Judge considers sanctions against attorneys in prison case for using AI in court filings

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 7:23 PM EDT, May 21, 2025


BIRMINGHAM, Ala, (AP) — A federal judge said Wednesday that she is considering sanctions against lawyers with a high-priced firm hired to defend Alabama’s prison system after ChatGPT was used to write two court filings that included nonexistent case citations.

U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco held a hearing in Birmingham to question attorneys with the Butler Snow firm about the filings. She said there were five false citations in two filings in federal court. Manasco said that nationally, there have been broad warnings from courts about the use of artificial intelligence to generate legal filings because of the potential for inaccuracies.

Manasco said she is considering a range of sanctions, including fines. She gave the firm 10 days to file a brief with the court. Butler Snow lawyers repeatedly apologized during the hearing.

They said a firm partner, Matt Reeves, used ChatGPT to research supporting case law but did not verify the information before adding it to two filings with the federal court. Those citations turned out to be “hallucinations” — meaning incorrect citations — by the AI system, they said. Four attorneys signed the filings with the information, including Reeves.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/alabama-prisons-ai-8cbaf729dafc2b56bee59545391707c0

---

Here's a similar case where Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI filings - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143447483

Apparently this is a "thing". Makes me wonder if eventually this whole "AI" (at least the current iterations) will go the way of the dotcom bubble.

[gab13by13]

1. The key word is "considers"

There are now 3 judges who should hold Krasnov lawyers in contempt, but they will not because they are afraid of death threats. Krasnov may be losing court decisions but he is winning in the courts failure to enforce those decisions.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. "Hallucinations" is the term to humanize AI errors.

AI is not human. It is programmed by humans.

Artificial Intelligence will make more humans stupid if that is possible.

[Jose Garcia]

9. Hallucinations are very different than errors

An error would be citing the wrong case or drawing an incorrect conclusion from a case. A hallucination would be creating a case which never existed.

[PJMcK]

3. Considering?!

Throw the book at those lawyers!

Their behavior was contemptible. They intended to mislead the court.

Show no mercy, judge!

[no_hypocrisy]

4. AI isn't referenced in The Federal Rules of Evidence, is it?

[Balatro]

5. Judges sure like to waste time "considering"

when these lawyers essentially disrespect them and their courts. What happened to judges who don't tolerate that crap? Do they still exist? Endless warnings and considerations all I hear and contempt keeps rolling while the sit on their hands "considering"

[Eugene]

6. Lawyers have been disciplined for this too many times for Butler Snow to have any excuse.

Last edited Fri May 23, 2025, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Lawyers are responsible for the accuracy of their pleadings, no matter how they are written.

Of all people, high-caliber lawyers in a high-profile case should know the dangers of taking shortcuts.

Looking forward to yet another Lehto's Law YouTube video.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. I love how they call these "hallucinations"

[republianmushroom]

8. I think they have told the judge to pound sand.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. No shock to me that this happened in Alabama.

Red States are showing a great disrespect for the court system.

[fujiyamasan]

11. Calling it an "incorrect citation" is misleading

It’s not just an incorrect citation, it is many cases completely fabricated.

If a paralegal or clerk or someone else were making up fake cases to pass as case law, they would likely be fired and their lawyer, potentially disbarred.

It’s time to throw the book at these idiots.

Would we tolerate generative AI designing buildings for us? Ok never mind, in trumps regulatory environment…

[Karasu]

12. This is what happens when we still have ZERO federal regulation of this fucking shit.

[Ms. Toad]

14. None are needed.

The rules of procedure and legal ethics make the attorney responsible for everything in the filling, regardless of how it was put together.

[Ms. Toad]

13. Of course it's a thing. ChatGPT is designed to be conversational, not factual.

It knows the flow of a court document, and when the facts it needs aren't in it's training, it makes crap up - cases and all - in order to keep the conversation going.

It is up to the lawyer to verify everything in the brief - whether they prepared it, a law clerk, a legal assistant, or ChatGPT. Signing the document, and submitting it to court is your assertion as to the diligence and accuracy of the filing.

[fujiyamasan]

15. The verification is the most important point about generative AI

I use Gen AI occasionally in terms of stocks. I may ask it to find me stocks in a particular industry, or sector or by market cap, etc… you get the idea.

But I would never blindly follow is advice or what it gives me. It has actually given me some decent picks, but I only invested in those stocks after doing my own due diligence. For all I know it could give me fake tickers or non existent companies, depending on the context of my conversation (and depending on the number of tokens being used). That hasn’t happened yet, but my point is it provides me a starting point. The rest is up to me.

I would treat generative AI no differently than Wikipedia. It’s just a more targeted search, with other useful analytical capabilities.

Anyone lazy enough to take what it spits out verbatim should lose their job.