The evidence for AI for calculating salaries was extremely inconclusive.
Once again, the world of jurisprudence is facing unexpected consequences of using artificial intelligence in professional activities. This time, a US court issued a stern rebuke to the law firm Cuddy Law for trying to justify its high fees using the chatbot ChatGPT.
Cuddy Law applied to ChatGPT-4 for confirmation of their hourly rates during the trial, expecting the losing party to pay for their services. However, the judge of the Federal District of New York, Paul Engelmeier, reduced the requested amount by more than half and pointed out the unacceptability of using the ChatGPT findings as a justification for bids, emphasizing that AI decisions cannot serve as a reliable guide for determining the adequacy of lawyers remuneration.
It is worth noting that judicial practice has already encountered misunderstandings caused by the use of generative AI. In particular, there were examples when ChatGPT was used to create non-existent court decisions and authoritative opinions.
In addition to criticizing the use of ChatGPT, the judge also expressed doubts about other aspects of the calculation of fees, including the use of "questionable resources" to justify the total amount of $113,484.62. In the end, Cuddy Law received only $53,050. 13.
A representative of Cuddy Law, in his comment to The Register, noted that the use of AI by the firm was not aimed at influencing the judicial process and that the involvement of ChatGPT in checking the compliance of rates was in addition to other evidence. Despite all the arguments, Judge Engelmeier recommended that the law firm refrain from mentioning ChatGPT in future fee statements, pointing out the need for a significant change in the reliability of the tool.
Once again, the world of jurisprudence is facing unexpected consequences of using artificial intelligence in professional activities. This time, a US court issued a stern rebuke to the law firm Cuddy Law for trying to justify its high fees using the chatbot ChatGPT.
Cuddy Law applied to ChatGPT-4 for confirmation of their hourly rates during the trial, expecting the losing party to pay for their services. However, the judge of the Federal District of New York, Paul Engelmeier, reduced the requested amount by more than half and pointed out the unacceptability of using the ChatGPT findings as a justification for bids, emphasizing that AI decisions cannot serve as a reliable guide for determining the adequacy of lawyers remuneration.
It is worth noting that judicial practice has already encountered misunderstandings caused by the use of generative AI. In particular, there were examples when ChatGPT was used to create non-existent court decisions and authoritative opinions.
In addition to criticizing the use of ChatGPT, the judge also expressed doubts about other aspects of the calculation of fees, including the use of "questionable resources" to justify the total amount of $113,484.62. In the end, Cuddy Law received only $53,050. 13.
A representative of Cuddy Law, in his comment to The Register, noted that the use of AI by the firm was not aimed at influencing the judicial process and that the involvement of ChatGPT in checking the compliance of rates was in addition to other evidence. Despite all the arguments, Judge Engelmeier recommended that the law firm refrain from mentioning ChatGPT in future fee statements, pointing out the need for a significant change in the reliability of the tool.
