Park v. Kim
2nd. Cir. CA · Jan 30, 2024
What happened in this matter?
The Second Circuit referred Attorney Jae S. Lee to its Grievance Panel for investigation and potential discipline after she admitted to citing a non-existent case generated by ChatGPT in a reply brief. The Court found that counsel failed to perform the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11, characterizing the submission of fake authority as an abuse of the adversarial system.
- Why the court cared
- The Court emphasized that attorneys must personally verify the existence and accuracy of all authorities cited. Rule 11 requires a reasonable inquiry, and no technological novelty excuses failing to meet that standard. The Second Circuit cited Mata v. Avianca approvingly, confirming that citing fake cases amounts to abusing the adversarial system
- Why it matters now
- Unverified ChatGPT citations trigger grievance-panel referrals — personally confirm every authority before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cited a non-existent Appellate Division decision; the Court could not locate it, ordered a copy, and counsel later admitted it was generated via ChatGPT and does not exist; Court referred counsel to the Grievance Panel. Outcome: Referral to Grievance Panel + Order to Disclose Misconduct to Client..
AI Use
Counsel admitted using ChatGPT to find supporting case law after failing to locate precedent manually. She cited a fictitious case (Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep’t 2014)) in the reply brief, never verifying its existence.
Hallucination Details
Only one hallucinated case was cited in the reply brief: Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep’t 2014). When asked to produce the case, Counsel admitted it did not exist, blaming reliance on ChatGPT.
Ruling/Sanction
The Court referred Counsel to the Second Circuit’s Grievance Panel for further investigation and possible discipline. Lee was ordered to furnish a copy of the decision (translated if necessary) to her client and to file certification of compliance.
Key Judicial Reasoning
The Court emphasized that attorneys must personally verify the existence and accuracy of all authorities cited. Rule 11 requires a reasonable inquiry, and no technological novelty excuses failing to meet that standard. The Second Circuit cited Mata v. Avianca approvingly, confirming that citing fake cases amounts to abusing the adversarial system.
Unverified ChatGPT citations trigger grievance-panel referrals — personally confirm every authority before filing.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel admitted using ChatGPT to identify precedent.
Appellate review of a district court judgment, during which the Court identified and addressed counsel's submission of a fabricated legal citation.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cited a non-existent Appellate Division decision; the Court could not locate it, ordered a copy, and counsel later admitted it was generated via ChatGPT and does not exist; Court referred counsel to the Grievance Panel.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Park v. Kim?
- The Second Circuit referred Attorney Jae S. Lee to its Grievance Panel for investigation and potential discipline after she admitted to citing a non-existent case generated by ChatGPT in a reply brief. The Court found that counsel failed to perform the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11, characterizing the submission of fake authority as an abuse of the adversarial system.
- Why does Park v. Kim matter for legal AI risk?
- Unverified ChatGPT citations trigger grievance-panel referrals — personally confirm every authority before filing.
- What does the public record establish about Park v. Kim?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Park v. Kim summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.