In early 2023, a New York attorney - Steven A. Schwartz - was investigated following the submission of a legal brief he filed in support of his client in a personal injury lawsuit against an airline. The brief included citations to six cases that supported the attorney's arguments before the District Court for the Southern District of New York. When courthouse staff attempted to research the cases cited by the attorney, the cases could not be located.

In a sworn statement later presented to the court, Schwarz admitted to using ChatGPT to perform legal research. He acknowledged the six case citations he included in his brief were provided by ChatGPT. Schwartz stated he knew ChatGPT was generative artificial intelligence, but that he thought it was a reliable source. He stated that he has never been cited for legal misconduct in more than thirty years of practicing law.

At a hearing on whether penalties (under the federal rules of professional conduct) should be imposed, the Court ordered Schwartz to pay $5,000 and required him to send the Court's written opinion on the penalties to his client.

This matter raises questions about the ethics of attorneys using generative artificial intelligence as part of their practice. Examine the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.

https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a5791/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/rules-of-professional-conduct/michigan-rules-of-professional-conduct.pdf (the state-specific rules of professional conduct link).

Generative artificial intelligence are not mentioned specifically, but consider whether this kind of activity is addressed in the MRPC. Determine whether you think the use of ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence violates the MRPC. If so, which provisions? If not, should it be? Why or why not?