Two recent cases—one in California and another in Toronto—highlight a troubling and increasingly common problem: lawyers submitting court documents containing fictitious legal citations generated by AI tools.
Case 1: U.S. District Court – Central District of California
In a sanctions decision by Special Master Michael Wilner, lawyers from Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP, including attorney Trent Copeland, were found to have submitted a brief with multiple fabricated citations. The lawyers had used AI tools such as CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Google Gemini to help draft the brief.
Key failings included:
- Copeland failed to verify AI-generated citations and shared the draft with colleagues without disclosing its AI origin.
- Colleagues at K&L Gates incorporated the unverified material into the final submission.
- After being alerted to two suspicious citations, the lawyers filed a “corrected” brief—but it still contained six additional false authorities.
Outcome:
- Special Master Wilner concluded that the attorneys’ conduct amounted to bad faith.
- Sanctions included:
- Striking all versions of the brief,
- Denial of the discovery relief sought,
- Joint payment of $31,100 in legal costs,
- Mandatory disclosure of the incident to the client.
Wilner remarked that the situation was “scary”—he was almost persuaded by the fake cases, which could have ended up in a judicial order.
Case 2: Ontario Superior Court – Ko v Li
In Canada, lawyer Jisuh Lee faced judicial scrutiny when Judge Fred Myers discovered her legal factum contained at least four incorrect citations, including:
- Two entirely fictitious cases,
- One real case misrepresented in its legal significance.
When asked, Lee couldn’t explain the source of the citations or confirm whether AI had been used. The judge strongly criticised the lack of basic due diligence, stating that a lawyer must verify that cited authorities are real and support the legal propositions advanced.
Outcome:
- Judge Myers issued an order requiring Lee to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt.
Broader Implications:
These cases reinforce a growing concern: despite widespread judicial warnings, ethics opinions, and media coverage, lawyers continue to rely on AI tools without verifying their output. Courts are losing patience, and sanctions are becoming more frequent and severe.
Takeaway:
AI can assist with drafting and brainstorming, but it cannot replace proper legal research or the professional responsibility to ensure accuracy. Until this lesson is internalised across the profession, further incidents—and headlines—are inevitable.
Source: LawSites
Leave a Reply