![]() ![]() Schwartz further stated that because the use of generative artificial intelligence has evolved within law firms, he decided to consult the generative artificial intelligence website ChatGPT to help supplement the legal research he performed. Schwartz continued to perform, however, all of the legal work that the case required. ![]() Schwartz (Schwartz) of the firm stated that he originally filed the complaint on plaintiff's behalf, but because he was not admitted to practice in the Southern District of New York, Peter Loduca (Loduca), an associate at the firm, became the attorney of record on the case because Loduca was admitted in the Southern District. In his affidavit filed on in response to the order to show cause, Steven A. Mata then retained the law firm of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, P.C. The plaintiff, Roberto Mata (Mata) claimed he was injured when a metal serving cart struck his knee during a flight on Avianca to Kennedy International Airport in New York. Also, plaintiff's counsel was ordered to file a response by May 26, 2023. § 1927, and (3) the inherent power of the court, for (a) citing non-existent cases to the court in his Affirmation in Opposition, and (b) submitting to the court annexed to his Affidavit filed Apcopies of non-existent judicial opinions. The district court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause in person in a Jhearing on why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to: (1) Rule 11(b)(2) & (c), Fed. Kevin Castel) has issued an order to show cause against a plaintiff's attorney who had cited non-existent or "bogus" cases he generated from ChatGPT in a response brief to defendant's motion to dismiss. New York 5/4/23) ( (Castel, J.) Brief Summaryįaced with what it called an "unprecedented circumstance," a federal district court in New York (Judge P. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |