User:Sharon Ng'ang'a/Responsible Artificial Intelligence

Article Draft
Ethics and Accountability in Legal AI: Lessons from the Mata vs. Avianca Case

The Mata vs. Avianca case,[1] emerging from a legal dispute in New York, dispute in New York, not only sheds light on the complexities of AI implementation in the legal profession but also underscores the critical importance of ethics and accountability in AI-driven decision-making processes.

The case revolves around allegations of misconduct by the plaintiff's attorneys, who utilized an AI program for legal research. The AI, in an alarming turn of events, generated fictitious cases and fabricated legal citations, including nonexistent case law. This error led to severe repercussions, with the New York federal judge sanctioning the attorneys for their negligent conduct. In Pennsylvania, a court issued a standing Order that required each counsel (or a party representing himself or herself) to disclose whether he or she has used generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court, including in correspondence with the Court. The court directed that the counsel must in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose that generative AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing or correspondence and certify that each and every citation to the law or the record in the filing has been verified as authentic and accurate.[2]

At the heart of this case lies the ethical responsibility of legal professionals when employing AI technologies in their practice. While AI tools hold immense potential to streamline legal research, enhance productivity, and improve decision-making, they also introduce ethical considerations that cannot be overlooked. The misuse or misinterpretation of AI-generated content can have far-reaching consequences, undermining the integrity of the legal system and jeopardizing the rights of litigants.

One of the primary ethical obligations of legal practitioners is to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information they present to the court. In the Mata vs. Avianca case, the attorneys failed in their duty to verify the authenticity of the AI-generated content before submitting it as evidence. This lapse in judgment not only compromised the integrity of the legal proceedings but also eroded trust in the legal profession as a whole.

Moreover, the case highlights the issue of accountability in AI utilization. When confronted with the discovery of the fabricated content, the attorneys' response was characterized by delay and evasion, exacerbating the gravity of their misconduct. The judge's decision to sanction the attorneys underscores the principle that legal professionals must be held accountable for their actions, particularly when they involve the use of AI technologies.[3] The core ethical responsibilities of lawyers, as outlined in the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) are unchanged by the integration of AI in legal practice, as was true with the introduction of computers and the internet. AI tools must be employed with the same commitment to diligence, confidentiality, honesty, and client advocacy as traditional methods of legal practice. While AI does not change the fundamental duties of legal professionals, lawyers must be aware of new applications and potential challenges in the discharge of such responsibilities. As with any disruptive technology, a lack of careful engagement with AI could lead to ethical violations, underscoring the need for lawyers to adapt their practices mindfully and ethically in this evolving landscape. [4]

Furthermore, the Mata vs. Avianca case underscores the need for robust ethical guidelines and standards governing the use of AI in the legal profession. Legal organizations and regulatory bodies must develop comprehensive frameworks that outline best practices for AI utilization, including guidelines for verifying AI-generated content, conducting due diligence, and upholding professional standards of conduct.

Lawyers may use generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the practice of law but must protect the confidentiality of client information, provide accurate and competent services, avoid improper billing practices, and comply with applicable restrictions on lawyer advertising.[5] Lawyers must ensure that the confidentiality of client information is protected when using generative AI by researching the program's policies on data retention, data sharing, and self-learning. Lawyers remain responsible for their work product and professional judgment and must develop policies and practices to verify that the use of generative AI is consistent with the lawyer's ethical obligations. [6]

In conclusion, the Mata vs. Avianca case serves as a sobering reminder of the ethical challenges inherent in the adoption of AI technologies in the legal profession. While AI holds tremendous potential to enhance legal practice, its deployment must be accompanied by a steadfast commitment to ethics, integrity, and accountability. By upholding these principles, legal professionals can harness the benefits of AI while safeguarding the integrity of the legal system and ensuring justice for all parties involved. [1] A Man Sued Avianca Airline. His Lawyer Used Chatgpt. - The New York Times (Nytimes.Com)

[2] 2023 Pennsylvania Court Order 5111 (C.O. 5111) Standing Order Regarding Use Of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“Ai”) In Cases Assigned To Judge Pratter

[3] Https://1.Next.Westlaw.Com/Document/I2c354fa0f19011eeb07eddb74194e295/View/Fulltext.Html?Listsource=Search&Navigationpath=Search%2fv1%2fresults%2fnavigation%2fi0ad740370000018ef3f01157747b6a49%3fppcid%3d995e5628b886458cb0e3eb65356f8542%26nav%3dstatute%26fragmentidentifier%3di2c354fa0f19011eeb07eddb74194e295%26parentrank%3d0%26startindex%3d1%26contextdata%3d%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitiontype%3dsearchitem&List=Statute&Rank=13&Listpagesource=F015b3a5bccee2b5eb258f897c729e5b&Originationcontext=Docheader&Contextdata=(Sc.Search)&Transitiontype=Document&Needtoinjectterms=False&Enablebestportion=True&Docsource=Bef22b7d7b564db7a8ec1d452bca0630&Ppcid=826d802093fc4fd7b8f948cb5c6ca015

[4] 2024 New Jersey Court Order 0004 (C.O. 0004) Notice To The Bar: Legal Practice: Preliminary Guidelines On The Use Of Artificial Intelligence By New Jersey Lawyers

[5]American Bar Association Model Rules Rule 1.6

[6] 2024 Florida Court Order 0005 (C.O. 0005),State Of Florida Bar Ethics Opinion.