Park v. Kim

What sanction did the court impose?

The Second Circuit referred counsel to its Grievance Panel under Local Rule 46.2 for further investigation and for consideration of a referral to the Committee on Admissions and Grievances. It ordered her to provide a copy of the ruling to her client, "translated into Korean if necessary to permit Park to understand it," within twenty-one days, and to file a certification on the docket attesting that she had done so (slip op. at 11-12). On the merits, the court affirmed the dismissal of Park's suit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41(b) ("Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of dismissal," id. at 1).

Why does Park v. Kim matter for law firms using AI?

In Park v. Kim the Second Circuit measured an appellate reply brief against the reasonable-inquiry standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and acted through its own disciplinary process, a referral under Local Rule 46.2 (slip op. at 8-12). It described that standard this way: “At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely” (id. at 9). It also said no AI-specific rule is needed to tell a licensed attorney that her submissions must be accurate (id. at 10-11). The opinion quotes counsel’s explanation that she used ChatGPT, “to which I am a subscribed and paying member,” after an unsuccessful search for supporting authority (id. at 8). The court’s response combined a grievance referral with an order to give the client a copy of the decision, translated if necessary, and to certify compliance on the docket (id. at 11-12). For managing partners, the case shows that a reply brief carries the same verification duty as an opening brief, and that a court can direct counsel to tell the client what happened.