The Supreme Court of England and Wales has said lawyers should be careful about abusing artificial ielligence in their legal work and taking more serious steps to preve this. Judge Victoria Sharp, in his ruling, which relates to five new cases, wrote that coe production tools such as ChatGPT could not conduct reliable legal investigations.
“These tools may provide seemingly cohere and acceptable responses, but these answers may be completely inaccurate,” he said. Judge Sharp emphasized that this does not mean prohibiting the use of artificial ielligence in legal research, but lawyers are obliged to measure their accuracy from reputable sources before they use it in professional work.
Punishme andAll in all because of false reference to artificial ielligence sources
The Supreme Court judge noted that the increasing number of cases in which lawyers have resorted to fake citations of artificial ielligence in the United States, showing that there are more steps to guaraee these guidelines and to fulfill their duties. The verdict will also be se to professional institutions such as the Bar Council and the Legal Society.
In one of these cases, the lawyer who claimed damages against the four banks preseed 45 citation in his case, 18 of which were not external at all, and many other citations included inaccurate or irreleva quotes.
In another case, a lawyer who defended his clie and expelled him from his house in London preseed four citation that did not appear to be foreign. The lawyer rejected the use of artificial ielligence, but said the citations may have come from artificial ielligence summaries on Google or Safari. Judge Sharp said that although the Supreme Court has decided not to act against these lawyers, this should not be considered a procedure for the future.
The judge added: “If the lawyers do not perform their professional duties, they will be subject to heavy penalties.”
Each lawyer was eveually referred to or iroduced to professional supervisory authorities. Judge Sharp poied out that when lawyers do not perform their duties to the court, the court may, from public reprimand to imposing costs, prosecution or even referring to the police.
