Relates to requiring disclosure of use of generative artificial intelligence in a civil action

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why the sponsor says this is needed

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools that are capable of drafting, editing, or creating citations for legal documents poses risks and opportunities to the legal profession. While this tech- nology has the potential to advance legal productivity and broaden access to justice for underserved populations, the use of GenAI by lawyers to produce court filings raises serious professional, ethical, and policy concerns around the accuracy and quality of briefings in New York courts. GenAI tools are already at work in the legal profession. In June 2023, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York sanctioned two attor- neys who had used ChatGPT to write a brief they had submitted to the court. The brief referenced non-existent cases and included totally fabricated quotations from false opinions. Another attorney was sanc- tioned by the Second Circuit in January 2024 (see Park v. Kim, 22-2057 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2024)) for not double-checking a brief drafted with the help of GenAI that contained similar errors. This trend has prompted judges across the country to establish policies around the use of GenAI in legal filings. According to Law360, about 16% of more than 1,600 U.S. district and magistrate judges had issued 23 standing orders on AI as of February 2024. As of May 2024, Ropes and Gray LLP, which tracks such standing orders, has identified 36 standing orders from state and federal judges across 13 states requiring attor- neys to disclose and/or verify briefings filed with the court that were drafted with the assistance of GenAI. Six such orders were in courtrooms in New York. This bill would codify such requirements in the civil practice law and rules. It would require any attorney who used GenAI to draft legal docu- ments to disclosure the use of such tools when the document is filed with the court, and to certify that a human reviewed the filing before it was submitted.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.