[ad_1]
Expertise
Use of ChatGPT to help charge bid is ‘totally and unusually unpersuasive,’ federal decide says
A federal decide in New York Metropolis has decreased a regulation agency’s charge request by about half after criticizing its use of the substitute intelligence software ChatGPT-4 as a “cross-check” to find out prevailing market charges for attorneys. (Picture from Shutterstock)
A federal decide in New York Metropolis has decreased a regulation agency’s charge request by about half after criticizing its use of the substitute intelligence software ChatGPT-4 as a “cross-check” to find out prevailing market charges for attorneys.
U.S. District Choose Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York mentioned in a Feb. 22 opinion the Cuddy Legislation Agency’s use of ChatGPT-4 to strengthen its charge bid is “totally and unusually unpersuasive,” report Reuters and Law360.
The Cuddy Legislation 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 attorneys in particular schooling regulation within the Southern District of New York. The Cuddy Legislation Agency had represented a toddler looking for a free acceptable schooling based mostly on his disabilities, which included issues referring to language, hyperactivity, consideration deficit and stress.
The agency had sought hourly charges of $550 to $600 for senior attorneys, $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 help “problematic sources” concerning hourly billing charges that aren’t particular to attorneys in particular schooling litigation.
“Because the agency ought to have appreciated, treating ChatGPT’s conclusions as a helpful gauge of the affordable billing price for the work of a lawyer with a specific background finishing up a bespoke task for a shopper in a distinct segment observe space was misbegotten on the soar,” Engelmayer wrote.
Engelmayer cited current circumstances through which ChatGPT generated faux case citations.
“In claiming right here that ChatGPT helps the charge award it urges, the Cuddy Legislation Agency doesn’t determine the inputs on which ChatGPT relied. It doesn’t reveal whether or not any of those have been equally imaginary. It doesn’t reveal whether or not ChatGPT wherever thought of a really actual and related information level: the uniform bloc of precedent … through which courts on this district and circuit have rejected as extreme the billing charges the Cuddy Legislation Agency urges for its timekeepers.
“The court docket 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 software, the Cuddy Legislation Agency is properly suggested to excise references to ChatGPT from future charge purposes.”
Benjamin Kopp of the Cuddy Legislation Agency advised Reuters that he queried ChatGPT-4 concerning the charges that purchasers may count on to be charged by attorneys and questions that purchasers may ask to find out how charges and charges can be affected by varied elements in a case.
He addressed that challenge in an August 2023 declaration.
“The underlying assertion was not about ChatGPT’s correctness on charges, however relatively, what mother and father would count on as shoppers,” Kopp advised Reuters in an electronic mail.
U.S. District Choose Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York mentioned in a Feb. 22 opinion the Cuddy Legislation Agency’s use of ChatGPT-4 to strengthen its charge bid is “totally and unusually unpersuasive,” report Reuters and Law360.
The Cuddy Legislation 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 attorneys in particular schooling regulation within the Southern District of New York. The Cuddy Legislation Agency had represented a toddler looking for a free acceptable schooling based mostly on his disabilities, which included issues referring to language, hyperactivity, consideration deficit and stress.
The agency had sought hourly charges of $550 to $600 for senior attorneys, $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 help “problematic sources” concerning hourly billing charges that aren’t particular to attorneys in particular schooling litigation.
“Because the agency ought to have appreciated, treating ChatGPT’s conclusions as a helpful gauge of the affordable billing price for the work of a lawyer with a specific background finishing up a bespoke task for a shopper in a distinct segment observe space was misbegotten on the soar,” Engelmayer wrote.
Engelmayer cited current circumstances through which ChatGPT generated faux case citations.
“In claiming right here that ChatGPT helps the charge award it urges, the Cuddy Legislation Agency doesn’t determine the inputs on which ChatGPT relied. It doesn’t reveal whether or not any of those have been equally imaginary. It doesn’t reveal whether or not ChatGPT wherever thought of a really actual and related information level: the uniform bloc of precedent … through which courts on this district and circuit have rejected as extreme the billing charges the Cuddy Legislation Agency urges for its timekeepers.
“The court docket 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 software, the Cuddy Legislation Agency is properly suggested to excise references to ChatGPT from future charge purposes.”
Benjamin Kopp of the Cuddy Legislation Agency advised Reuters that he queried ChatGPT-4 concerning the charges that purchasers may count on to be charged by attorneys and questions that purchasers may ask to find out how charges and charges can be affected by varied elements in a case.
He addressed that challenge in an August 2023 declaration.
“The underlying assertion was not about ChatGPT’s correctness on charges, however relatively, what mother and father would count on as shoppers,” Kopp advised Reuters in an electronic mail.
[ad_2]
Source link
