ChatGPT Didn’t Write This . . . or Did It? The Emergence of Generative AI in the Legal Field and Lessons from Mata v. Avianca

It’s no secret: Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), for better or worse, is revolutionizing the world. The legal field and legal education at large are not immune to this explosion of possible uses for AI technology. However, as with any technological advancement, AI and Generative Language Models bring with them many challenges, including the implications of their use. One such challenge was vividly presented in the case of Mata v. Avianca, often referred to as “The ChatGPT Case.” Mata is a cautionary tale of the potential missteps that can trip up the unwitting user who naively relies on the lofty promises of programs like ChatGPT without exercising the due diligence and competence required of a legal professional. The core objectives of this Comment are three-fold. First, to identify some of the many ethical pitfalls that can emerge from the marriage of AI and the law, highlighting examples on display in Mata v. Avianca––the landmark case revolving around the misuse of generative AI. Second, to acknowledge the inevitable role AI is poised to play in legal practice and outline some basic guidelines that may help ensure the integration and use of AI in the legal field is responsible, fair, and ethically sound. Third, from the perspective of a law school student, to address the importance of implementing AI into legal education and the imperative of properly equipping future generations of legal professionals. Through an examination of the evolution of Artificial Intelligence in the legal field and lessons from Mata v. Avianca, this Author aims to shine a light on the nuances of AI’s ethically ambiguous landscape and provide a helpful roadmap for its responsible adoption into legal education and practice.