Review this exciting guide to some of the recent content additions to Practical Guidance, designed to help you find the tools and insights you need to work more efficiently and effectively. Practical Guidance...
By: Jeffrey D. Mamorsky , COHEN & BUCKMANN, P.C. THIS VIDEO SERIES CELEBRATES THE ENACTMENT of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), signed by President Gerald Ford on September 2...
By: Kirk A. Sigmon , BANNER WITCOFF THIS CHECKLIST OUTLINES KEY CONSIDERATIONS THAT ATTORNEYS should review when advising whether and how to copyright artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning...
By: Erin Hanson , Arlene Arin Hahn , Sahra Nizipli , and Jordan Hill , WHITE & CASE LLP THIS ARTICLE SUMMARIZES VARIOUS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TECHNOLOGY (IP/IT) PROVISIONS, including sample definitions...
By: Damon W. Silver , Gregory C. Brown, Jr. , and Cindy Huang , JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Overview of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Employment Decisions AI tools are fundamentally changing how people work...
Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis and/or its Licensors.
By: Rose J. Hunter Jones, Kassi R. Burns, and Meredith A. Perlman, KING & SPALDING
THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES BEST PRACTICES AND STRATEGIC INSIGHTS LITIGATORS SHOULD CONSIDER IN A FEDERAL COURT LITIGATION when dealing with discovery produced by generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools.
Since the launch of OpenAI’S ChatGPT 3.5 in November 2022, discussions about the use of GAI tools like ChatGPT have dominated the news, publications, conference panels, and social media. The use of generated pre-trained transformers (GPT) is a topic that spans all industries and verticals, with the practice of law being no exception.
While the legal profession grapples with heady topics like appropriate use cases, potential bias, privilege and confidentiality considerations, and the application of legal ethics when using GPT and other GAI tools, it is important to look ahead to contemplate how the use of these tools will be addressed in litigation. This article focuses specifically on preservation and production obligations in federal civil litigation and how those obligations may apply to the emerging GPT tools businesses and individuals increasingly are using.
Finally, this article also contemplates the development of corporate GAI policies that will address a wide variety of issues related to the use of GPT tools. For example, these policies could include requirements for employees to acknowledge the use of GPT tools as a step in their process, which will ultimately be validated, refined, and finalized by the employee to accurately reflect the intended message or information.
For practical guidance on GPT prompt engineering, preservation obligations, production obligations, and practical considerations, subscribers may follow this link. Non-subscribers please sign up for a free trial of Practical Guidance to read this complete article.
In the context of federal civil litigation, addressing preservation and production obligations regarding GPT and prompts is essential for maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings. The evolving landscape of GAI, particularly GPT tools, introduces unique challenges that legal professionals, businesses, and individuals must navigate.
Preservation obligations encompass the duty to protect and retain relevant ESI in anticipation of or during litigation. GPT-generated content and prompts, being a form of ESI, require special attention due to its characteristics, such as identification challenges and data integrity concerns.
Production obligations come into play when parties need to produce ESI as part of discovery requests. GPT-generated data and prompts may be subject to these obligations, necessitating careful consideration of relevance, proportionality, and production format.
In conclusion, the integration of GPT tools into litigation practices requires a nuanced understanding of preservation and production obligations. It calls for the development of best practices and the incorporation of expert consultation. Legal professionals, businesses, and individuals must adapt to the unique challenges presented by GPT-generated content and prompts while upholding the principles of fairness, transparency, and compliance with legal obligations in federal civil litigation.
Subscribers may view the full article in Practical Guidance.
Not yet a Practical Guidance subscriber? Sign up for a free trial of Practical Guidance to read the full article.
Rose J. Hunter Jones is a partner at King & Spalding and leads the firm’s nationally ranked E-Discovery practice. Rose is dedicated to understanding and managing the intersection of legal and technical issues that now largely dominate American and global litigation, data breach response, and government investigations. She devotes her entire practice to crisis management, eData, and technology. As a crisis manager with 20 years’ experience, Rose works closely with clients legal, information technology, compliance, and records management departments to strategize, manage and defend corporations when facing the most complex and high-value matters. In addition, she is actively engaged in e-discovery thought leadership and shaping the law around emerging issues.
Kassi R. Burns is a senior attorney in King & Spalding’s E-Discovery practice. She is a skilled e-discovery practitioner with more than 13 years of progressive experience advising corporate clients and legal professionals on e-discovery best practices and the integration of technology and the law. Her diverse background ranges from transactional law, e-discovery (technical and managed review), and legal operations.
Meredith A. Perlman is an attorney in King & Spalding’s E-Discovery practice. She has 15 years’ experience across multiple review platforms and primarily focuses her practice on complex discovery issues, including the electronic discovery process. Meredith is experienced in all stages of case review and preparation using analytics and active learning to achieve the most efficient and best results for clients.
For a comprehensive guide to current practical guidance on generative artificial intelligence (GAI), ChatGPT, and similar tools, see
> GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) RESOURCE KIT
For a discussion of ethical issues faced by attorneys when considering using GAI technology in their practices, see
> AI AND LEGAL ETHICS: WHAT LAWYERS NEED TO KNOW
For insight into a judge’s view of the use of GAI, see
> ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A JUDGE’S VIEW OF GENERATIVE AI
For an overview of the primary issues relating to the use of ChatGPT in the practice of law, see
> LAWYERS AND CHATGPT: BEST PRACTICES
For an introduction to predictive coding in the context of discovery in federal court litigation, see
> PREDICTIVE CODING FUNDAMENTALS (FEDERAL)
For recommendations on best practices to be used by litigators when working with e-discovery in federal court litigation, see
> E-DISCOVERY BEST PRACTICES (FEDERAL)
To explore the role of the metadata of electronically stored information in e-discovery in federal court litigation, see
> METADATA IN E-DISCOVERY (FEDERAL)
For an analysis of technology-assisted review of electronically stored information, see
> TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED REVIEW: OVERVIEW (FEDERAL)
For a sample certificate regarding the use of GAI in federal court, see
> GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) USE AND COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION (FEDERAL)
For a comparison of the most common electronically stored information production formats found in federal court civil litigation and the advantages and limitations of each format, see
> ESI PRODUCTION FORMATS CHART (FEDERAL)
For an explanation on how email threading works, the technological benefits of using threading, and strategic considerations for it in document review and production in federal court litigation, see
> EMAIL THREADING IN E-DISCOVERY CHECKLIST (FEDERAL)
For a review of issues relating to e-discovery search terms and search parameters in federal court litigation, see
> E-DISCOVERY SEARCH TERMS CHECKLIST (FEDERAL)