Mata v. Avianca, Inc.

Um, these are some more practice pointers and things about how to use AI, um, constructively and safely within your firm.

Uh, but it should be noted that, you know, some years now after Mata v. Avianca, you know, the, the ChatGPT attorneys, uh, were covered in The New York Times, um, people are still making these same types of errors, um, and the courts are really losing their tolerance.

Um, I sit on a judiciary committee for AI, you know, in, in my state, and, uh, the amount of AI slop and filings that are being presented to the court, uh, constantly, and the burden that places on them are really, uh, I don't know what the solution [chuckles] is for that, but subject of a lot of discussion.

Um, and this is an example, uh, the case that's on this slide where a pro se litigant just finally went too far.

That really got things rolling.

We had the Mata v. Avianca decision in May of 2023, a New York decision, and that got the whole thing on hallucinations.

Well, we've been talking about hallucinations for three years now.

So in 2026, the law is very unsettled on are your prompts, are the things you do in AI protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine? And the courts are split.