Court Sanctions Lawyers From Both Sides In The Same Lawsuit For Filing Briefs With AI-Hallucinated Cases

As you know, cases involving lawyers getting in trouble for using AI generated cites of, or quotes from, non-existent cases keep piling up.  Check out this database for the latest count.

And, if you have been paying attention you might agree with me that the types of sanctions imposed by courts are becoming more severe.  It seems judges are losing patience.

So, today I am writing to report on a recent case in which a federal court in Mississippi sanctioned four attorneys, two on each side of a contract dispute.  What makes the case worth pointing out is not only that so many lawyers were sanctioned but that the court imposed a specific sanction I had not seen yet for cases like this.  The judge disqualified all the lawyers involved in the case, and two out-of-state attorneys who had been admitted pro-hac-vice to participate in the case were  barred from practicing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge also said they would send a copy of the sanctions order to the state bars where each of the attorneys are practicing so that those jurisdictions could decide if parallel sanctions would be appropriate.

One of the lawyers reportedly stated that she did not know what hallucinated cases were, which, if true, can be seen as an admission of incompetence in itself at this point.

CNS has a link to the decision here, and Above the Law has a summary here and some analysis here.

New York adopts rule on use of AI

 Effective June 1, 2026, the New York State Unified Court System implemented a new statewide rule (Part 161) governing attorneys’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) in court filings. The rule permits attorneys to use AI tools when preparing submissions to the court and does not require disclosure of AI use. However, attorneys remain fully responsible for the accuracy of any AI-assisted work and must independently verify that filings do not contain fabricated cases, statutes, citations, or other false information.  You can read more details on the story here.

Federal judge imposes what may be the most expensive sanction for hallucinations yet

 Last month I reported on a case that was reported as imposing significant sanctions for citing hallucinated cases and stated that the running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases created by AI was 768.  Today the count is 901.  Go here for the full list.

I have not read every case on the list nor have I followed it closely, but if the case I reported in March was really significant because the court imposed $15,000 in sanctions to the lawyers involved, you should know that a federal judge has raised the stakes considerably.

Today, the ABA Journal is reporting on a case in which the judge imposed $110,000 in fines and attorney fees against two lawyers who filed documents filled with fake cases and fabricated citations.

That may be the larges sanctions imposed for improper use of AI yet.  

The ABA Journal has the story here.

Sixth Circuit imposes significant sanctions for citing non-existent cases

Last January I reported on a case imposing significant sanctions for citing hallucinated cases and stated that the running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases (created by AI) was 527.  Two months later, the number is now 768 (and by the time you read this, it may be higher.)  Go here for the full list.

I am writing about this again today because LawSites is reporting (here) that "[i]n what may be one of the most significant appellate sanctions rulings yet involving fabricated case citations, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has imposed substantial penalties on two Tennessee attorneys for filing briefs containing more than two dozen fake or misrepresented citations."  

The lawyers involved were ordered to pay $15,000 each in fines and to jointly pay for their opponents' full attorney fees on appeal plus and amount equal to double their costs.

OpenAI "accused" of practicing law without a license in civil lawsuit

OpenAI (the makers of Chat GPT) has been accused of practicing law without a license in a lawsuit brought by Nippon Life Insurance Co. of America.  

The lawsuit alleges that, after agreeing to a settlement with Nippon, the defendant asked ChatGPT for a second opinion and used its response to fire her attorney and attempt to challenge the settlement herself. She asked ChatGPT to generate proposed legal arguments and documents, which she used in a motion seeking to reopen the case.  Nippon argues that urged by ChatGPT, the defendant filed dozens of motions that “serve no legitimate legal or procedural purpose."

The ABA Journal has the story here.

More criticism about the decision on discovery of AI research by client

 In my most recent post I wrote about a recent decision holding that the result of a client's use of an AI platform was not protected from discovery.  See here.  I argued that the opinion makes perfect sense in terms of the applicable law and that, unlike other commentators, I did not think it was "groundbreaking."  But I also pointed out (and provided a link) to some thoughtful criticism of it.

I am writing today to give you another good short comment on the opinion which takes the position that  although the opinion is correct given the state of the law, it is bad decision, and an opportunity lost to be "groundbreaking."  As the author puts it "The ruling may be defensible under existing doctrine.  But it is a disaster for the 21st-century justice system" and that the ruling is "tone-deaf [...] to the high cost of legal services and to AI’s potential to reduce those costs."

The author concludes "Judge Rakoff’s ruling mechanically applied old rules to a new world.  Today, millions of Americans are turning to interactive AI to survive a legal system that has become too expensive and too complex for ordinary people to navigate. As a lawyer, I want my clients and my potential clients to keep using AI tools. The law should encourage them to do so, not punish them for it."

The article is short and worth reading.  It is called "AI Research Can Be Used Against Clients In Court. It Shouldn’t Be" and you can read it at Above the Law, here.

Client's chat with a robot is not privileged -- UPDATED

February 22, 2026

Several sources that I follow reported this week on a case in New York that held that a client's chat with a public AI platform was not protected by attorney-client privilege.  See United States v. Heppner, available here.

For some reason, this surprised some people and I am not sure why.  

Let's be clear about what happened in this case.  Using some information obtained from a lawyer, a client - on their own - used an AI platform to get more information.  The information at issue is the one obtained from the AI in reply to the client's prompts and the court held - not surprisingly (at least to me) - that it was not privileged.

Why am I not surprised?  Because privilege information is defined as information shared between a lawyer and a client for purposes of obtaining legal representation.  The only way that one could argue that the information at issue in this case should be considered privileged is if we consider the AI platform (whether ChatGPT or one of its many equivalents) to be a lawyer.  Is anyone in their right mind going to argue that?  I don't think so.

But what about "work product"?, you might ask.  Well, what about it?  Work product refers to materials created by the lawyer as part of the representation of a client in litigation.  The "product" created in this case was created by the client, not by the lawyer and not at the request, direction or supervision of the lawyer. 

I do not know why anyone would have thought that arguing that the information generated by a client doing their own research would be considered privileged under these circumstances.  But just in case there was any doubt, there you have it.  Now there is precedent explaining what that argument will not be convincing.

What should lawyers learn from this case?  That you should tell your client that if they want legal advice, they should go to a lawyer, not to an AI platform because that "advice" will not be protected from discovery -- aside from the fact that the AI's advice may be bad or inaccurate - but that's another story.

For more on the story you can check out Ethical Grounds and The Law for Lawyers Today, among many others.

For a good article on general advice regarding the fact that clients are using AI to ask legal questions check out this article in Above the Law.

Having said all that, a more interesting question to ask is whether information that a lawyer generates when using AI should be considered to be privileged.  One would think the answer is yes, since the result of the query could be considered part of the lawyer's research and, at least in litigation, therefore, work product.  But the court in Heppner reasoned that the fact that the AI platform in question did not keep the information it collected private meant that sharing information with it was not done with a reasonable expectation of privacy.  If that is the case, then no use of AI would be protected.

For a good critique of this part of the opinion, check out the post by Jonah Perlin cited in the article in  Ethical Grounds linked above.

UPDATE (February 25):  Joe Patrice, of Above the Law, has published a good critique of the case here.

UPDATE #2: (March 1): For more commentary on the case (arguing it is a bad decision) go here.

Yet another case on improper use of AI in litigation

 The running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases (created by AI) is now at 527.  (See here.)

Based on a recent one, Stacie Rosenzweig (in her post "We Should All Know Better By Now, But We Don't") reminds us of some basic rules of thumb:  

If you’re going to use AI to generate arguments or citations, verify every single one of them with a trusted legal research source.

Second, if despite your best efforts something sneaks through, fess up as soon as you learn about it, and move to correct or withdraw the pleading. Chances are, the opposing attorney won’t object.

Third, if you’re a supervisor, get a good AI policy in place before things go sideways, and train your junior attorneys and staff. And, if you’re a supervisor on a specific matter, . . . it may be time to trust less, and verify more.

And, it’s definitely time to trust less, verify more if your subordinate has already shown they’ve had problems with misuse of AI. . . . 

Finally—it’s not just this case. I’m seeing more of a duty of opposing counsel to detect, and to report, bad citations (AI or otherwise) rather than wait for the court to find them out. It’s always been a best practice to read each case cited by the opposing party (at least, each case substantively cited) so you can adequately respond to their arguments; finding out that a case doesn’t exist or that it’s not at all reflective of why it was cited shouldn’t be too much of a lift.

By the way, the sanctions imposed in the case were harsh:

The court declined to impose monetary sanctions. Instead, all three plaintiff attorneys were disqualified (and the whole case was stayed to allow the plaintiff to find new counsel), and they were ordered to provide copies of the order to the presiding judge in every pending case in which they were counsel of record (and the clerk was directed to send a copy of the order to the Mississippi regulatory authorities). The firm was directed to perform an audit, and, in the paragraph that made me shudder the hardest, the associate was ordered to seek withdrawal from every case in which she was appearing before that judge, and was forbidden from appearing in any other case before that judge for a period of two years.

And then think about what these sanctions meant for the clients and the firm.  Clients in unrelated cases lost their choice of counsel and the firm was forced to explain to other clients why that was the case.  I wonder if the clients will take their business elsewhere and whether the attorney will be seeking a new job... 

Sanctions for citing fake cases (created by "AI")

As I am sure you know, there are many court opinions out there now imposing sanctions on lawyers for filing documents with fake citations created by AI.   (For an updated list you can check out this helpful website).

For that reason, a story on yet another court imposing sanctions is not that remarkable, but I want to point this one out to remind you that sometimes the court will order the lawyer (not the client) to pay the sanction.  

As reported in the ABA Journal, in this case, a lawyer and a law firm (in Illinois) were ordered to pay nearly $60,000 for filing a court document that included a fake citation. The lawyer himself, personally, out of his own pocket, was ordered to pay $10,000. The firm was ordered to pay $49,500.

How not to practice law: cite hallucinated cases in proceeding to determine if you are going to be readmitted to practice

 In another of installment of dumb things that lawyers do, today we have the story of a suspended lawyer  who was caught citing at least one hallucinated case likely generated by artificial intelligence in his bid to return to law practice.  You would think that's a sure way to derail your own case, by showing how unfit you are to practice!  The ABA Journal has the story here.

Is there a duty to report another lawyer's use of fake, AI generated citations?

 As I am sure you know, Model Rule 8.3(a), which has been adopted in some form or another in every state, holds that "[a] lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority."

So what happens when a lawyer notices that their opponent's court documents contain fake-"halucinated"-AI generated quotes or citations?  Does the lawyer have a duty to report it to the disciplinary authorities?  Evidently, it would be tactically wise to report it to the court in the litigation, and to use it against the opposition in argument, but the issue is not whether to report it to the court, the issue is whether to report it to the disciplinary authorities.

To my knowledge this question has not been addressed but a strict reading of the text of the rule suggests there is a duty to report, and a recent case in California might provide some support for that conclusion.

As reported in LawSites, 

A new decision from the California Court of Appeals adds an intriguing dimension to the growing body of AI hallucination sanctions cases, raising the question of a lawyer’s duty to detect fabricated, AI-generated citations — not in the lawyer’s own filings, but in an opponent’s.

While the court did impose a $10,000 sanction on the attorney who filed two appellate briefs containing fake citations, it also declined to award attorneys’ fees or costs to the opposing counsel, because of counsel’s failure to report the fake citations to the court or even to detect them.

That makes this what may be the first judicial decision to touch on on whether lawyers have a duty to detect and report their opponents’ AI-generated fake citations.

Of course, Rule 8.3 is based on "knowledge" and a lawyer could say that they did not know the opponents cases were fake, but then it could be argued that admitting to that is admitting to violating the duty of competence or diligence.  

So, it is possible that not only there is a duty to report, but that there is a duty to investigate and determine the validity of the opponent's sources in order to determine if the duty to report applies. 

Court Kicks Lawyers Off Case After Finding Fake AI Cases In Filings

 As more and more cases of fake citations, and faulty use of AI in lawyering pile up, judges may be ready to start imposing stronger sanctions.  Read the story here.

Tips on the rule that prohibits communication with a represented person

 Michael Kennedy, bar counsel for Vermont, has published some helpful tips on the rule that prohibits communication with a represented person here.

Yet another case of sanctions for relying on AI to write briefs (resulting in cites to cases that do not exist)

Two attorneys who were representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation case in Denver have been fined $3,000 each as sanctions for submitting an inaccurate, AI-generated brief to the court in April.  Go here for the story.  

Above the Law has more on the story here, arguing the sanction was too low.

NPR has a comment here arguing that the case serves as a stark warning.

ABA Committee releases new Formal Opinion on discrimination in the jury selection process

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued  a new Formal Opinion: ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 517 - Discrimination in the Jury Selection Process.  

If you recall, paragraph [5] of the comment to Rule 8.4 states that "[a] trial judge’s finding that peremptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of paragraph (g)."  For this reason, the opinion attempts to address the following questions: 

Rule 8.4(g) presents two principal questions regarding discriminatory challenges. First, in light of Comment [5], when does a lawyer’s unlawful exercise of peremptory challenges on a discriminatory basis violate Rule 8.4(g)? Second, given the statement that lawyers may engage in legitimate advocacy consistent with the Model Rules, does a lawyer violate Rule 8.4(g) by exercising peremptory challenges on discriminatory bases where not forbidden by other law? 

The opinion then proceeds to address the questions and concludes that Rule 8.4(g) does NOT prohibit a lawyer’s discriminatory but lawful exercises of peremptory challenges, but also that 

A lawyer who knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer’s exercise of peremptory challenges constitutes unlawful discrimination in the jury selection process violates Model Rule 8.4(g). It is not “legitimate advocacy” within the meaning of Model Rule 8.4(g) for a lawyer to carry out a trial strategy that would result in unlawful juror discrimination. A lawyer may not follow a client’s directive or accept a jury consultant’s advice or AI software’s guidance to exercise peremptory challenges if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the conduct will constitute unlawful juror discrimination. 

You can read the full opinion here. 

How not to practice law, Trump lawyers edition - UPDATED

 It has been a long time since I posted an entry into the long running series of "how not to practice law" featuring stories illustrating dumb things lawyers do that they should know better not to do...  So here we are today with a Trump edition, courtesy of the team of lawyers representing [sic] Trump in a case in Iowa against a pollster.  

In a nutshell, aside from the fact that the case is almost certainly frivolous, the story of the litigation reads like a script for a law related blooper reel.  You can read the details of the story in Above the Law here.

UPDATE, July 6: TechDirt has an update on the lastest details on this developing story here.

Rudy Giuliani's lawyers call it quits

 Well that took longer than I expected but it is not surprising.  Rudy Giuliani's lawyers have been trying to cover for his obvious attempts to avoid complying with court orders for a while and now that the judge finally threatened issuing an order for contempt of court, the lawyers apparently decided it was not worth to stick their necks out for their delinquent client.  

The specific reason or reasons for the two lawyers’ requested withdrawals aren’t fully clear because the court filing asking for withdrawal is partially redacted, but the lawyer's cited a rule equivalent to Model Rule 1.16(b)(4) which states that a lawyer may withdraw when the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement and another local rule that states that the lawyer can withdraw when the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively.  

I assume these allegations are based on the fact that Giuliani tried to hide assets and kept avoiding complying with court orders. And let's not forget that he lost the defamation case because he refused to comply with discovery in the first place...

You can read more about the adventure it is to represent a client like Rudy and why it is better to step away from him here: 

The Hill

Law & Crime

MSNBC

Above the Law

By the end of the week, Giuliani had found a new lawyer and relinquished some of his property as obligated by the court's order.  The Guardian has that part of the story here.

Judge threatens to sanction Hunter Biden’s attorneys for what the judge called "false statements"

The Hill is reporting that a federal judge threatened to sanction Hunter Biden’s attorneys for making “false statements” in their motion asking to dismiss his criminal charges in California.  Go here for the full story.

Federal prosecutor accused of withholding evidence in Trump protest cases

The Washington D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) has accused a former federal prosecutor who oversaw more than 200 cases related to protests of former President Trump’s 2017 inauguration of withholding evidence and of attempting to edit or obscure video evidence used against the defendants that otherwise could have been used to clear them of criminal charges.  The Hill has more on the case here.

Judge dismisses Rudy Giuliani’s bankruptcy proceeding

July 12, 2024

Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane has dismissed Rudy Giuliani’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy, removing a shield that for six months froze two Georgia election workers’ efforts to collect their $148 million defamation judgment. In the ruling (available here), the judge commented on Giuliani’s “continued failure” to provide financial transparency. 

Giuliani's case involves the interests of the two Georgia election workers who won a defamation claim against him, in addition to those of Dominion Voting Systems, and Giuliani’s former assistant Noelle Dunphy. The latter two have pending lawsuits, while the Georgia workers have an enforceable judgment for many times the value of Giuliani’s assets. 

Because they’re not all going to get the money they seek from Giuliani, the ones with perfected claims would like to attach all his assets now.  Dominion and Dunphy have argued that the case should remain as a Chapter 11 bankruptcy claim, while the Freeman plaintiffs urged the court to dismiss the case entirely.

And that is exactly what the judge did, leaving [for the moment] nothing for Dominion, whose defamation suit is still in discovery, or for Dunphy, who is suing Giuliani in state court for assault and various labor violations. Of course those parties would prefer that the court retain jurisdiction and adjudicate their claims while a Chapter 11 trustee babysits the debtor to ensure he doesn’t loot the estate.  I imagine appeals will follow.

For more on the story you can check:

The Hill 

Above the Law

MSNBC

Law & Crime (‘Continued failure’: Rudy Giuliani has bankruptcy case dismissed by angry judge who points out numerous ‘troubling’ discovery violations)

Courthouse News Service (Judge chides Rudy Giuliani for ‘troubling’ conduct, tosses NY bankruptcy case)

The Guardian

Above the Law (Rudy Giuliani Falls Ass Backwards Out Of Bankruptcy)

Jurist