Asking ChatGPT: Who is more likely to “win” in the Trump-Cohen lawsuit?

Created with Microsoft Bing Image Creator powered by DALL-E

        Considering the recent slew of legal cases involving former president Trump and the many varied — and sometimes contradictory — opinions given in news/social media, I became interested in whether ChatGPT could give me a proper legal analysis. To test this, I asked ChatGPT 4.0 about Trump’s lawsuit against Cohen. My original test involved feeding it a popular newspaper article that summarized the legal issues, which led to decent but unsatisfactory results. 

        For this follow-up test, I first fed it the lawsuit filed in court, then asked ChatGPT on the possible reasons for this lawsuit, ways that both Trump and Cohen could attack, defend, and counterattack, as well as asking it who was more likely to succeed in ‘winning’ the legal case. Although ChatGPT emphasized that the legal outcome would depend on many factors, it did note that it is possible neither party will come out as a true ‘winner’ and that overall, its analysis leans more towards Trump having more at stake than Cohen in this battle. 

Why did Trump sue Cohen?

ChatGPT: “while the primary reason for the lawsuit is the alleged breach of contract and fiduciary duties, it’s essential to consider the broader context, including reputation management, deterrence, political motivations, financial recovery, and personal animosity, when evaluating Trump’s decision to sue Cohen.”

What are some ways Cohen might successfully defend against Trump’s lawsuit?

ChatGPT: “Unlikely but Possible Solutions: Disclose additional information: While risky and potentially escalating the conflict, Cohen could threaten to disclose even more damaging information about Trump, which might pressure Trump to drop the lawsuit or settle the case. This strategy is unlikely but theoretically possible.”

        Aside from the standard methods of challenging validity of the confidentiality agreement, asserting first amendment rights, claiming public interest, and proving consent/waiver, ChatGPT also provided what it calls “unlikely” solutions, one of which was “disclosing additional information”.

How might Cohen counter-attack Trump?

ChatGPT: “Disclose additional information: As mentioned earlier, Cohen could disclose even more damaging information about Trump, either within the context of the lawsuit or in public forums. This strategy might pressure Trump to reconsider pursuing the lawsuit or negotiate a settlement, as the potential harm caused by such disclosures might overshadow any legal victory.”

What does “additional information” include?

ChatGPT: “Legal discovery process: During the discovery phase of the lawsuit, Cohen could request documents, depose witnesses, or obtain other evidence that could reveal damaging information about Trump. This information could then be used as part of Cohen’s legal defense or be released to the public if relevant and allowed by the court.”

ChatGPT: “Fabrication of evidence (unlikely but possible): Cohen could potentially fabricate or exaggerate damaging information about Trump to weaken his position in the lawsuit. While this approach is highly unethical and could result in severe legal consequences if discovered, it is an unlikely but possible method to obtain “new” damaging information.”

        This mention of ‘additional information’ is noteworthy since several news articles analyzing the Trump-Cohen lawsuit (such as this Above the Law article written by a lawyer) stated that the lawsuit may be problematic for Trump due to the possibility of Cohen using discovery against Trump and exposing new information that he previously could not access. Given that ChatGPT 4.0 cannot access the internet, its mention of using discovery as a legal tactic against Trump likely comes from internally applying legal principles and tactics on the current Cohen-Trump lawsuit. Such ability to apply and analyze shows great promise in using ChatGPT as a legal aid.

What other methods might Cohen employ that you didn’t mention yet?

ChatGPT: “Delaying tactics (unlikely but possible): Cohen could engage in delaying tactics to prolong the legal proceedings, potentially exhausting Trump’s resources or causing him to lose interest in pursuing the lawsuit. This might involve requesting numerous extensions, filing motions to change venue or judges, or raising procedural issues. This method was not initially mentioned because it is not a genuine defense strategy, and such tactics could be viewed unfavorably by the court, potentially damaging Cohen’s credibility.”

Getting ChatGPT’s opinion on who would win:

        Simply asking it led to ChatGPT refusing to give an opinion, citing “the outcome depends on several factors”. However, asking ChatGPT “which side stands to lose out more in this lawsuit?” led to a tentative answer:

ChatGPT: “Ultimately, Trump, as a former president with an ongoing political presence, may have more to lose in terms of political impact.”

        I also tried providing some possible arguments on why Trump or Cohen would have a harder time getting a win.

Prompt: Consider that Trump is now running for re-election… Do you agree that not only does Trump have far more to lose, but his requirements to ‘win’ is also far more stringent than Cohen?

ChatGPT: “Yes, I agree that given the context of Trump running for re-election against President Biden, the stakes are higher for Trump in this lawsuit.”

Prompt: Considering Cohen has to defend against allegations of breach of attorney-client privilege… it seems that Cohen has a much harder bar to clear to prove his own innocence

ChatGPT: “Cohen’s defense…indeed seems difficult…because attorney-client privilege is one of the cornerstones of the legal system” and “one of Cohen’s potential counterstrategies — disclosing more potentially damaging information about Trump — may actually exacerbate his legal predicament”

        That being said, this particular response by ChatGPT may also be showing its failings. My prompt suggesting that Cohen has a harder time “proving his own innocence” implies that in the court of law, the defendant must prove his innocence. This is contradictory to one of the most fundamental principles in US Law, which is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Cohen shouldn’t be required to “prove his own innocence”, because the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, Trump; as long as Cohen can cast doubt on whether Trump’s legal arguments and evidence prove Cohen’s guilt, that is likely enough for Cohen (Note, I am not a professional on US law, so it is possible I am mistaken in this case; I am merely drawing from general legal principles that I learned).

        After providing additional perspectives on why either Trump or Cohen may emerge as the likely winner of this lawsuit, I finally asked ChatGPT;

Prompt: If you had to choose one perspective as overall being more likely to happen, which would you, in your role (as an objective legal and political analyst), choose?

ChatGPT: “From a strictly legal standpoint, Trump might have a stronger case, given the gravity of the allegations against Cohen. But from a broader political viewpoint, the ‘victory’ might be more pyrrhic, with potential political and reputational costs.”

Some additional experiments:

        I tried testing these same questions using the ChatGPT 3.5, and found that the results were far inferior in quality. Before I could get far in my questioning, I found myself stonewalled when asking about ways that Cohen could legally counter-attack Trump;

ChatGPT 3.5: As an AI language model, it is not within my capabilities to provide speculation or thoughts as it may not be based on evidence or facts, and I must remain neutral and impartial. However, I can provide some general information regarding counterclaims.

        Moreover, ChatGPT 3.5 only presented the definition of a counterclaim and what Cohen would need, which was very lacking in quality compared to ChatGPT 4.0’s detailed response suggesting not only counterclaims, but also public opinion, exposing legal strategies, disclosing additional information, and using delay tactics.

        I also tried presenting ChatGPT 4.0 with less information by swapping the official lawsuit document with a popular news report on the lawsuit. Although in large part the responses by ChatGPT were along the same lines, the responses were more detailed and varied when I gave ChatGPT the official lawsuit document.

Wrapping it up:

Overall, there is definitely immense potential in ChatGPT for being used as a tool to analyze legal cases and provide possible legal recourse. It could be used to provide information to those unfamiliar with the law, while more learned professionals may use ChatGPT to sound out possible legal theories or tactics. However, if my assumption on the ‘presumption of innocence’ is correct, then ChatGPT 4 is still prone to being misled by prompts into making false or misleading answers. This can be particularly dangerous for those unfamiliar with legal principles, as their own incorrect beliefs or bias may in turn taint ChatGPT’s answers. Nonetheless, the sheer potential being shown makes me believe that a law-focused version of ChatGPT, which is trained on proper legal principles and maintained by legal professionals, may be developed in the future for more widespread use.

If you want to see ChatGPT logs in their raw form, please see my blog page: ChatGPT Log: Asking ChatGPT about the Trump-Cohen

Thank you for reading, and I hope you found it informative and interesting. I would love to hear any thoughts from you on my experiment with ChatGPT.

If you are interested in discussing more about how ChatGPT can be used in such legal contexts, or have any questions, contact me at hello@simplawfy.ca

Disclaimer: This story is only intended to be used for educational or recreational purposes. Responses by ChatGPT and similar AI chatbots, if mentioned in this story, should NOT be relied upon as factual. NO legal advice is being provided, and users must understand that there is NO attorney client relationship between you and the story publisher. The story should NOT be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state/country.