AI-Hallucinated Citation Case Involving Prominent Alabama Firm (with Over 350 Lawyers Nationwide)

From a filing Monday in Johnson v. Dunn (N.D. Ala.), responding to an order from Judge Anna Manasco demanding an explanation for what she described as apparently "fabricated citations":

What happened here is unacceptable. Tempted by the convenience of artificial intelligence, counsel improperly used generative AI to supplement two motions and did not verify the citations that AI provided. Those citations turned out to be "hallucinations" by the AI system. Although done without intent to mislead the Court or counsel opposite, counsel do not defend or condone this complete lapse in judgment. They apologize—both for failing to uphold their own standards and for wasting counsel opposite's and this Court's time and resources.

Butler Snow [the law firm involved -EV] joins in counsels' apology to the Court, parties and all counsel, and respectfully requests if the Court decides in its discretion to impose sanctions, that any sanctions be proportionate to the wrong and commensurate with each attorney's role in these events. Butler Snow also requests that its client not be sanctioned, and for counsel to have the opportunity to file an amended motion with correct citations….

There are no excuses for counsel's behavior, only explanations. As set forth in the separately filed declarations …, here is what happened: …

In revising Paragraph 2 of the Motion for Leave, Mr. Reeves [a partner in the firm and assistant practice group leader for the firm's Constitutional and Civil Rights Litigation group] used ChatGPT to obtain legal authority to support what Mr. Reeves already understood to be a well-established legal proposition. Mr. Reeves added the false legal authorities provided by ChatGPT in Paragraph 2 of the Motion for Leave. Mr. Reeves inserted the ChatGPT citations into the brief without verifying their accuracy.

Mr. Reeves agrees with Plaintiff that these citations were "hallucinated" by ChatGPT in that they either do not exist and/or do not stand for the proposition for which they are cited. Mr. Reeves did not know the citations were false and did not intend to mislead the Court or opposing counsel but concedes he did not verify the citations.

Mr. Reeves provided the draft Motion for Leave to Mr. Cranford [another lawyer at the firm, who is supervised by Mr. Reeves], who put the draft into final form and filed it without knowledge that the citations inserted by Mr. Reeves were false. Mr. Cranford likewise had no knowledge that Mr. Reeves had used ChatGPT, or any other artificial intelligence tool, to conduct legal research.

A similar process occurred with respect to Dunn's Opposed Motion to Compel, also referenced in Plaintiffs' Response….

Since 2023, Butler Snow has cautioned all attorneys about the risks of large language models (which includes ChatGPT) as a research tool and reinforced the need to verify the accuracy of every citation. The firm has an Artificial Intelligence Committee which is currently drafting a new comprehensive artificial intelligence policy.

Following receipt of the Court's Show Cause Order, the firm sent an additional reminder to all Butler Snow attorneys about their ethical and professional duties to verify the accuracy of all citations or other authority presented to any court. In addition, Butler Snow will also hold extensive new training for the entire firm regarding the appropriate and inappropriate uses of artificial intelligence in legal representation….

Butler Snow does not dispute that it is within the Court's discretion to sanction counsel's conduct under Rule 11…. Butler Snow is embarrassed by what happened here, which was against good judgment and firm policy. There is no excuse for using ChatGPT to obtain legal authority and failing to verify the sources it provided, even if to support well-founded principles of law, and counsel's lapse has already been subject to media coverage. Butler Snow will do everything it can to ensure that this never happens again, including implementing new training and protocols.

Nevertheless, if the Court in its discretion determines that sanctions are appropriate, Butler Snow respectfully requests that any sanctions be commensurate with the role of each individual in the events outlined above. What happened here is inexcusable, and Butler Snow sincerely apologize to all parties, Mr. Johnson's lawyers, and to the Court for this error.

Finally, Butler Snow requests that its client—which had no involvement in or knowledge of these events—be exempt from any sanction. Accordingly, so as to not prejudice its client, Butler Snow requests the opportunity for counsel to file amended briefs to correct the false citations….

Butler Snow is ultimately responsible for the acts of its attorneys and expects its attorneys to adhere to all ethical standards and requirements. Butler Snow apologizes for the lapse in judgment that occurred here and is taking steps to ensure that such mistakes will not happen again. Butler Snow stands ready to provide transparent answers to any questions the Court has on Wednesday.

Thanks to Josh Blackman for the pointer.