Published opinion, 30 January 2024 · source · PDF · 12 pages
Lee. Lee’s reply brief in this case includes a citation to a non-existent case, which she 3 admits she generated using the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT. Because citation in a brief to a non-existent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel, we refer Attorney Lee to the Court’s Grievance Panel, and further direct Attorney Lee to furnish a copy of this decision to her client, Plaintiff-Appellant Park.
172 (hereinafter, “Response”). Although Attorney Lee did not expressly indicate as much in her Response, the reason she could not provide a copy of the case is that it does not exist – and indeed, Attorney Lee refers to the case at one point as “this non- existent case.” Id. at 2. Attorney Lee’s Response states: I encountered difficulties in locating a relevant case to establish a minimum wage for an injured worker lacking prior year income records for compensation determination . . . .
AT-3(m) (“If the lawyer, in the exercise of his or her professional legal 11 inform a licensed attorney, who is a member of the bar of this Court, that she must ensure that her submissions to the Court are accurate. Attorney Lee’s submission of a brief relying on non-existent authority reveals that she failed to determine that the argument she made was “legally tenable.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393. The brief presents a false statement of law to this Court, and it appears that Attorney Lee made no inquiry, much less the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent, into the validity of the arguments she presented.