“It was in consultation with the generative artificial intelligence website ChatGPT that your affiant did locate and cite the following cases in the affirmation in opposition submitted,” he said.
According to the lawyer, he has never used ChatGPT in the past to conduct legal research and was “unaware” that the content it generated could be false.
“That is the fault of the affiant, in not confirming the sources provided by ChatGPT of the legal opinions it provides,” Schwartz said. “That your affiant had no intention to deceive this court nor the defendant.”
Schwartz added that he “greatly regrets” using generative AI to supplement legal research and has sworn to “never do so in the future without absolute verification of its authenticity.”
The attorney also clarified that his fellow attorney, Peter LoDuca, had “no role” in performing the legal research and was not informed that ChatGPT was used. LoDuca, in his own affidavit, also defended that he previously had no reason to doubt the authenticity and sincerity of Schwartz’s research.