Sanctionable conduct
Some unspoken truths about the legal profession revealed by that ChatGPT case
Remember those lawyers who had to explain to a Southern District of New York judge why they relied on ChatGPT to find case law without double-checking to see if they were real?1 Well, last week, Judge Kastel published an order sanctioning the lawyers, which included the following punishment:
Mailing copies of the fake cases, the hearing transcript, the sanctions order, and supporting documents to their client and to each of the judges mentioned in the fake cases; and
Paying a penalty of $5,000
Most commentators immediately were struck by how mild this punishment was. I generally agree. Although I think the overall punishment was pretty severe if you take into account how much publicity and negative attention the lawyers received. Seems like that’s what Judge Kastel was thinking, too:
Anyways. The punishment is probably the least interesting thing about the sanctions order. To me, there were at least three other things this case revealed: (1) Misleading the court was the real problem; (2) Cutting corners is a reality of law practice; and (3) The law is inaccessible, even to lawyers.2
I’ll explain below.