Ethics Exam Showdown: Chat GPT vs. Law Students – A New Era in Legal Education

Last Thursday, LegalOn Technologies published a study claiming AI chatbots outperformed most aspiring lawyers on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE). According to the report, OpenAI’s Chat GPT-4 performed best by answering 74% of the exam questions correctly, outperforming the nationwide average of human test-takers answering 68% correctly. Earlier this year, other research concluded that GPT-4 also surpassed law students in passing the Uniform Bar Exam. What does this mean for the future of legal education? Let’s get into the details.

Standardized Tests in Legal Education

Law students in every state except Wisconsin must pass two exams to become a lawyer: the MPRE and the Bar exam. The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) develops both exams. The MPRE is typically taken during a law student’s second year of study and tests legal ethics and professional conduct. It is a 60-question, multiple-choice exam administered over two hours.

Law students complete the bar exam after they graduate from law school. The bar exam is the final hurdle before becoming a licensed attorney in the United States. Every jurisdiction administers a bar exam “to test a candidate’s ability to think like a lawyer and prove they have the ‘minimum competency’ to practice law in that state.” The Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) is a 2-day exam promulgated by the NCBE but is administered and scored by individual states. The majority of states have adopted the UBE, with exceptions including California, Florida, Virginia, Delaware, and Hawaii, to name a few.

Bar requirement changes are taking hold in some states. Oregon announced earlier this month that starting next year the state will no longer require law students to take the bar exam in order to become licensed attorneys. The state is initiating the Portfolio Bar Exam —an “alternative pathway to licensure that would allow aspiring lawyers to spend four to six months working under the supervision of an experienced attorney and to gain admission to the bar after submitting an acceptable portfolio of legal work.” California is also considering the Portfolio Bar exam. Last Thursday, the State Bar of California’s board of trustees voted to test-run the program. Now, it is waiting for the California Supreme Court to sign off on it.

What Does the MPRE Study Conclude?

The study tested four leading generative AI models, including OpenAI’s Chat GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, Anthropic’s Claude 2, and Google’s PaLM 2 Bison. According to the report, GPT-4 and Claude 2 achieved scores exceeding the approximate passing threshold (between 56-64%) for the MPRE in every state. The study used an MPRE-style exam question developed by an ethics and economics professor from the University of Houston Law Center.

The study used standard application programming interfaces (APIs) and basic prompting of “Answer the following multiple-choice question.” To simulate the MPRE, researchers randomly selected 60 questions from an available 500 in each subject area.

“Based on the sampling and testing methodology described above, the overall mean accuracy for each of the models was as follows: GPT-4 answered 74% correct, Claude 2 answered 67% correct, GPT-3.5 answered 49% correct, and PaLM 2 answered 42% correct.”

The study concludes with an implication that generative AI models can now apply black-letter ethical guidelines and help lawyers with legal ethics questions. It emphasizes that though GAI models perform well, it remains vital that legal professionals who use AI must understand its capabilities and limitations –ensuring that they are the final decision-makers. It also cautions that legal technology providers test their models extensively with “lawyer-led validations, coach LLMs to consistently produce profession-grade results, and augment generative AI with domain-specific content and training.”

How Does Generative AI Impact Law Students’ Test Scores?

Earlier this year, two University of Minnesota law professors conducted a study on integrating Generative AI (GAI) with legal writing assignments and taking exams. The study found that students could complete their assignments faster with AI, but the work product was not any better than the students who completed the assignments without technology.

Regarding law school exams, the study found “low-performing students scored higher on final exams when given access to GPT-4, while their high-performing classmates performed worse when using the technology.”

The results indicate that generative AI is becoming a vital tool for law students. The study did, however, urge law schools to ban the use of GAI in core first-year courses and on exams because the technology “disproportionately helps lower-performing students.”

What Does AI Mean for the Future of Legal Education?

GAI can help students get their work done faster, but according to research, the quality of work is not any better with AI. GAI is also incredibly helpful with legal research. Overall, GAI saves a person time, and time is something both law students and lawyers need more of. As this technology continues to develop rapidly, law schools and educators must adopt AI policies so that students understand when they are allowed to use AI and when they are not. Law schools must also implement AI training so that students become familiar with AI software –its potential and limits.

There has been a growing debate in the legal community surrounding the ethics of using AI in legal practice, which encompasses legal education. Some argue that AI threatens knowledge-based learning because if students rely on AI to do the work, are they truly “learning” or developing new skills? Others argue that AI is rapidly integrating into our society. Therefore, teaching students how to become familiar with this technology is necessary as it will most likely impact future job prospects.

Regardless of the AI debate, it is a fact that AI integration is at the forefront of technology development. Law students and faculty can benefit from AI and save time researching and writing, while legal institutions can develop AI policies and guidelines so that AI does not benefit some students to the detriment of others.

Ready to Integrate AI in Legal Education?

Are you a law professor or law librarian interested in teaching your students about the benefits of AI? Are you a student who wants to get a jump start on learning the ins and outs of legal research at the state court level? Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven data analytics platform for lawyers, law students, and legal professionals. Access state trial court data using our API and simplify your legal research workflow. Find us at trellis.law or contact us directly for a demo.

Sources:
https://www.legalontech.com/generative-ai-passes-the-legal-ethics-exam

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/ai-chatbot-can-pass-national-lawyer-ethics-exam-study-finds-2023-11-16/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/ai-chatbot-can-pass-national-lawyer-ethics-exam-study-finds-2023-11-16/

https://www.barbri.com/about-the-bar-exam/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bar-exam-alternative-proposed-california-passes-key-hurdle-2023-11-17/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bar-exam-alternative-proposed-california-passes-key-hurdle-2023-11-17/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/ai-chatbot-beats-most-aspiring-lawyers-national-legal-ethics-exam-study-finds

https://nysba.org/navigating-the-ethical-and-technical-challenges-of-chatgpt/

Case Study on Gender Discrimination and Retaliation: Robert De Niro’s Production Company’s Legal Battle and Verdict

Last week, a jury in New York found Robert De Niro’s production company, Canal Productions liable for gender discrimination and retaliation against De Niro’s former assistant, Graham Chase Robinson.

The jury awarded Robinson $1.2 million in damages but found that De Niro was not personally liable. This legal battle stems back to 2019 when De Niro filed a lawsuit against Robinson for breach of fiduciary duty related to the alleged misuse of company funds, and Robinson countersued, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Let’s get into what happened.

Background

Chase Robinson started working as Robert De Niro’s assistant in February 2008, when she was twenty-five. She became vice president of production and finance for Canal Productions in 2017 and left the company in April 2019. According to reports, her annual salary was $3000,000.

On August 17, 2019, Canal Productions filed a complaint against Chase Robinson for breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleged that Robinson abused her position by misappropriating her employer’s funds and property for personal gain. Specifically, the complaint alleged Robinson “charged hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal expenses on Canal’s American Express Card; used and converted millions of Canal’s frequent flyer files for her personal use; improperly ‘reimbursed’ herself from Canal’s petty cash account for personal and luxury items; submitted false information in order to be paid for cash account for personal and luxury items; submitted false information in order to be paid for 96 days of ‘unused’ vacation time; and loaded during work hours, binge-watching astounding hours of TV shows on Netflix.”

Canal Productions sued Robinson for $6 million, and the complaint documents provided examples of Robinson’s alleged unauthorized use of company funds. In response to the complaint, in October 2019, Robinson countersued De Niro and Canal Production “on multiple counts, including gender discrimination, retaliation, and equal pay.”

Robinson alleged in her complaint that De Niro engaged in inappropriate, demeaning conduct and “gratuitous physical contact.” The complaint also alleged that De Niro underpaid her because of her gender. Additional allegations include claims of retaliation against Robinson by De Niro. After Robinson raised concerns about her working conditions, De Niro reportedly refused to provide her with a letter of recommendation for business school and denied her a reference. Furthermore, Robinson accused De Niro of instructing Canal Productions to file a retaliatory lawsuit against her following her departure from the company.

Robinson sought $12 million in damages for reputational harm and emotional stress, alleging she was unable to recover from the trauma she experienced at her job, which prevented her from gaining further employment.

What is Employment Discrimination?

This legal battle is a striking example of the many nuances involved in employment discrimination lawsuits. Employment discrimination is defined as a differential or less favorable treatment against a person because of their race, color, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, and sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation).

Discrimination can occur in the workplace, at school, and in public spaces and can be facilitated by employers, teachers, managers, coaches, and business owners, to name a few. Federal and state laws protect against employment discrimination, ranging from unfair treatment, harassment, retaliation, denial of a reasonable workplace accommodation, and improper questions about disclosing generic or medical information.

Historically, employees tend to be wary of making claims of employment discrimination, fearful of worsening workplace conditions or retaliation on the part of the employer. However, in recent times, employment discrimination has been spotlighted in the media –especially cases concerning sexual harassment in the era of #metoo.

Robinson Confronted De Niro in Court

Facing intense media scrutiny, Robinson testified against De Niro in a Manhattan federal courthouse. Over 11 days, jurors heard completing claims of discrimination and improper spending. Let’s breakdown the discrimination claims.

Robinson testified that she was a loyal and hard-working employee who loved her job despite the long hours and demanding environment. However, she stated she became disillusioned toward the end of her employment due to the kind of work she was expected to do and how De Niro treated her.

Gender Discrimination

Robinson testified that De Niro assigned her work centered on taking care of him and his house. She specifically claimed, “Mr. De Niro had treated her like an ‘office wife’ directing her to wash his sheets” and other household tasks. She felt she was deliberately given “typical female” oriented tasks.

Additionally, she stated that De Niro made “demeaning, gender-based comments” and made her do inappropriate things, like scratch his back and talk to him on the phone while he went to the bathroom. Robinson also alleged she was paid less than a male employee because she is a woman. She argued the male employee’s “job required no greater skill or responsibility than her own.”

Retaliation

Robinson’s retaliation claim centered on a dispute with De Niro’s girlfriend, Tiffany Chen. Robinson and Chen worked together from 2018 to 2019, preparing a townhouse that De Niro and Chen were to live in. Allegedly, tensions grew between the two, and a series of disputes arose. Chen expressed concern to De Niro that Robinson “had a fantasy relationship with her boss,” at one point texting De Niro, “She thinks she’s your wife.”

According to Robinson, she wrote to Chen asking to be taken off the townhouse project to ease tensions between the two, which led to Chen emailing Canal Production employees suggesting that Robinson be stripped of all her responsibilities. Robinson resigned shortly after this.

De Niro’s lawyers framed Robinson’s position with Canal Productions differently. They argued that Robinson asked to be promoted to vice president in 2017, but her job duties coordinating De Niro’s professional and personal life remained the same.

When De Niro testified, he argued that Robinson’s claims made him sound like someone he was not. He said everything he asked her to do was “within the confines of her job working for [him] as [his] assistant.”

He denied allegations that he made her perform duties outside her job description, and when confronted about the back-scratching, he replied, “OK twice? You got me!” De Niro also denied ever yelling at Robinson, though he admitted he did berate her, but that he was never abusive.

At one point, while testifying during the trial, De Niro looked at Robinson and shouted, “Shame on you, Chase Robinson!”

Verdict

The jury deliberated for around four hours over a single day before they reached a verdict. They awarded Robinson $1.26 million (roughly the amount she lost while unemployed after resigning as De Niro’s assistant). They found Canal Productions liable for gender discrimination and retaliation, but De Niro was not personally liable.

Regarding De Niro’s claims, the jury found them to be without merit. “Robinson was completely exonerated and not found guilty of any claims against her.”

Robinson smiled while the verdict was read, and after the trial, her lawyer stated, “We are delighted that the jury saw what we saw and returned a verdict in Chase Robinson’s favor against Robert De Niro’s company, Canal Productions. Not only did Ms. Robinson win her case against Canal, but the jury completely vindicated Ms. Robinson by finding De Niro’s claims against her to be without merit.”

Want to Know More?

Interested in celebrity lawsuits? Practice employment law? Check out Trellis! Stay up to date with cases currently being litigated throughout the country involving questions of gender discrimination and retaliation. Search through thousands of dockets and court documents that can help prepare you for your legal practice.

Sources

https://trellis.law/doc/38677439/complaint

https://apnews.com/article/robert-de-niro-assistantlawsuit07b4d5c932667ea1867ba9352946148d

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/09/robert-de-niro-gender-discrimination-ex-assistant-trial-verdict

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/09/robert-de-niro-gender-discrimination-ex-assistant-trial-verdict

https://www.today.com/news/robert-de-niro-assistant-graham-chase-robinson-trial-rcna123997

https://www.nytimes.com/article/robert-de-niro-trial-gender-discrimination.html

🌱 Trellis Origin Story: CEO Nicole Clark Shares Inside Scoop on Lawyer Stories Podcast

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 161 features Nicole Clark, Co-founder, CEO at Trellis, located in Los Angeles, California. 

In this podcast, Nicole shares her story and how the idea for Trellis was born late one night as Nicole was trying to write a complicated motion for summary judgment.

She didn’t know much about the judge assigned to the case, which left her unsure about how to structure the document.

A colleague let her browse through his old case files, where she stumbled upon a past ruling by her judge, on her issue, on her motion. It felt like finally having a detailed study guide to a final exam.

She won her motion for summary judgement, and everything changed. Nicole knew there was a massive opportunity and never looked back. And Trellis was born.

Listen in Here: https://tinyurl.com/37syevtx