ChatGPT | 人工智能撰写庭审文件？律师界惊现假案例丑闻（下）
Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it "unprecedented"
律师援引了六个ChatGPT捏造的虚假案例；法官惊呼“活久见”
Judge weighs punishment for lawyer who didn't bother to verify ChatGPT output.
律师并未认真核实ChatGPT提供的信息，法官将酌情处罚。
Lawyer: ChatGPT said the cases were real
律师：ChatGPT称这些案件是真实的
Schwartz provided an excerpt from ChatGPT queries in which he asked the AI tool whether Varghese is a real case. ChatGPT answered that it "is a real case" and "can be found on legal research databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis." When asked if the other cases provided by ChatGPT are fake, it answered, "No, the other cases I provided are real and can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw."
施瓦茨提供了他与ChatGPT对话的截图，其中，他询问这个人工智能工具，瓦吉斯诉中国南方航空公司案是否为真实案件。ChatGPT 回答道，这“是一个真实的案例”，并且“可以在Westlaw和LexisNexis等法律研究数据库中查证”。当被问及提供的其他案例是否为虚构时，ChatGPT回答：“不是，我提供的其他案例均属实，并可以在LexisNexis和Westlaw等知名法律数据库中查到。”
In the order issued on Friday last week, Castel said that Schwartz may be sanctioned for "the citation of non-existent cases to the Court," "the submission to the Court of copies of non-existent judicial opinions," and "the use of a false and fraudulent notarization." Schwartz may also be referred to an attorney grievance committee for additional punishment.
在一份上周五发布的命令中，卡斯特尔表示，施瓦茨也许会受到处罚，因其“向法院提交不存在的案例”，“向法院提交不存在的法官判决意见书的复印件”以及“使用伪造且具欺骗性的公证”。同时，施瓦茨可能会被移交给一个律师申诉委员会，接受额外处罚。
注释：judicial opinion：法院（或法官）判决意见书，由作出判決的法庭或法官就其审理的案件所作的阐释其如何达成该判決的书面意见，內容通常包括案件事实、本案所适用的法律及判決基于的理由、附带意见等。（来源：元照英美法词典）
Castel wrote that LoDuca (Schwartz’s associate, who also cited the fake cases) may be sanctioned "for the use of a false and fraudulent notarization in his affidavit filed on April 25, 2023." The law firm could be sanctioned for "the citation of non-existent cases to the Court," "the submission to the Court of copies of non-existent judicial opinions annexed to the Affidavit filed on April 25, 2023," and "the use of a false and fraudulent notarization in the affidavit filed on April 25, 2023."
卡斯特尔写道，洛杜卡（LoDuca）（施瓦茨的同事，也引用了虚假案例）可能也会受到处罚，“因其于2023年4月25日提交的宣誓书中使用了伪造且具欺骗性的公证内容”。其律师事务所可能也将一并受罚，因为“向法院提交不存在的案例”，“2023年4月25日提交的宣誓书中附加了不存在的法官判决意见书的复印件”以及“2023年4月25日提交的宣誓书中使用了伪造且具欺骗性的公证内容”。
Schwartz's affidavit said that LoDuca "had no role" in performing the faulty research. Schwartz said he had no intent to deceive the court or the defendant and that he and LoDuca have never "been cited for any legal misconduct of any kind nor ever been sanctioned by this Court or any Court in over thirty years of practice."
施瓦茨在宣誓书中表示，洛杜卡“没有参与”这项错误研究。施瓦茨称，自己无意欺骗法庭或被告，他和洛杜卡“在30多年的执业过程中，从未因任何形式的不当行为受到传唤，也从未受到该法庭或其他任何法庭的处罚”。
LoDuca wrote in his own affidavit that he "did not personally conduct any of the legal research" and did not have any "personal knowledge of how the [research] was conducted." LoDuca said he has worked with Schwartz for over 25 years and "had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the case law" that Schwartz provided. LoDuca asked the judge to avoid issuing sanctions against him because "there was no bad faith nor intent to deceive either the Court or the defendant."
洛杜卡在自己的宣誓书中写道，他“并未亲自完成任何法律文献检索”，也“根本不知道该检索是如何进行的”。洛杜卡表示，他和施瓦茨共事已超25年之久，“没有理由怀疑”施瓦茨提供的“案例的真实性”。洛杜卡请求法官不要惩罚自己，因为他“既无恶意也不企图欺骗法庭或被告。”
结语：这起案件引发了关于人工智能在法律界应用的重要讨论。虽然人工智能技术可以提供便利和效率，但法律专业人士在使用这些工具时必须保持谨慎和审慎。他们有责任确认和核实人工智能工具提供的信息和来源，以确保其合法性和准确性。此外，律师事务所也需要建立严格的审查和监督机制，以防止类似事件的再次发生。同时，学术界应加强对人工智能伦理和规范的研究和讨论，为法律界提供指导和准则。通过合理和负责任的应用，人工智能才可以为法律服务提供更大的价值和创新，而不损害其可信度和公正性。
参考来源：
特别说明：本文仅用于学术交流，如有侵权请后台联系小编删除。
- END -
转载来源：法译世界
转载编辑：李倩楠
审核：李莹 程海东 田贝西 段明贵
