Elliott v. N.Y. Bariatric Grp., LLC

In an opinion that expressed support for the use of AI tools in the practice of law, the Superior Court of Connecticut reprimanded a pro se plaintiff who used AI “in a dishonest way” by hiding white-on-white instructions in his pleadings. These hidden instructions were aimed at any AI tool that the court or opposing counsel might use to read them, a technique referred to as “prompt injection.”

The court likened the tactic to an ex parte communication, reasoning that our legal system “rests on the premise that what is said to influence a decision is said openly, on the record, where the other side may hear it and respond,” and that “[a] communication deployed in secret, kept from the adversary’s sight, offends that premise.” Even though the prompt did not end up affecting any ruling, the court found that “[t]he wrong lies in the attempt.”

Addressing the bar (in addition to the plaintiff), the court cautioned: “The very tools that assist the diligent can be turned into instruments of deception by others, and counsel should stay alert to what may be hidden in the documents that they pass through their own systems.” The court still “welcome[d] the plaintiff’s (or any litigant’s) use of artificial intelligence in preparing filings,” noting that AI tools “hold real promise, especially in furthering the cause of access to justice,” and sharing that the court itself used AI tools “[i]n preparing this very decision.”

Read the opinion →