Given ChatGPT’s now-infamous capacity to generate its own legal opinions, complete with official-looking, but entirely confabulated, citations and quotations, it is not surprising that courts remain skeptical of its use in judicial proceedings. And as the lawyers in J.G. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ. recently discovered, practitioners should not be surprised by courts’ outright rejection of its use—especially when the lawyers do not explain what inputs were provided to the chatbot.
Court Rejects Use of ChatGPT-4 as a ‘Cross-Check’ in Plaintiff Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Petition
