The five thousand dollar (USD$5000) fine, levied this past week, against a law firm and the two attorneys who filed unverified legal research (which turned out to be ficticious) obtained through the use of Chat GPT, should be an abject lesson for compliance officers who choose to adopt AI-derived research on new bank clients, without independently confirming its accuracy. While attorneys are required to insure that their research of legal authorities (case law) remains good law, meaning it has been followed in the courts, and not overruled, compliance officers should follow their lead an check out the truth and accuracy of ALL data and information obtained solely from AI-powered AML/CFT platforms seeking facts not otherwise available on prospective banks clients, or on possibly suspicious transactions.
Please note that we have published no less than four previous articles, detailing the nightmare that these sloppy lawyers are presently undergoing, after one utterly failed to verify the legal research he obtained from Chat GPT, attempting a research shortcut that came back to bite him in Federal Court. Why he did not have the wisdom to access primary legal source materials directly, in a case involving a claim against a major airline, we cannot say, but his professional reputation is now suffering due to what some are calling professional negligence, also known as malpractice. As a compliance officer caught with his professional pants down, in this manner, you could be not just out of a job, but out of the industry as well, on a permanent basis.
Compliance officers, please learn from this sad story. While AI-powered tools can, and do, return results that you simply cannot get elsewhere, if there is any chance that a program invented information or data to please you, trust but verify, everything. Lesson learned, we trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.