Recently, a lawyer named Richard Bednar from Utah, USA, was sanctioned by the court for citing false cases generated by ChatGPT in his court filings. According to The Guardian, this incident has sparked extensive discussions about the application of artificial intelligence in the legal field.

Bednar and his colleague Douglas Durban jointly submitted an appeal application, but during the review process, it was discovered that the document cited several non-existent legal precedents. These pieces of information were not found in any legal database but only existed in the answers provided by ChatGPT, shocking the legal community. The court pointed out that even unrelated cases to the case were included in Bednar's summary, and these mistakes were due to the lack of rigorous review of the documents.

lawyer law office lawsuit court

Image source note: Image generated by AI, image authorized service provider Midjourney

In the hearing at the court, Bednar admitted the errors in the summary and apologized for them. He stated that the document was written by a legal assistant who had not yet obtained a license, and he himself did not verify the content before submission. Although Bednar and his lawyers took responsibility for this, Durban was not involved in writing the document, and the assistant responsible for drafting had already left.

The Utah Court of Appeals emphasized in its statement that while artificial intelligence can be used as a tool for legal research, each lawyer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their court documents. In this case, the submitted document contained fabricated content and failed to fulfill the duty of review expected of a lawyer. Therefore, the court decided to fine Bednar.

Ultimately, Bednar was required to pay the opposing counsel's costs incurred in preparing the application and participating in the hearing, return the fees paid by the client for drafting the document, and donate $1,000 to the Utah State Legal Aid Organization. This incident once again reminds legal practitioners that cautious reviews remain crucial when relying on emerging technologies.