Artificial Intelligence and the Law: Attorneys Beware!!
Recently the United States District, Eastern District, Southern Division (Detroit, Michigan) issued a consolidated Opinion and Order imposing monetary sanctions against counsel for using AI-generated false citations. The Court identified a series of citations in the Plaintiff’s responsive briefings that appeared to be false and AI-generated. The Court noted the citations in question contained real case names, but with fake quotes or explanatory parentheticals that did not reflect the holdings of the cases cited. As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to show cause why counsel should not be sanctioned.
Plaintiff’s counsel argued that his office had a strict verification process for using AI in research; however, counsel admitted that technical difficulties resulted in the errors. The Court’s written Opinion and Order noted that it was well-known generative AI programs can “hallucinate” nonexistent cases. As a result, attorneys who rely on AI to supplement their research do so at their own peril. The Court further remarked that the cases themselves were not made up, only the quotes cited by counsel. This created a greater risk and need for scrutiny when using AI for legal research.
The Court did not believe Plaintiff’s counsel used the fictitious citations in bad faith. However, Federal Rule 11 sanctions are imposed regardless of whether an error was made in good or bad faith. As a result, the Court found that monetary sanctions were warranted to deter future misconduct. The monetary amount awarded was compensation payable to the Defendant for the additional legal fees incurred because of the errors.
An attorney is legally and ethically obligated to verify that whatever is being filed with the Court is accurate and fact-checked. Using artificial intelligence for legal research does not absolve an attorney from these responsibilities. Not only should the existence of a case be verified, but the content of the case must also be verified. Failure to do so is fraught with peril.
Read entire case at:
Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Auto-mation, LLC
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/michigan/miedce/4:2023cv11310/370186/81/
About Alexander & Angelas, P.C.
Attorney Peter A. Angelas represents defendants in civil liability litigation across Michigan. His practice areas include insurance defense litigation, premises liability, motor carrier (trucking) defense, corporate and commercial litigation, construction defect litigation, auto negligence, insurance coverage disputes, emergency casualty response services, alternative dispute resolution, subrogation claims, workers’ compensation, employment law, and liquor liability.
Mr. Angelas practices in all state and federal courts in Michigan, including Wayne County (Detroit), Macomb County (Mount Clemens), Oakland County (Pontiac), Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), and Genesee County (Flint).
A 24/7 Emergency Hotline is available (800-219-0007) for trucking and insurance company clients. When an accident requires an immediate response to protect evidence, members of the firm quickly launch an investigation with the assistance of well-qualified accident investigators, crash re-constructionists, mechanical engineers, civil evidence photographers, and independent adjusters positioned throughout Michigan.
