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.

Comments

[Malika the Maiz]

This seems to own up to their mistake fairly well.

[Ridgeway]

Agree. When you have no excuse (as is the case when using AI), it is best to just come clean. As a plus, they didn't blame the associate for not catching the partner's error. They may be doing so internally, but doing so to the court is counterproductive.

[Supremacy Claus]

Ironic. AI makes shit up, and is criicized. This judge believes that minds can be read, that one can foresee rare accidents happening to dunderheads that caused them, and that standards of behavior should be set by a fictitious character. This dipshit character is a thinly disguised avatar of Jesus, which is illegal in our secular nation. This judge believes that any decision she makes has the slightest validity. Bitch be trippin'.

[Reallynotbob]

What the actual...?

[not guilty]

As Lyndon Johnson reportedly said, sometimes you just have to hunker down like a jackass in a hailstorm and just take it.

[Glaucomatose]

I appreciate, and am amused by, the clarification “Butler Snow [the law firm involved -EV]”.

[Eugene Volokh]

I expect many readers would have realized that Butler Snow was the firm involved even without the bracketed note, but I thought some might be a bit confused, especially since "Butler Snow" might just look like the name of a person.

[Reallynotbob]

Plus, all orphans of the North are Snows.

[y81]

I believe it's actually illegitimate children, not orphans, but yes.

[CJColucci]

I'm going to name the hero of my next attempted novel Butler Snow.

[Longtobefree]

"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 will therefore be disbarred.

[Eugene Volokh]

I take it the implication is that he should be disbarred for that, but I don't see why. It's careless and embarrassing, and merits some sanction. But we generally don't (and, I think, shouldn't) strip a person of his right to practice his profession because of one foolish error.

[Supremacy Claus]

The Disciplinary Counsel should be arrested for honest services fraud. He takes tax money and never does anything for it. He will disbar people for being drunk in court, for disrespecting a judge scumbag, for not paying child support to the feminist, for intermingling funds without theft. That is about it. He allows massive violations of the Rules of Conduct to go unanswered, and there is no recourse against other lawyer misconduct. The absence of legal recourse is a full justificaton for violence under a rule of formal logic. Formal logic has more certainty than the Laws of Physics. It is supreme over all statutes, constitutions, and retified treaties of the United States. These are filled with ambiguity, uncertainty, and are mostly lawyer rent seeking garbage.

[Longtobefree]

It was not a foolish error. It was a deliberate decision to NOT do his job.

It was as fraudulent as a teller taking a few thousand dollars home.

[Roger S]

There are no rules requiring verifying citations. Lawyers get disbarred for violating the rules.

[Ghost]

The problem here wasn't "verifying citations," it was fraudulently presenting fabricated cases to the court as if they were real authority. And there are absolutely rules that are violated by doing so.

[Roger S]

It might be fraud if the lawyer intended to mislead the court. However, he says that he had no such intent, and the judge accepted that.

[Ridgeway]

Word to the wise: do not take advice on legal ethics and disciplinary rules from Roger S.

Also, if he invites you to a seder, politely decline.

[fatnastyretiredguy]

Way back in the olden days of practicing law there was a tool. No surprises, it was published by Westlaw. Its name was Shepard's. Back in those days there was an unwritten law, not published in any manner, but followed to the letter by every lawyer and every law firm whose practice was marked by their integrity. Prior to affixing signature, the signing attorney was obligated to insure that each and every legal citation contained in the filing had been confirmed using Shepard's. A simple rule, easily followed, by attorneys whose goals included the ethical practices of law.

[Darth Buckeye]

I've been playing with Grok 3.0 and doing legal research with it. When I ask it to find cases on an issue, most of the citations it gives me are non-existent. It does a good job of composing text when I give it citations and limit it's scope, but I absolutely would never trust it's analysis without reading and outlining cases it cited...but I do that with materials given to me by colleagues.

[Glaucomatose]

But at least it can tell you all about White Genocide in South Africa and "Kill the Boer."

[Mike45]

the term "hallucinations" is a misnomer. Fabrications is more appropriate and descriptive but worse for the reputations of all involved.

[Supremacy Claus]

This is correct. Hallucination is an involuntary perception without a stimulus by outside reality. Fake citations are making things up and lying. AI should be held liable in any action against any lawyer. The lawyer should be suing AI for any damages he has to endure. Reliance damages.

[CJColucci]

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.

He was probably right about that, but it's still no excuse. I often write up something that I know is a well-established, even obvious, legal proposition for which I don't have specific authority at hand. (If you cite a legitimate case for an obvious legal proposition, there's a good chance no one will bother to read it.) When I want to dig up a case, I use WESTLAW or LEXIS. It would never occur to me to use AI, even as a "first draft," especially after well-publicized hallucination incidents.

[ReaderY]

The cat farts again.

[JonFrum]

The question is, how do we stop this from happening over and over again. And the answer is not by giving the responsible lawyer a slap on the wrist. There's an old saying that there's nothing like a hanging to get the attention of the others. If law firms fired responsible lawyers, how many others would be lazy about checking references? And if the court ordered the most severe punishment available, ditto? Do you want this to stop, or not? Obviously, nothing has got their attention yet.

[CJColucci]

A slap on the wrist can hurt like hell. At least it did when Sister Joan swung the ruler. And you can't give "the most severe punishment available" to offenses that aren't the most severe. Lawyers do things a lot worse than this, with real consequences for innocent people not part of the court system. You need to be able to hit them harder than you hit someone who puts a judge or clerk to extra work.
Now if an employer wants to fire a lawyer who did something like this, that's their prerogative.