Expertise
Use of ChatGPT to assist price bid is ‘totally and unusually unpersuasive,’ federal choose says
A federal choose in New York Metropolis has diminished a legislation agency’s price request by about half after criticizing its use of the synthetic intelligence device ChatGPT-4 as a “cross-check” to find out prevailing market charges for attorneys. (Picture from Shutterstock)
A federal choose in New York Metropolis has diminished a legislation agency’s price request by about half after criticizing its use of the synthetic intelligence device ChatGPT-4 as a “cross-check” to find out prevailing market charges for attorneys.
U.S. District Decide Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York mentioned in a Feb. 22 opinion the Cuddy Regulation Agency’s use of ChatGPT-4 to strengthen its price bid is “totally and unusually unpersuasive,” report Reuters and Law360.
The Cuddy Regulation Agency had sought $113,484 in charges plus curiosity. Engelmayer granted charges of $53,050 plus curiosity.
The correct reference, Engelmayer mentioned, can be the speed paid to comparable legal professionals in particular schooling legislation within the Southern District of New York. The Cuddy Regulation Agency had represented a toddler looking for a free applicable schooling based mostly on his disabilities, which included problems regarding language, hyperactivity, consideration deficit and stress.
The agency had sought hourly charges of $550 to $600 for senior legal professionals, $425 for midlevel associates and $375 for junior associates.
“These hourly charges exceed these awarded on this district, for attorneys of comparable expertise, and certainly for a few of these very attorneys,” Engelmayer mentioned.
Engelmayer mentioned the agency had cited ChatGPT-4 sources as a “cross-check” to assist “problematic sources” relating to hourly billing charges that aren’t particular to legal professionals in particular schooling litigation.
“Because the agency ought to have appreciated, treating ChatGPT’s conclusions as a helpful gauge of the cheap billing price for the work of a lawyer with a specific background finishing up a bespoke task for a consumer in a distinct segment observe space was misbegotten on the leap,” Engelmayer wrote.
Engelmayer cited latest circumstances during which ChatGPT generated pretend case citations.
“In claiming right here that ChatGPT helps the price award it urges, the Cuddy Regulation Agency doesn’t determine the inputs on which ChatGPT relied. It doesn’t reveal whether or not any of those had been equally imaginary. It doesn’t reveal whether or not ChatGPT wherever thought-about a really actual and related knowledge level: the uniform bloc of precedent … during which courts on this district and circuit have rejected as extreme the billing charges the Cuddy Regulation Agency urges for its timekeepers.
“The courtroom subsequently rejects out of hand ChatGPT’s conclusions as to the suitable billing charges right here. Barring a paradigm shift within the reliability of this device, the Cuddy Regulation Agency is properly suggested to excise references to ChatGPT from future price functions.”
Benjamin Kopp of the Cuddy Regulation Agency instructed Reuters that he queried ChatGPT-4 in regards to the charges that shoppers may anticipate to be charged by attorneys and questions that shoppers may ask to find out how charges and costs can be affected by numerous components in a case.
He addressed that problem in an August 2023 declaration.
“The underlying assertion was not about ChatGPT’s correctness on charges, however slightly, what mother and father would anticipate as shoppers,” Kopp instructed Reuters in an e mail.
U.S. District Decide Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York mentioned in a Feb. 22 opinion the Cuddy Regulation Agency’s use of ChatGPT-4 to strengthen its price bid is “totally and unusually unpersuasive,” report Reuters and Law360.
The Cuddy Regulation Agency had sought $113,484 in charges plus curiosity. Engelmayer granted feels of $53,050 plus curiosity.
The correct reference, Engelmayer mentioned, can be the speed paid to comparable legal professionals in particular schooling legislation within the Southern District of New York. The Cuddy Regulation Agency had represented a toddler looking for a free applicable schooling based mostly on his disabilities, which included problems regarding language, hyperactivity, consideration deficit and stress.
The agency had sought hourly charges of $550 to $600 for senior legal professionals, $425 for midlevel associates and $375 for junior associates.
“These hourly charges exceed these awarded on this district, for attorneys of comparable expertise, and certainly for a few of these very attorneys,” Engelmayer mentioned.
Engelmayer mentioned the agency had cited ChatGPT-4 sources as a “cross-check” to assist “problematic sources” relating to hourly billing charges that aren’t particular to legal professionals in particular schooling litigation.
“Because the agency ought to have appreciated, treating ChatGPT’s conclusions as a helpful gauge of the cheap billing price for the work of a lawyer with a specific background finishing up a bespoke task for a consumer in a distinct segment observe space was misbegotten on the leap,” Engelmayer wrote.
Engelmayer cited latest circumstances during which ChatGPT generated pretend case citations.
“In claiming right here that ChatGPT helps the price award it urges, the Cuddy Regulation Agency doesn’t determine the inputs on which ChatGPT relied. It doesn’t reveal whether or not any of those had been equally imaginary. It doesn’t reveal whether or not ChatGPT wherever thought-about a really actual and related knowledge level: the uniform bloc of precedent … during which courts on this district and circuit have rejected as extreme the billing charges the Cuddy Regulation Agency urges for its timekeepers.
“The courtroom subsequently rejects out of hand ChatGPT’s conclusions as to the suitable billing charges right here. Barring a paradigm shift within the reliability of this device, the Cuddy Regulation Agency is properly suggested to excise references to ChatGPT from future price functions.”
Benjamin Kopp of the Cuddy Regulation Agency instructed Reuters that he queried ChatGPT-4 in regards to the charges that shoppers may anticipate to be charged by attorneys and questions that shoppers may ask to find out how charges and costs can be affected by numerous components in a case.
He addressed that problem in an August 2023 declaration.
“The underlying assertion was not about ChatGPT’s correctness on charges, however slightly, what mother and father would anticipate as shoppers,” Kopp instructed Reuters in an e mail.
Typographical error corrected on March 2 at 3:25 p.m.
