Photo of Sarah A. Emmerich

Sarah A. Emmerich is an associate in the Litigation Department.

Sarah earned her law degree from New York University School of Law, where she served as an articles editor on the Annual Survey of American Law. While at NYU, she also served as the co-chair of the Research, Education, and Advocacy to Combat Homelessness group, where she worked to help individuals suffering from homelessness in New York City with their legal battles. Sarah was awarded the Ann Petluck Poses Memorial Prize and the Vanderbilt Medal upon graduation.

Prior to law school, Sarah spent two years as a paralegal at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, in the Securities and Commodities Task Force.

Sarah holds a Bachelor of Arts in History, summa cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

ChatGPT may be smart enough to pass the bar exam, but lawyers should take caution before relying on the Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) platform to conduct any legal business.

On June 22, 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York released a lengthy order sanctioning two attorneys for submitting a brief drafted by ChatGPT. Judge Castel reprimanded the attorneys, explaining that while “there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance,” the attorneys “abandoned their responsibilities” by submitting a brief littered with fake judicial opinions, quotes and citations.

The United States Supreme Court recently resolved a circuit split regarding when a party has waived its contractual right to arbitrate by participating in litigation prior to seeking to arbitrate a dispute. In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the Court held that the party seeking to resist arbitration does not need to show that it has been prejudiced by the other party’s delay in seeking to compel arbitration. Notably, and in holding that “the Eighth Circuit erred in conditioning a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice,” the Supreme Court decided against the use of “custom-made rules, to tilt the playing field in favor of (or against) arbitration.”