Lawyer
Suing Avianca
Used ChatGPT
Which Invented
6 Cases Now
Sanctions
Hearing Here
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
June 8 – As
law offices
including
those of
prosecutors
begin to use
generative
artificial
intelligence
like ChatGPT
and Google's
Bard, it's
worse than a
matter of
boiler plate
or plagiarism.
There
are cases and
precedents
made up out of
whole
cloth.
All
of this came
to a head on
June 8, when
U.S. District
Court for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
P. Kevin
Castel heard
the case of
Roberto Mata
v. Avianca,
Inc., on
removal from
the Supreme
Court of the
State of New
York in
Manhattan.
Inner
City Press
live tweeted
it, thread here:
All
rise!
Judge
Castel: I will
place Mr.
[Peter] LoDuca
under
oath...
Who long have
you been
admitted to
this court?
LoDuca:
Since 1989.
Judge
Castel: How do
you do legal
research? You,
personally.
LoDuca:
I try to find
cases I can
use.
Judge
Castel: Books?
Westlaw?
Lexis?
LoDuca:
I have been
using
FastCast. In
the 1980s I
used Westlaw
and Lexis.
Judge
Castel: Do you
use libraries?
LoDoca:
I do it online
now.
Judge
Castel: What
did you use in
the interim
between when
you stopped
Westlaw and
started with
FastCase?
LoDoca:
Law library,
Bronx
County...
Judge
Castel: What
was your
understanding
of your
obligation in
connection
with your
March 1
submission?
Under Rule 11?
LoDuca:
To be factual
and
truthful.
I replied on
my colleague
Steven
Schwartz, with
me at Levidow,
Levidow &
Oberman
Judge
Castel: Did
you do
anything other
than sign your
affirmation?
Did you read
any of the
cases?
LoDuca:
No.
Judge
Castel: Did
you do
anything to
make sure
those cases
existed?
LoDuca:
No.
Judge
Castel: Then
Avianca
replied -
LoDuca:
I did not read
it.
Judge
Castel: Did
Mr. Schwartz
alert you to
this, from
Avianca's
reply memo?
LoDoca:
No.
Judge
Castel: And
when you got
my orders of
April 11 and
12?
LoDuca:
I told Mr.
Schwartz the
Court would
like to see
the cases
cited.
Judge
Castel: Do you
recall writing
to me you were
going on
vacation? And
the Court
giving you
until April
25?
LoDuca:
Yes. Judge
Castel: Was it
true you were
going on
vacation?
LoDuca: No,
judge.
Judge
Castel: Let's
take a look at
your
affidavit. Do
you have it?
[LoDuca flips
through
papers] Now I
do.
Judge
Castel: Let's
look at Varghese
v. China South
Airlines -
the 2d
paragraph goes
in a totally
different
directionJudge
Castel: You
did not see
this was a
bogus case?
LoDuca:
No. Judge
Castel: You
see that it is
in different
fonts? LoDoca:
A little bit
larger...
Judge Castel:
Who typed
this? LoDuca:
I believe it
was Mr.
Schwartz.
Judge
Castel:
Take a look at
the
notarization
here - it's
dated April,
but notarized
in January.
When did you
sign it?
LoDuca: In
April.
Judge
Castel: Did
you have a
vacation in
April? LoDuca:
No. But Mr.
Schwartz was
away... Judge
Castel: Do you
agree the 6
cases are non
existent?
LoDuca:
Regretfully
yes. Judge: I
have all the
answers I
need. Do you
want to make a
statement?
LoDuca: This
pains me
Counsel on June 8, 2023, courtesy to
Inner City Press from Elizabeth Williams
LoDuca:
I have worked
with Mr.
Schwartz for
27 years. I
should have
been more
skeptical. I
can't go back
and change
what was done.
This will
never happen
again. Judge
Castel: Thank
you. Mr.
Schwartz, step
forward so I
can put you
under oath.
[Does]
Judge
Castel: How
many cases
have you done?
1000?
Schwartz: Yes
Judge Castel:
How do you
conduct legal
research?
Schwartz: I
research
cases. Judge
Castel: Do you
read them?
Schwartz: Yes.
Judge Castel:
OK... When did
you start with
Fast Case?
Schwartz: as
LoisLaw
Judge
Castel: Do you
use Lexis?
Schwartz: I
have never
signed on.
Judge Castel:
Your
submission to
me says you
can access
Lexis at a bar
association.
Schwartz:
True.
Judge:
Did you
prepare the
March 1 memo?
Schwartz: Yes.
I used Fast
Case. But it
did not have
Federal cases
that I needed
to find. I
tried Google.
I had heard of
Chat
GPT...
Judge
Castel:
Alright - what
did it produce
for you?
Schwartz: I
asked it
questions
Judge
Castel: About
the Montreal
Convention? Or
the position
you wanted to
take?
Schwartz: Yes,
for our
position.
Judge Castel:
You were not
asked for an
objective
view, but
cases to
support your
position?
Schwartz: I
asked it for
its analysis
Judge
Castel: Did
you ask Chat
GPT what the
law was, or
only for a
case to
support you?
It wrote a
case for you.
Do you cite
cases without
reading them?
Schwartz: No.
Judge Castel:
What caused
your departure
here?
Schwartz: I
thought Chat
GPT was a
search engine
Judge
Castel: Did
you look for
the Varghese
case?
Schwartz: Yes.
I couldn't
find it. Judge
Castel: And
yet you cited
it in your
filing.
Schwartz: I
had no idea
Chat GPT made
up cases. I
was operating
under a
misperception.
Judge
Castel: Mr.
Schwartz, I
think you are
selling
yourself
short. You say
your verify
cases.
Schwartz: I,
I, I thought
there were
cases that
could not be
found on
Google.
Judge
Castel: Six
cases, none
found on
Google. This
non existent
case Varghese,
the excerpt
you had was
inconsistent,
even on the
first page
[photo above
in thread] Can
we agree
that's legal
jibberish?
Schwartz: I
see that now.
I just thought
it was
excerpts
Judge
Castel: When
Avianca said
you cited non
existent
cases?
Schwartz: They
said they
couldn't find
them. I
figured I'd go
back - but I
continued to
be duped by
Chat GPT. I
wanted to be
transparent to
the court. I
went to Chat
GPT - Judge:
We're not up
to that.
Judge
Castel:
Avianca put
your cases in
quotations...
You know what
F.3d means,
right?
Schwartz:
Federal
district,
third
department?
Judge Castel:
Have you heard
of the Federal
Reporter?
Schwartz: Yes.
Judge Castel:
That's a book,
right?
Schwartz:
Correct.
Judge
Castel: So how
could you say
you thought
they were
unpublished?
Schwartz: My
unfamiliarity
with Federal
cases. The
cite [site?]
looked
legitimate. I
looked up the
judge. Judge
Castel: Their
reply was only
5 pages. What
was your
reaction?
Schwartz: The
same
Judge
Castel: So you
were the one
going on
vacation,
returning on
April 18?
Schwartz:
Yes.
Judge Castel:
When you saw
the Court's
order it
wanted to see
the cases, did
it cross your
mind that the
Court checked
for the
cases?
Schwartz: I
just wanted to
comply
Judge
Castel: You
told me that
Chat GPT
supplemented
your research
- but what was
it
supplementing?
Schwartz: I'd
used Fast Case
at the
beginning.
Judge: Chat
GPT wasn't
supplementing
your research
- it was your
research,
right?
Schwartz: Yes.
Judge
Castel: And
the affidavit
you prepared,
wtih the
different
fonts - how
was it
notarized?
Schwartz: We
used an older
affidavit and
just changed
the caption
and the
content. We
forgot to
change the
month. Judge
Castel: But
you corrected
+h to th, and
the year Judge
Castel: You
prepared the
affidavit and
then what?
Schwartz: I
probably went
into his
office. Judge
Castel: Where
is that?
Schwartz:
20 feet away
from mine. He
looked it over
and he signed
it. Just
Castel:
Anything else?
Schwartz: I
apologize
Schwartz:
I have
suffered
professionally
from the
publicity this
has received.
I have never
been involved
in anything
like this. I
hope I can put
this matter
behind me. I
have taken a
CLE court on
Artificial
Intelligence.
Safeguards
will be put in
place.
Judge
Castel: Does
the law firm
representative
have anything
to say?
Partner of
Levidow,
Levidow &
Oberman: We
regret what's
occurred. We
practice
primarily in
state court,
and Fast Case
has been
enough. There
was a billing
error and we
did not have
Federal access
Counsel
to Avianca:
This case
should be
dismissed.
They have no
caselaw.
Counsel to
LoDuca: Focus
on my client's
intent - he
was helping
Schwartz, he
had no reason
to doubt, to
think these
were fake
cases.
Counsel to
Schwartz: This
has buzz due
to
schadenfreude
Counsel
to Schwartz:
There used to
be only Lexis,
Westlaw and
the books. Now
there are
many, many
more. There
are 100s of AI
vendors that
law firms use.
Many lawyers
have been
burned. My
client was
playing with
live ammo,
which made up
caselaw. He
had no idea
Counsel
to Schwartz:
The cases
seemed real.
There were no
disclaimers.
When Mr.
Schwartz went
back to it, it
doubled down
and kept lying
to him.
There's a
problem
available to
lawyers that
makes up
cases. But
they should
not be
sanctioned
Counsel
to Schwartz:
He was
conducting
research; he
thought Chat
GPT was
collecting
information
from actual
sources. But
it was not
willful.
Judge Castel:
Do you have
something new
to say?
Counsel to
Schwartz: Yes.
The public
needs a
stronger
warning.
Counsel
to Schwartz:
The firm has
taken a CLE.
Judge Castel:
Don't just
reiterate your
written
submissions.
Ok, some final
comments. I
will be taking
this under
advisement and
entering a
written
decision. It's
been called a
mistake - but
there's more
Judge
Castel: There
was a reply
brief. The
record will
reflect
whether that
put Mr.
Schwartz and
Mr. LoDuca on
actual notice
that their
cases were non
existent. Mr.
LoDuca was
asked for the
cases - we
know what he
did, and Mr.
Schwartz did
Judge
Castel: The
matter is
under
advisement.
Adjourned.
More
on Substack here
Plaintiff's
counsel Steven
A. Schwartz,
not admitted
to SDNY,
admits in an
affidavit
signed May 24
and docketed
on May 25 that
while "Peter
Loduca, Esq,
an associate
for the law
firm of
Levidow
Levidow &
Oberman, PC
became the
attorney of
record on the
case" he,
Schwartz,
"continued to
perform all of
the legal work
that the case
required."
Now
problematic
for Schwartz,
and possibly
Loduca, was
the use of
Chat GPT
CGT to
put or slap
together
Mata's
affirmation in
opposition.
As
Schwartz
formally puts
it, "your
affiant
consulted the
artificial
intelligence
website Chat
GPT
[and]
did locate and
cite the
following
cases in the
affirmation in
opposition
submitted,
which this
Court has
found to be
nonexistent:
Varghese
v. China
Southern
Airlines Co
Ltd, 925 F.3d
1339 (11th
Cir.
2019)
Shaboonv.
Egyptair 2013
IL App (1st)
111279-U (Il
App. Ct.
2013)
Petersen
v. Iran Air
905 F. Supp 2d
121 (D.D.C.
2012)
Martinez
v. Delta
Airlines, Inc,
2019 WL
4639462 (Tex.
App. Sept. 25,
2019)
Estate
of Durden v.
KLM Royal
Dutch
Airlines, 2017
WL 2418825
(Ga. Ct. App.
June 5,
2017)
Miller
v. United
Airlines, Inc,
174 F.3d 366
(2d Cir.
1999).
Again, those
cases do not
exist.
Schwartz
writes that
"the citations
and opinions
in question
were provided
by Chat GPT
which also
provided its
legal source
and assured
the
reliability of
ts content.
Excerpts from
the queries
presented and
responses
provided are
attached" to
his
affidavit.
But
for Judge
Castel, will
that be
enough? He
issued a
second order
that LoDuca
"is not
entitled to a
do-over." On
June 6, LoDuca
submitted a
declaration
apologizing
for a previous
inaccurately-dated
affidavit, and
saying the
press has
shamed him.
Watch this
site.
The
case is Mata
v. Avianca,
Inc.,
22-cv-1461
(Castel)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|