Generative AI Models ChatGPT Adoption in the legal field doesn't seem to be going well. Following the previous controversy over ChatGPT's citation of fictitious cases, a recentlaw firmThe use of the tool to calculate attorneys' fees was rejected by the judge, who considered the claimed hourly rate of $600 to be "excessive".
The Cuddy Law Firm, located in New York City, represented a mother and her child with special needs in a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the district court has the discretion to award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs to the parents of a prevailing disabled child.
The Cuddy Law Firm uses the ChatGPT to assess reasonable hourly rates for attorneys in disability education hearings. The tool suggests that attorneys with up to three years of experience should earn between $200 and $500 per hour, while attorneys who specialize in specific areas of the law may earn up to $1,200 or more per hour.
Based on ChatGPT's recommendation, Cuddy's law firm submitted a final bill totaling $113,484 (currently about RMB 818,000), which translates to an hourly rate of about $550 to $600. However, Federal District Judge Paul Engelmayer did not approve of the law firm's use of ChatGPT to calculate its fees.
In his judgment, Judge Engelmayer wrote: "Cuddy Solicitors' invocation of ChatGPT in support of its excessive fee request is wholly and exceptionally unpersuasive." He found the amount to be well above a reasonable level.
The judge noted thatSince ChatGPT does not indicate the source of the data it uses to reach its conclusions, it is not possible to know whether this information is "true and relevant" or merely fabricated by it.This is one of the problems faced by generative AI. In addition, Cuddy's Law Firm failed to specify what exactly it entered when it used ChatGPT.
Judge Engelmayer referred to two previous cases in which ChatGPT fictionalized legal information. In one case, attorney Steven A. Schwartz filed a 10-page brief in a personal injury lawsuit against Avianca Airlines, citing several fictitious and similar cases, all of which were generated by ChatGPT. Another case was brought before the Board of Bar Appeals after attorney Jae Lee used ChatGPT for research in a medical malpractice lawsuit and failed to verify the authenticity of the cases cited.
In Cuddy, Judge Engelmayer ultimately ruled to halve the firm's attorneys' fee request to $53,050, in part due to the use of ChatGPT, adding, "Unless there has been a fundamental shift in the reliability of the tool, it is recommended that Cuddy's law firm avoid any mention of the ChatGPT."