profession. He proposed that legal regulators and courts might need to establish control measures and mechanisms for managing generative AI within the legal system.

In Colombia, a judge has openly acknowledged using ChatGPT to assess whether an autistic child’s medical insurance should cover the entirety of their treatment expenses.

Judge Juan Manuel Padilla, based in the Caribbean city of Cartagena, determined that the insurance plan should cover the medical and transportation expenses of the child, taking into account the financial limitations of the parents.

Padilla directed specific legal queries to the AI tool, such as, “Is an autistic minor exempt from therapy fees?” The response from ChatGPT aligned with the judge’s final decision.

In New York, two attorneys encountered fines for employing ChatGPT to aid in a legal case.

The attorneys were handling a personal injury lawsuit against the airline Avianca for their client. They submitted a legal document that included fictitious 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 using reliable AI tools for assistance was not inherently “inappropriate,” he argued that the lawyers and their firm had failed in their responsibilities when they submitted fabricated judicial opinions containing quotes and references created by the AI tool ChatGPT. Moreover, they persisted in asserting the authenticity of these fabricated opinions even after the court raised questions about their validity.

Rosie Burbidge, a partner specializing in intellectual property at Gunnercooke LLP, highlighted the considerable prospects that AI, including chatbots, offers the legal profession, including judges. Nonetheless, legal practitioners must exercise vigilance regarding potential hazards, such as the inadvertent exposure of confidential information, the waiver of privilege, and the peril of relinquishing ownership over crucial intellectual property assets, such as standard legal precedents.