Two attorneys jointly submitted filings that contained case citation hallucinations generated by AI. How they addressed the situation led to different sanctions for each.

In the case (available here via the AI Hallucinations database), after defendant IBSpot.com initially failed to respond to the complaint, default judgment was entered. The Court later vacated that default after IBSpot.com retained counsel, including Pennsylvania attorney Jeffrey Goldin as local counsel and New York attorney Yen-Yi Anderson as specially admitted pro hac vice counsel. Both attorneys signed and filed a motion to dismiss.

You can probably guess what happened next.

Upon reviewing the motion to dismiss, the Court identified “at least eight instances in which Attorneys Anderson and Goldin offered authorities which did not stand for the propositions asserted, arose from inapposite jurisdictions, or included inaccurate quotations.” As the Court later observed, they included “false case citation hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence,” which were uncovered after careful review by chambers staff. Opposing counsel also flagged a false quotation in its opposition brief.

What did Anderson do and what sanctions did she receive?

Rather than re-reviewing the motion or correcting the record, Anderson and her firm proceeded without remediation until the Court itself issued an order to show cause. Pennsylvania Judge Mark A. Kearney noted that “the burden should not have fallen on us to expend judicial resources identifying blatantly false cites.” He further observed that Anderson’s defense – that the errors resulted from time pressure to file “in just three business days” – “omits material context,” given that counsel had notice of the dispute weeks earlier.

Anderson also responded by firing the new law clerk (a law school graduate hired by her firm) because the law clerk “seemed entirely reliant on AI to do even the most basic legal research” and implementing a zero-tolerance, immediate termination artificial intelligence policy.

For Anderson, Judge Kearney imposed both monetary and non-monetary sanctions. He found that her conduct “extends beyond what a purely non-monetary sanction would adequately address,” particularly given her failure to self-correct and her decision to terminate a subordinate rather than take responsibility for supervision. The Court ordered a $4,000 monetary sanction, payable personally by Anderson to a legal services organization, and required her to distribute the Court’s Order, Memorandum, and her firm’s new AI policy to specified legal audiences. These measures, the Court explained, were designed to “educate, deter repetition, and conserve judicial resources.”

What did Goldin do and what sanctions did he receive?

As Judge Kearney noted: “Goldin conceded the false citations ‘involved the use of generative artificial intelligence (“GAI”) tools, originated with [IBSpot.com]’s specially admitted counsel in New York and were not picked up by Attorney Goldin prior to filing’ and ‘accepts responsibility for his signature on the filing.’…Attorney Goldin responded by ‘voluntarily complet[ing] a continuing legal education course of the ethical and responsible use of [generative artificial intelligence],’ ‘spen[ding] many hours reading over virtually every recent opinion in the Third Circuit and in other jurisdictions on the dangers of [generative artificial intelligence] and the obligations of local counsel,’ and an agreement with Anderson and Associates ‘all future filings will be submitted to Attorney Goldin at least 48 hours ahead of the filing deadline with a table of authorities and all supporting decisions, statutes and secondary authority, to which Attorney Goldin will facilitate a more thorough pre-filing review and will certify the same with the filing.’…Attorney Goldin ‘apologizes to the Court and all counsel for the error through this public filing [of his Response].’

For Goldin, Judge Kearney declined to impose a monetary sanction, citing his prompt acknowledgment of error, completion of continuing legal education, and remedial steps. He did still impose a non-monetary sanction requiring him to circulate the Court’s decision and his AI policy to a local intellectual property bar association. This, Judge Kearney explained, would serve as “an instructional measure” and a reminder that local counsel bear independent Rule 11 responsibilities.

Still, it’s notable how the two attorneys handled the situation related to the case citation hallucinations generated by AI. One attorney blamed the schedule and fired the law clerk, the other took responsibility and proactively completed CLE on the ethical use of GenAI. Judge Kearney recognized the difference in the sanctions he imposed. Lesson learned – how you react to a filing with case citation hallucinations speaks volumes.

Hat tip to Maura R. Grossman for the heads up on this case.

So, what do you think? Should Goldin have received any sanctions for submitting a filing with case citation hallucinations? 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.