BigLaw firm won't be sanctioned for hallucinated cases after paying attorney fees
A BigLaw firm that voluntarily paid more than $55,000 in attorney fees because of hallucinated cases in court filings won’t face further sanctions, a federal bankruptcy judge concluded last week. (Illustration from Shutterstock)
A BigLaw firm that voluntarily paid more than $55,000 in attorney fees because of hallucinated cases in court filings won’t face further sanctions, a federal bankruptcy judge concluded last week.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher L. Hawkins of the Middle District of Alabama declined to sanction Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani for the errors generated by artificial intelligence but reprimanded the attorney who took responsibility, report Reuters, Law360 and Bloomberg Law.
Hawkins said Gordon Rees “took reasonable steps” to address the risks of generative AI and “expended significant financial and human resources to remediate the harm caused in this case and to prevent future violations.”
Hawkins’ Nov. 20 opinion nonetheless ordered the law firm to provide to its lawyers copies of his opinion and its updated policies related to use of AI and cite checking and to get verification that the material was received.
The judge also ordered the former Gordon Rees lawyer who submitted the faulty filings, Cassie D. Preston, to give copies of his opinion to all her clients, the opposing counsel and the presiding judges in pending cases in which she is counsel of record.
Preston represented creditor Progressive Perfusion Inc. in the bankruptcy case filed by Jackson Hospital & Clinic based in Montgomery, Alabama, Law360 reports.
Opposing lawyers uncovered problems in a motion to reconsider, pointing to citations that did not stand for the proposition cited, did not contain quotes attributed to them, or did not exist at all. A supplemental brief “obdurately clung” to prior positions, “continued to miscite authorities,” and “even recycled a fabricated quote from the motion to reconsider,” Hawkins wrote.
Hawkins issued an order to show cause, citing “pervasive inaccurate, misleading and fabricated citations, quotations and representations of legal authority” in the motion to reconsider.
Preston’s response to the order to show cause said she agreed to represent rogressive Progressive Perfusion at the request of a close friend, and she allowed her loyalty to override the fact that she didn’t have a great deal of experience in the matter. She said she didn’t personally use AI to prepare the motion but was aware that it had been used by someone else who was not a Gordon Rees associate.
“While not seeking to excuse her actions,” Hawkins wrote, Preston “described turmoil in her personal and financial life that contributed to her struggle to maintain her case load, including her representation of Progressive in this case.”
Despite those personal circumstances, “attorneys must not allow their personal feelings to cloud their professional judgment, and Ms. Preston crossed a line when she resorted to making use of arguments and authorities generated by artificial intelligence,” Hawkins said.
Preston was represented by lawyer Wallace D. Mills, who did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s email requesting comment.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
