Attorney AI use
Park v. Kim
An appellate reply cited a nonexistent ChatGPT case, leading to a published reminder that Rule 11’s verification duty applies to AI output.
Disciplinary referral01
Case background
Material facts
Counsel relied on ChatGPT for a supposed decision without confirming that it existed before placing it in a federal appellate filing.
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The court affirmed dismissal on the merits, referred counsel to its grievance panel, and ordered that the opinion be sent to the client.
Why it matters
What the decision means
Technology does not change the signature rule. A lawyer who signs a brief represents that its legal content has been reasonably investigated.
Primary reading