https://www.lawline.com/course/avoiding-legal-malpractice-claims-in-litigation-update?utm_source=transactional&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=course_live

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.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has suspended an attorney six months for six months for entering the capitol illegally on January 6, 2021. On May 30, 2022, the respondent, David Charles Johnston, was charged with three misdemeanors. He self-reported his arrest and was placed on an interim suspension on May 24, 2022. On September 23, 2022, the attorney pleaded guilty to one count of Parading, Demonstrating or picketing in the Capitol in violation of 40 U.S.C. Section 5104(e)(2)(G). On January 20, 2025 he was pardoned by President Trump. The respondent admitted that the violated Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting violating the rules of professional conduct); 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer); and Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The suspension was made retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. Apparently the lawyer was effectively suspended from May 24, 2022 to June 12, 2025.

https://mylawcle.com/products/facing-bar-complaints-how-to-protect-your-practice-your-license-and-how-to-ethically-respond/

This is a recent course on how to prevent and hopefully avoid bar complaints.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has suspended a lawyer for three years for converting funds from a charity. The lawyer was the treasurer of the organization and wrote numerous checks to herself. No. 3041 Disciplinary Docket No. 3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stein, No. 39 DB 2024, as well. The lawyer repaid the funds and admitted wrongdoing and showed remorse for her actions. The Respondent pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge. The Respondent was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.