Legal Advice and ChatGPT: A Closer Look

Zachary M. Smith Edmonds Lawyer

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is quickly becoming a part of our daily lives, but how helpful can it be in the context of a litigated dispute between neighbors concerning property rights? In 2023, ChatGPT gained widespread notoriety for its ability to assist with various tasks, for example review of massive amounts of data. This led some to think that ChatGPT was suited to perform legal research. However, controversy arose after an attorney was accused of relying on the AI model to help draft legal documents. In that situation, the results looked pretty but were in fact problematic. ChatGPT identified inapplicable or incorrect legal authority, and worse still, “found” completely fabricated cases.  Click here for the full story.

Recently, we asked ChatGPT to help with legal research for a hypothetical neighbor dispute concerning Adverse Possession in preparation for a legal brief. The purpose of this exercise was to gauge whether the issues with ChatGPT’s research in the linked story above had improved.

ChatGPT identified the Washington decision, Gibson v. Shaver, 74 Wn.2d 233, 443 P.2d 823 (1968), as concerning Adverse Possession, and provided the following short summary: “This case established that to claim adverse possession in Washington, the use must be exclusive, actual, hostile, continuous, and under a claim of right for the statutory period (10 years)”.

At first glance, this information appears helpful and on topic. However, a closer inspection reveals several major issues:

  • First and foremost, this case does not exist. Gibson v. Shaver is aChatGPT fabrication. There is a Gibson v. Shaver case from 1968, but it is a Texas decision addressing a temporary injunction, not adverse possession.
  • Even if this summary were based on a legitimate case, it is not sufficient as legal authority. Notably, it makes no mention of who’s right nor who’s use is being discussed. When asked to expand on provided summary, ChatGPT provided more explanation, but did not direct us to any valid or existing case law.
  • Finally, ChatGPT lacks the “human touch.” ChatGPT certainly can search through an enormous volume of data. But ChatGPT is not capable (yet!) of the nuanced contemplation necessary to appreciate the differences from one situation to another. Simply, not every dispute concerning adverse possession is identical. In fact, each case is unique, and the specific facts and circumstances of each dispute must be considered and applied to the elements of any claim, including adverse possession.

AI is constantly being developed and improved. AI will undoubtedly continue to impact and alter many industries, including the legal profession.  For now, ChatGPT is not ready to perform even the most basic legal writing prompts. An attorney’s reliance on ChatGPT could easily result in sanctions when the cases provided by ChatGPT are works of fiction. A self- representing individual, a pro se litigant, without law degree should be extra cautious when relying on ChatGPT. ChatGPT is a language model and not specifically a legal research tool. While ChatGPT and other AI tools can be helpful with legal research or understanding legal concepts, they should never be relied upon for legal writing, including contracts or motions. An attorney’s expertise that is based on legal education, legal training, and practical experience cannot be replaced by algorithms or automated systems. At least not yet!

To learn more about how we can help you with your legal needs, and stop you from possibly a big mistake using AI to help with legal disputes, please do not hesitate to contact us at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone (425) 776-4100 for assistance.

BERESFORD BOOTH has made this content available to the general public for informational purposes only. The information on this site is not intended to convey legal opinions or legal advice.