Hey, it’s been a while since we reported on a lawyer getting stung by generative AI in a filing, so here’s one involving a Texas attorney.

According to Daniel Lund III on Lexology (available here), counsel for the defendant in the case – pursuing summary judgment for a tire manufacturer in a wrongful termination lawsuit – pointed up in a reply brief that the opposition brief of the plaintiff cited two purported – and as it turned out, nonexistent – unpublished decisions: Roca v. King’s Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App’x 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2012) and Beets v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 94-10034, 1994 WL 714026, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 1994), and quotations from as many as six other apparently-existing cases but which were unable to be found within the reported decisions.

In response, plaintiff’s counsel filed a sur-reply brief which, according to Texas District Judge Marcia A. Crone, “failed to address the issues” the defendant raised in the reply brief. The court subsequently sua sponte entered an order requiring counsel for plaintiff to show cause why the court should not impose Rule 11 and local rules sanctions. Only then did counsel for plaintiff finally acknowledge that the rubber in his prior briefing did not meet the road (see what he did there?), admitting to “committing error” and requesting leave to amend the prior pleadings.

At the hearing on the sanctions, the offending attorney explained that he had used a “generative artificial intelligence” tool in preparing the brief and did not “verify the content.” Uh yes, we know that.

Of course, the sanctioned attorney was ordered to pay a monetary penalty to the court and to attend continuing CLE on the topic of generative AI. Judge Crone stated: “Here, [the attorney] submitted the Response without reading the cases cited, or even confirming the existence or validity of the cases included therein. In fact, it is unclear what legal research, if any, [the attorney] completed before filing the Response. … He failed to withdraw or otherwise address these issues when raised by Goodyear. … ‘This silence is deafening.”

Lund doesn’t mention the name of the Texas attorney in his article, but you can get it via the case ruling here.

As I mentioned earlier this year, filings with fake case citations will keep coming. We’ve seen maybe a dozen instances so far, which is less than 10% of how many I think we could eventually see. Do the math. They may not all be newsworthy, but it’s good to keep putting the reminder out there from time to time that hallucinations happen with GenAI. Always check the output.

Hat tip to Judge Andrew Peck for the heads up about this latest attorney GenAI blunder!

So, what do you think? Do you think the Texas attorney received an appropriate sanction? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the authors and speakers themselves, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.