TL;DR:
- The Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba has issued a practice direction on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in court submissions.
- The court recognizes the potential of AI in legal proceedings but emphasizes concerns about the reliability and accuracy of AI-generated information.
- Lawyers are now required to indicate how AI was used when preparing court materials.
- This follows a significant incident in the United States where fake opinions with fabricated citations were submitted, leading to severe sanctions.
- Canadian courts are expected to adopt similar practice directions to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of AI.
Main AI News:
The utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) has posed significant challenges for businesses and educational institutions since the introduction of ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, in November 2022. While concerns surrounding privacy and confidentiality have dominated discussions, recent attention has turned to the chatbot’s proclivity for conjuring up sources, references, and citations.
Breaking new ground on June 23, 2023, the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba became the first Canadian court to issue a practice direction on the utilization of AI in court submissions. This landmark decision acknowledges the burgeoning yet rapidly evolving landscape of AI and its potential application in legal proceedings. Although it remains impossible to accurately predict the future trajectory of AI or precisely define responsible usage within court cases, there are valid concerns about the reliability and accuracy of the information generated through its deployment. To address these concerns, the court now mandates that materials submitted must clearly disclose the employment of AI.
This development follows a widely reported incident in the United States where the District Court of the Southern District of New York encountered an unprecedented situation: the submission of court documents containing “citations to non-existent cases” facilitated by AI.
The court astonishingly found that six of the referenced cases were fictitious, complete with fabricated quotes and spurious internal citations. Consequently, the lawyer responsible was ordered to “show cause” as to why punitive measures should not be imposed.
In a scathing decision handed down on June 22, 2023, subsequent to the “show-cause” hearing, the District Court unequivocally sanctioned both the counsel and their law firm, decrying the act of relying on counterfeit opinions as an abuse of the adversary system.
The court additionally condemned their conduct as exhibiting bad faith, stating that the respondents had disregarded their duty by submitting non-existent judicial opinions that were generated using the AI tool ChatGPT. Alarmingly, even when the legitimacy of these opinions was challenged by judicial orders, the respondents persisted in upholding their authenticity.
Given the growing public awareness surrounding ChatGPT’s propensity for fabricating information, it comes as no surprise that a Canadian court has taken proactive measures by issuing a practice direction to guide legal practitioners on the utilization of AI. While the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba does not outrightly prohibit the use of AI in preparing court submissions, it does require lawyers to explicitly disclose the extent and manner in which AI was employed during the preparation of materials.
It is foreseeable that other Canadian courts will expeditiously follow suit, implementing similar practice directions to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of AI within the legal sphere. As AI continues to shape the future of various industries, the legal system must adapt to maintain its integrity and foster trust in the judicial process.
Conclusion:
The issuance of a practice direction by the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba highlights the increasing importance of addressing the use of artificial intelligence in legal submissions. The court’s focus on transparency and accountability in disclosing the use of AI underscores the need for reliability and accuracy in court materials. This development not only serves as a precedent for Canadian courts but also demonstrates the growing impact of AI on the legal market. Legal practitioners and businesses involved in court proceedings should be aware of the evolving guidelines surrounding AI usage to ensure compliance and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
Source
