Bankruptcy lawyers recently gained access to a promising technology for improving the efficiency of tasks like drafting a motion for relief from stay. ChatGPT allows users to employ generative artificial intelligence by chatting with a chatbot on OpenAI’s website https://chat.openai.com/chat. But, as noted on the ChatGPT search page, ChatGPT “[m]ay occasionally generate incorrect information.” To illustrate the pros and cons of using ChatGPT in this context, the following recounts an exchange with ChatGPT on April 2, 2023, which was designed to test ChatGPT’s capabilities for drafting a motion for relief from stay.
Me: Draft a motion for relief from stay in a chapter 13 bankruptcy case filed on February 15, 2023. The debt is $15,000 and the loan is secured by a 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a value of $20,000. The debtor defaulted by failing to make monthly payments. The last monthly payment was made on December 1, 2022.
ChatGPT:
Incredibly, ChatGPT generated the above response within a matter of seconds. However, ChatGPT’s response is far from being ready to simply fill in the blanks and file with a bankruptcy court. For example, despite the prompt to draft a motion, ChatGPT framed the request for relief from stay in the form of a letter to the bankruptcy court. Although ChatGPT did correctly include blanks for identifying the debtor by name and the bankruptcy case by case number, which might allow the bankruptcy court to treat the letter as a motion, no competent bankruptcy lawyer would draft a letter to the bankruptcy court requesting relief from stay. Even more importantly, however, ChatGPT’s argument for granting relief from the automatic stay supports the opposite conclusion. Despite recognizing that the collateral is worth 33 percent more than the debt, ChatGPT argued the creditor is entitled to relief from stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). To the contrary, § 362(d)(2) justifies relief from the automatic stay only when the collateral is worth less than the debt.
This simple exercise shows both the amazing capabilities of ChatGPT and its serious shortcomings. In the author’s other experiences with ChatGPT, it often makes clear to users that they should not be attempting to use ChatGPT as a substitute for a lawyer’s services. But this interaction with ChatGPT included no such disclaimer within ChatGPT’s unqualified and erroneous response. ChatGPT may soon become a reliable tool for lawyers in drafting motions and performing all kinds of other services. Until then, the most important thing to know about ChatGPT is that it may provide a confident response without regard to whether valid reasoning supports its conclusion.
