Instances of lawyers’ use (or rather misuse) of generative artificial intelligence tools such as Chat-GPT, have resulted in sanctions for violating rules of professional conduct or court rules. These cases generate much publicity—and no doubt embarrassment—for the lawyers involved. But there is nothing new under the sun (or in the practice of law). These cases simply represent recent and high-profile examples of lawyers being sanctioned or castigated for the way that they used the latest technology in their written advocacy.
In a 1902 case, a court noted that the latest technological advances had contributed to the lawyer’s violation of a court rule governing the contents of an appellate brief.[1] There, the court’s rule required each party to “‘briefly state upon his printed points, in a separate form, the leading facts which he deems established, with a reference to the folios where the evidence of such facts may be found.’”[2] The appellant violated the court’s rule by filing a brief that covered 117 printed pages and included lengthy quotations.[3] Lamenting the lawyer’s failure to comply with the court’s rule, the court said,
When every lawyer wrote his points with a pen, there was no occasion for complaint in this regard; but, since the use of stenographers has become general, the evil has grown until it is so serious that repression is necessary. We feel assured that these suggestions will be sufficient, and that we shall not be compelled to make a hard and fast rule upon the subject, and to provide for its violation by an appropriate penalty. We have been led to make these observations, not simply by this case, but by many, of which this is an example.[4]
[1] Stevens v. O’Neill, 169 N.Y. 375 (1902).
[2] Id. at 376.
[3] Id. at 376-77.
[4] Id. at 377.