Park v. Kim
2nd. Cir. CA · Jan 30, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- 2nd. Cir. CA
- Record ID
- park-v-kim-2024-01-30
- Observed outcome
- Referral to the Court’s Grievance Panel for investigation and potential discipline; order to furnish a copy of the Court's decision to the client.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Appellate
- Bar Referral
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a district court judgment, during which the Court identified and addressed counsel's submission of a fabricated legal citation.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Counsel admitted using ChatGPT to identify precedent.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all AI-generated legal research before inclusion in court filings.
- Ensure all cited authorities are independently retrieved from reliable legal databases to confirm existence and status.
- Maintain a record of the verification process for all legal citations to demonstrate compliance with Rule 11.
- Establish firm-wide policies regarding the use of generative AI in drafting and research to ensure human oversight.