Despite the warnings and sanctions and news stories lawyers continue to use Generative AI to draft legal memoranda. Because AI models work in ways we don’t fully understand they sometimes make up citations to fake cases. One more such case dropped this week. Boston v. Williams, 1:23-cv-00752-WMR, N.D. Georgia, is one such case. The opening paragraph is as follows:
During its review of the Plaintiffs’ response brief [Doc. 57] in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court discovered that 17 of the 24 cases cited by Plaintiffs’ counsel either did not exist, did not support the proposition for which they were cited, or misquoted the authority. It appeared to the Court that at least some of the purported cases were artificial intelligence (“AI”) generated “hallucinations.” See United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1065 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (identifying “the markings of a hallucinated case created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools,” including case names that appear to be real but do not exist); Mavy v. Commissioner, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-25-00689-PHX-KML (ASB) 2025 WL 2355222, at * 1 (D. Arizona, Aug. 14, 2025).
When the court made inquiries of counsel, counsel apologized and said she was very busy and had her daughter draft the brief. The court found probable cause for a violation of Rule 11(b) and set a hearing for the court to determine if the rule was, in fact, violated.
Given the number of these cases, the public embarrassment the lawyers have faced, and the sanctions that will inevitably ensue, I am of the opinion that nothing will stop lazy lawyers from using AI to draft briefs.
Ed Clinton, Jr.
