Siren Songs of AI: A Legal Briefing Dilemma
Stop, Think, Investigate & Research
A recent post on the RIPS SIS Blog (When AI Hallucinates Courts Hammer Attorneys) discussed recent cases finding their way into the “compendium of cautionary tales warning against blind reliance on AI assistance for lawyering tasks.” As that blog post was being written and released, two more attorneys received sanctions for citing nonexistent authority.
In Nguyen v. Wheeler, No. 24-CV-00815, 2025 WL 679024, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 3, 2025), a federal district court imposed a sanction of $1,000 on the plaintiff for citing nonexistent authority in support of her response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. In the response, the plaintiff cited four cases that did not exist. See Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Response in Opposition to Defendant Savage Enterprises’ Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *38-40, 42-46 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 16, 2025), ECF No. 47. The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for citing nonexistent authority. Order, Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *11 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 19, 2025), ECF No. 55. In response to the show cause order, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that “[a]t one point AI had been used to assist in research [and] [i]t appears that some bad case law from that time may have crept into research files and got passed into this brief.” Response to the Order to Show Cause, Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 26, 2025), ECF No. 56. In an exercise of discretion, the court concluded that the Rule 11 violation warranted “a reasonable sanction.” Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *2.
In Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc., No. 23-1740, 2025 WL 662398, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2025), an attorney filed two motions containing nonexistent cases that another federal district court found to be AI hallucinations. The motions were filed on January 14, 2025. Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for All Defendants, Bunce, No. 23-1740, ECF No. 131; Motion for Leave to Appeal of Sanctions of Defense Counsel, Bunce, No. 23-1740, ECF No. 132. At a show cause hearing to explain the filing deficiencies, the attorney indicated that he used ChatGPT, which was “fairly new” to him, for the filings at issue. Bunce, No. 23-1740, at *3. The court noted that the attorney did not review the bogus cases because “he ‘never in [his] wildest dreams’ thought ChatGPT could manufacture artificial cases to very conveniently support the exact outcomes he desired.” Id. at *3.
Nearly two years have passed since ChatGPT (and other AI tools) seeped into the legal profession. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, (S.D.N.Y. 2023). It challenges logic that very experienced attorneys, as in the cases above, would fall prey to AI hallucinations. In issuing sanctions in Bunce, the court sought to deter the attorney (and other attorneys) "from credulously assuming AI can stand in place of an attorney's obligations under Rule 11." Bunce, no. 23-1740, at *4. Ultimately, the court ordered the attorney to pay a $2,500 penalty and to complete “a one-hour CLE-credited seminar or educational program related to both AI and legal ethics.” Id. Conversely, the court in Nguyen noted that the $1,000 sanction was “on the low end of the range of sanctions imposed on others who have engaged in similar conduct.” Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *2.
The courts frequently advise attorneys to adhere to the duty imposed by Rule 11—to “‘Stop, Think, Investigate and Research’ before filing papers either to initiate a suit or to conduct the litigation.” Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp., 835 F.2d 479, 482 (3d Cir. 1987). The cases imposing monetary sanctions for AI-generated citation fabrications have ranged from $1,000 to $5,000. However, courts have levied heavier sanctions for neglecting ethical obligations. See Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326, 2025 WL 574234, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2025) (recommending sanctions in the amount of $15,000 for three briefs filed with false citations and referral for consideration of further discipline pursuant to local rule); Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 47–49, 51–52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024) (dismissing appeal and imposing $10,000 in sanctions for filings riddled with procedural deficiencies and a brief filled with inaccurate or entirely fictitious citations to authority).
If this has not frightened you, visit the UIC Law Library’s research guide for more tales of woe at the Artificial Intelligence: AI's Siren Song.