<\/p>\n
Courts are starting to grapple with this question. In February, a federal court in Michigan ruled that a self-represented person\u2019s conversations with ChatGPT to prepare her case were work product\u2014legal work that is shielded from the opposing side. <\/p>\n
The decision came on the same day a federal court in New York held that documents a criminal defendant had generated using Claude were not privileged attorney-client conversations or work product. The court argued that Claude is not an attorney and that a user has no \u201creasonable expectation of confidentiality in his communication\u201d with it because AI companies can disclose user data to third parties.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In March, Judge Braswell ruled that a self-represented person\u2019s use of a chatbot should stay off limits. \u201cIt is true that AI systems like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and others \u2026 collect user data for training and other purposes. But \u2026 that does not eliminate all expectations of privacy,\u201d she wrote. Courts have since remained split on the issue.<\/p>\n
Some judges are also wondering whether a chatbot, like a lawyer, has a duty to provide good legal advice. Judge Allison Goddard, a federal magistrate judge in California, has noticed that people without lawyers often get the wrong advice from ChatGPT when trying to assess the value of their case during settlement negotiations. In one case, a plaintiff who slipped and fell in a store asked for $700,000 from the store, which was wildly more than the case was worth.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere are you getting the idea that you\u2019re getting $700,000? Did you go to ChatGPT?\u201d Judge Goddard asked. \u201cWell \u2026\u201d the plaintiff mumbled. She then walked the person through the law to explain why ChatGPT was wrong and suggested a lower amount. \u201cIt\u2019s like Dr. Google went to law school,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n
Then there\u2019s the question of who\u2019s liable when a chatbot makes such mistakes. In March, Nippon Life Insurance Company sued OpenAI alleging that ChatGPT practiced law without a license and helped a woman reopen a lawsuit that was already settled, flooding the court with frivolous filings. \u201cChatGPT is not an attorney,\u201d the lawsuit said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In May, OpenAI asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that ChatGPT does not practice law. \u201cChatGPT is not a person and neither has nor uses any degree of legal \u200bknowledge or skill,\u201d OpenAI said in its filing. The case is still pending before the court.<\/p>\n
States have started to weigh legislation that would hold AI companies liable when their chatbots offer bad legal advice. New York introduced a bill in March that would bar chatbots from impersonating lawyers, even if they notify \u200busers that they are interacting with chatbots. In Congress, a series of bills have been proposed to ban chatbots from posing as lawyers, doctors, and other licensed professionals. The bills have yet to gain traction.<\/p>\n
For now, people will continue turning to AI to be their lawyer. For many of them, the rewards outweigh the risks. Not long ago, when Judge Braswell asked self-represented litigants why they wanted a particular piece of evidence, they mumbled timidly. Now, they answer her questions confidently, having rehearsed with a chatbot.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a really tough system to navigate. With AI, though, it gets a little less complex,\u201d she says.