An attorney in a New York Supreme Court commercial case got caught using AI in his filings, and then got caught using AI again in the brief where he had to explain why he used AI, according to court documents filed earlier this month.
New York Supreme Court Judge Joel Cohen wrote in a decision granting the plaintiff’s attorneys’ request for sanctions that the defendant’s counsel, Michael Fourte’s law offices, not only submitted AI-hallucinated citations and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, but also included “multiple new AI-hallucinated citations and quotations” in the process of opposing the motion.
“In other words,” the judge wrote, “counsel relied upon unvetted AI — in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues — to defend his use of unvetted AI.”
The case itself centers on a dispute between family members and a defaulted loan. The details of the case involve a fairly run-of-the-mill domestic money beef, but Fourte’s office allegedly using AI that generated fake citations, and then inserting nonexistent citations into the opposition brief, has become the bigger story.
The plaintiff and their lawyers discovered “inaccurate citations and quotations in Defendants’ opposition brief that appeared to be ‘hallucinated’ by an AI tool,” the judge wrote in his decision to sanction Fourte. After the plaintiffs brought this issue to the Court's attention, the judge wrote, Fourte submitted a response where the attorney “without admitting or denying the use of AI, ‘acknowledge[d] that several passages were inadvertently enclosed in quotation’ and ‘clarif[ied] that these passages were intended as paraphrases or summarized statements of the legal principles established in the cited authorities.’”
Judge Cohen’s order is scathing. Some of the fake quotations “happened to be arguably correct statements of law,” he wrote, but he notes that the fact that they tripped into being correct makes them no less frivolous. “Indeed, when a fake case is used to support an uncontroversial statement of law, opposing counsel and courts—which rely on the candor and veracity of counsel—in many instances would have no reason to doubt that the case exists,” he wrote. “The proliferation of unvetted AI use thus creates the risk that a fake citation may make its way into a judicial decision, forcing courts to expend their limited time and resources to avoid such a result.” In short: Don’t waste this court’s time.
In the last few years, AI-generated hallucinations and errors infiltrating the legal process has become a serious problem for the legal profession. Generally, judges do not take kindly to this waste of everyone’s time, in some cases sanctioning offending attorneys thousands of dollars for it. Lawyers who’ve been caught using AI in court filings have given infinite excuses for their sloppy work, including vertigo, head colds, and malware, and many have thrown their assistants under the bus when caught. In February, a law firm caught using AI and generating inaccurate citations called their errors a “cautionary tale” about using AI in law. “This matter comes with great embarrassment and has prompted discussion and action regarding the training, implementation, and future use of artificial intelligence within our firm,” they wrote.
Samantha Cole
The judge included some of the excuses Fourte gave when he was caught, including that his staff didn’t follow instructions. He seemed less contrite. “Your Honor, I am extremely upset that this could even happen. I don't really have an excuse,” the decision says the lawyer told Cohen. “Here is what I could say. I literally checked to make sure all these cases existed. Then, you know, I brought in additional staff. And knowing it was for the sanctions, I said that this is the issue. We can't have this. Then they wrote the opposition with me. And like I said, I looked at the cases, looked at everything; so all the quotes as I'm looking at the brief — and I thought it was a well put together brief. So I looked at the quotes and was assured every single quote was in every single case, but I did not verify every single quote. When I looked at — when I went back and asked them, because I looked at their [reply brief] last week preparing for this for the first time, and I asked them what happened? How is this even possible because, you know, when you read the opposition, I mean, it's demoralizing. It doesn't even seem like, you know, this is humanly possible.”
When the defendants’ lawyer attempted to oppose the sanctions proposed for including fake citations, he ended up submitting twice as many nonexistent or incorrect citations as before, including seven quotations that do not exist in the cited cases and three that didn’t support the propositions they were offered to, Cohen wrote. The judge said the plaintiffs found even more fake citations in the defendants’ opposition to their application seeking attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiff asked that the defendant cover her attorney’s fees that came as a result of the delay caused by untangling the AI-generated citations, which the judge granted. He also ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to submit a copy of this decision and order to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.
“When attorneys fail to check their work—whether AI-generated or not—they prejudice their clients and do a disservice to the Court and the profession,” Cohen wrote. “In sum, counsel’s duty of candor to the Court cannot be delegated to a software program.”
Fourte declined to comment. “As this matter remains before the Court, and out of respect for the process and client confidentiality, we will not comment on case specifics,” he told 404 Media. “We have addressed the issue directly with the Court and implemented enhanced verification and supervision protocols. We have no further comment at this time.”
