Synopsis: Real-Life Lawyers remain smarter than Artificial Intelligence!! Well… some of us anyway. Thoughts/comments by John P. Campbell, J.D.

Editor’s Comment: We have all seen and read recent reports of how Artificial Intelligence programs like ChatGBT will revolutionize many areas of business. There are even predictions such technology will drive many folks in various industries out of work with the breakthrough program’s amazing ability to put together essays, arguments and otherwise compile data in an organized manner.

Well, you may not want to fire your attorneys and send your lap-top to court for you just yet….

A federal judge in New York City is threatening sanctions against attorneys for submitting a brief with citations … to fabricated cases!

While verifying case citations  within the brief filed with the federal court, Senior U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York found the pleading was “replete with citations to nonexistent cases.” YIKES!!

Upon further inquiry to the attorney for filing a brief loaded with bogus citations, the judge came to find out the research for case-law was completed not by the lazy lawyers, or even a sloppy paralegal, but rather, ChatGPT!!

The embarrassed attorney was reported to be a veteran practitioner, but admitted in an affidavit that several of the cases had fabricated citations which were produced by Artificial Intelligence software ChatGPT. In his explanation, the attorney asserted he has never utilized ChatGPT as a source for conducting legal research prior to this occurrence and therefore was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.

It was further alleged that ChatGPT had “assured” the attorney that the cases cited were real “and can be found in reputable legal databases, such as LexisNexis© and Westlaw©,” according to the attorney’s affidavit. We find this excuse to have little merit. Using a new and relatively untested program to develop an argument for your client is bad enough, but to not even check the case citations to verify accuracy may lead to sanctions against the attorney.  

Technological developments in recent decades have certainly improved efficiency in the practice of law, just as it has in other industries. On-line research tools such as Lexis©  and Westlaw©  save hours of research time, formerly achieved via hours and hours scouring a law library.  However, when it comes to crafting unique arguments for the specific facts of each case, it’s hard to imagine any computer could employ the nuance needed to zealously represent clients in litigation. The problem relates to programming, in our view.

Nick Critelli, the Chair of the ISBA Ethics Committee published this:

DO NOT use ChatGPT and other AI platforms as legal research tools. While they can be helpful in thought processing, they are not a substitute for legal research tools. If you ask for a legal citation to support a proposition, the citation will most likely be FAKE. For example, when I ran a test here is what I received: “Case precedent such as “In re Estate of Robeson, 824 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2012)” reinforces the standard for removal of an executor/administrator for cause under Iowa Code §633.675, and the Administrator’s conduct, in this case, fulfills the criterion set out therein.” Looks good and is persuasive — EXCEPT the case and statutes are FAKE. The case at that citation is actually a Michigan Court of Appeals case Stand Up for Democracy v Sec’y of State, not even remotely related to the issue.

So I confronted ChatGPT about its fake citations and here is the reply:

“We are writing to bring your attention to an emerging concern in the legal community regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and specifically ChatGPT in the preparation of legal briefs and other legal documents. While AI technology undoubtedly provides numerous benefits, recent instances have raised serious concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the cases and statutes it may cite as an authority.

It has come to our attention that AI-generated content, including legal briefs, may sometimes include references to fictional cases or statutes. This poses a significant risk, as it can undermine the credibility of the arguments presented and potentially mislead the court or other legal professionals involved in the case.

We strongly advise all legal practitioners to exercise caution when relying solely on AI-generated content and take appropriate measures to verify the accuracy of the citations provided. While AI can be a valuable tool in legal research and document drafting, it should not be solely relied upon without proper human review and validation.”

Our best advice is to stick with your flesh and blood attorneys who write their own briefs and cite cases they actually researched and read before filing with the court!

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.


Synopsis: Indiana WC New TTD and PPI Rates Changed for Injuries On and After July 1, 2023.


Article and analysis by our IN WC Defense Team Leader, Kevin Boyle, J.D

Editor’s comment: Indiana TTD and PPI Rates Went Up For New Injuries beginning on and after July 1, 2023.

The Indiana WC rates haven’t changed in a very long time, so this is a big development.


You don’t need to increase those rates for injuries that happened before 7-1-23. The new rates apply only for new injuries/incidents that occur on and after 7-1-2023.


You can also always find the updated Indiana WC rate chart on our law firm website, too:


Or send a reply to Kevin at