{"id":36588,"date":"2025-06-02T13:37:17","date_gmt":"2025-06-02T05:37:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/?p=36588"},"modified":"2025-06-02T13:37:17","modified_gmt":"2025-06-02T05:37:17","slug":"%e5%9c%a8%e6%b3%95%e5%ba%ad%e6%91%98%e8%a6%81%e4%b8%ad%e4%bd%bf%e7%94%a8-chatgpt-%e7%94%9f%e6%88%90%e4%b8%8d%e5%ad%98%e5%9c%a8%e6%a1%88%e4%be%8b%ef%bc%8c%e7%be%8e%e5%9b%bd%e4%b8%80%e5%90%8d%e5%be%8b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/36588.html","title":{"rendered":"A U.S. attorney was sanctioned by the court for using ChatGPT to generate a non-existent case in a court brief."},"content":{"rendered":"

June 2, 2011 - According to the British newspaper The Guardian on June 31st, a Utah-basedlawyer<\/a>For citing in court documents a document issued by ChatGPT<\/a> generatedfalse case<\/a>, was sanctioned by the Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

\"ce12c58dj00sx7rlb002vd000v900j3p\"<\/p>\n

This week, the Utah Court of Appeals announced that it was sanctioning Richard Bednar on the grounds that the brief he filedUntrue legal cases were cited<\/strong>. Court documents show Bednar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal on behalf of his client with Utah attorney Douglas Durbano.<\/p>\n

In reviewing this brief, which was drafted by a legal assistant, the defendant's attorney found multiple citations to non-existent case law. \"Portions of this briefSuspected to have been generated by AI and contains misquotes<\/strong>The report also includes aContent of cases that cannot be found in any legal database<\/strong>\u00a0-- this information is only in ChatGPT. In addition, there are cases that have nothing to do with the content of the application.\"<\/p>\n

The case of Royer v. Nelson is cited in the summary, but it is not recorded in any of the legal databases.<\/p>\n

After the error came to light, BednarAcknowledged problems with the summary and apologized to the court<\/strong>. According to court records, he admitted along with his attorneys at the April hearing that the summary quoted inPart of the legal basis was generated by ChatGPT<\/strong>They are willing to take responsibility for the content of the document.<\/p>\n

Bednar, along with his attorneys, said the documents were produced by aWritten by a paralegal who is not yet licensed<\/strong>Bednar himself did not conduct an independent verification prior to submission. However, Durbano was not involved in the preparation of the document, and the legal assistant responsible for its preparation, who was a law school graduate, had left the firm.<\/p>\n

Bednar also offered to pay attorney's fees related to the matter as compensation.<\/p>\n

In a statement, the Utah Court of Appeals said, \"We agree that AI can be used as a legal research tool, and its use will evolve as technology advances. However, every attorney must fulfill an ongoing obligation to review the accuracy of his or her court documents. In this case, the petitioning attorneyFailure to exercise due diligence as a member of the Utah State Bar by submitting documents containing ChatGPT's fictitious content<\/strong>. "<\/p>\n

Bednar was ultimately required to pay opposing counsel's fees for preparing the petition and participating in the hearing, to reimburse the client for drafting and hearing fees, and to make a $1,000 donation to the Utah legal pro bono organization Justice for All (note: current exchange rate is approximately $7,201).<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

June 2, 2011 - A Utah attorney has been sanctioned by an appeals court for citing false cases generated by ChatGPT in court documents, the Guardian reported on June 31st. This week, the Utah Court of Appeals announced that it was sanctioning Richard Bednar for citing untrue legal cases in the briefs he filed. Court documents show that Bednar, along with Utah attorney Douglas Durbano, filed the petition for interlocutory appeal on behalf of his client. In reviewing the brief, which was drafted by a legal assistant, defense attorneys found multiple citations to non-existent case law. \"Portions of this brief are suspected to have been generated by AI, contain misquotes, and include the contents of a case that cannot be found in any legal database - the kind of information that is only available in Chat<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[146],"tags":[177,467,6806],"collection":[],"class_list":["post-36588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-chatgpt","tag-467","tag-6806"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36588","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36588\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36588"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=36588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}