Posts tagged Rule 11.
Blogs
3 minute read
By now, the story of two New York attorneys facing scrutiny for citing nonexistent cases generated by the artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool ChatGPT has made national (and international) headlines. Late last month, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York sanctioned the attorneys and their firm $5,000. The court’s decision (Roberto Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (ECF No. 54)) provides a humbling reminder of both an attorney’s responsibilities in ensuring the accuracy of his or her filings, and the limits of certain technologies in the legal profession.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Third Circuit Holds that the Public Disclosure Bar Precludes Qui Tam Actions Based on Information Available on Publicly Accessible Databases
- Supreme Court of Ohio Rules on a Peer-Review Privilege Issue in Stull v. Summa
- Agency Actions Remain Judicially Unreviewable Where Congress Has Legislated Clear Agency Authority - SCOTUS Today
- The Loper and Jarksey Era: Agency Power to Award Civil Penalties in SEC and FINRA Under Increased Scrutiny
- Navigating Regulatory Challenges in the Dietary Supplement Industry: Insights on NJ Assembly Bill No. 1848