"Whoever or Whatever Drafted the Briefs Signed and Filed by Blackburn,"
"it is clear that he, at the very best, acted with culpable neglect of his professional obligations."
From today's decision by Judge William Stickman IV (W.D. Pa.) in Jakes v. Youngblood (note that the lawyer, Tyrone Blackburn, "was arrested Wednesday and accused of hitting a process server with his car in New York City," in seemingly an otherwise unrelated matter [NBC News, Marlene Lenthang]):
Defendant Duane Youngblood ("Youngblood") filed a Notice of Motion to Dismiss, a supporting brief, and a reply brief requesting the dismissal of Plaintiff Thomas Dexter Jakes' ("Jakes") complaint with prejudice. Youngblood is represented by Attorney Tyrone A. Blackburn ("Blackburn"), the signatory of the motion and briefs…. While reviewing Blackburn's briefs, the Court became aware of the fact that they contain wholly fabricated quotations from caselaw—including fabricated quotations from the Court's own prior opinion. In addition to including non-existent quotations, the briefs repeatedly misrepresent case law.
Jakes also noticed the issues with Youngblood' s brief and addressed them in his brief opposing Youngblood's motion to dismiss. In his reply, Blackburn failed to offer any explanation for the deficiencies and fabrications in his brief. Instead, he brazenly attempted to mount a tu quoque defense, asserting that "a LexisNexis Document Analysis of Plaintiff's own opposition brief reveals a pattern of misquotation, superficial citation, and invocation of authorities that are either inapposite or do not support the propositions for which they are cited." The Court thoroughly reviewed Jakes' response brief, and did not find any fabricated quotations or misrepresented case law.
Only Youngblood, through attorney Blackburn, submitted a brief replete with non-existent quotations and repeated misrepresentations of actual case law. Even more outrageously, a review of Youngblood's reply brief demonstrates that it too includes fabricated quotes and misrepresents case law. In other words, when accused of a serious ethical violation, attorney Blackburn chose to double down. This is very troubling. The Court views Blackburn's conduct as a clear ethical violation of the highest order. On June 25, 2025, Blackburn filed a Withdrawal of Appearance….
The fact that Blackburn submitted fabricated quotations and misleading analysis of case law is plain to see from the face of the briefs. When reviewing Blackburn's briefs, the Court was perplexed to see quotes attributed to the Court's own prior opinion in this case, as well as other case law, that was wholly fabricated. The Court was also troubled to find that Blackburn repeatedly misrepresented case law to support his contentions. By way of example, the following italicized portions of Blackburn's brief supporting the motion to dismiss represent a sampling of the fabricated quotes:
- "The Court has already noted in its April 25, 2025, Memorandum Opinion that Plaintiff's Complaint is 'repetitive and heavy on rhetoric,' with no factual detail supporting the core elements of his claims." {This fabricated quotation, purportedly from the Court's opinion, is repeated verbatim in Blackburn's brief at ECF 43, p. 6. Not only does Blackburn attribute statements to the Court that do not exist, but he also twists the Court's prior opinion beyond recognition. [Examples omitted. -EV]}
- "Courts recognize that '[t]he threat of protracted litigation could have an undue chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment ' Franklin Prescriptions, Inc. v. N.Y. Times Co., 267 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (E.D. Pa. 2003)." (ECF No. 43, p. 5) (emphasis added).
- "The law requires a plaintiff to plead 'the exact words spoken or published and the context in which they were made.' Franklin Prescriptions, Inc. v. NY Times , 267 F. Supp. 2d 425,430 (E.D. Pa. 2003)." (ECF No. 43, p. 7) (emphasis added).
- "'The mere incantation of harm or reputational injury, without identifying the defamatory words and the speaker, is insufficient.' 916 A.2d 1123, 1128-29 (Pa. Ct. 2007)." (ECF No. 43, p. 8) (emphasis added).
- "As the Pennsylvania Superior Court has held, 'absent a civil cause of action for a particular act, there can be no cause of action for civil conspiracy to commit that act.' Blackwell v. Eskin, 916 A.2d 1123, 1130 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)." (ECF No. 43, p. 14) (emphasis added).
- "The Court noted that when the underlying tort collapses, 'there can be no cause of action for conspiracy.' Hill v. Cosby, 665 F. App'x 169, 176-77 (3d Cir. 2016)." (ECF No. 43, p. 15) (emphasis added).
- "As the Court held in Romano v. Young, 'without facts showing who agreed, when they agreed, and to what end, a conspiracy claim cannot survive.' 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10986, at (E.D. Pa. February 1, 2011)." (ECF No. 43, p. 15) (emphasis added).
- "Group pleading is particularly improper in civil conspiracy claims, where individual conduct and malicious intent must be alleged, as the Court stated in Duffe v. Lawyers Title Ins. , '[a] Plaintiff must allege facts supporting the inference that each Defendant acted with specific malice and in furtherance of a shared unlawful purpose. Absent this showing, a conspiracy claim fails.' 972 F. Supp. 2d 683, 697 (E.D. Pa. 2013)." (ECF No. 43, p. 17) (emphasis added).
Even after being accused of making false representations in his initial brief, Blackburn's reply brazenly contained misinterpretations of law and partially fabricated quotations. The italicized portions of the quotations from Blackburn's brief (below) do not exist in case law [apparently referring to the case law that Blackburn cited; they may exist elsewhere -EV]. These quotes represent a sampling of the partially fabricated quotes contained in his reply brief:
- "Whether a communication is 'capable of defamatory meaning is a threshold question of law for the court.' Kurowski v. Burroughs, 994 A.2d 611,617 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (citing Blackwell v. Eskin, 916 A.2d 1123, 1125 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)); see also Rockwell v. Allegheny Health Educ. & Research Found., 19 F. Supp. 2d 401, 404-05 (E.D. Pa. 1998)." (Id. at 4) (emphasis added).
- "Even where the words themselves seem mild, Pennsylvania courts 'have shown a willingness to interpret relatively mild statements as being capable of a defamatory meaning,' but only if the 'innuendo must be warranted, justified and supported by the publication.' Livingston v. Murray, 417 Pa.Super. 202, 612 A.2d 443, 449 (1992) (quoting Thomas Merton, 442 A.2d at 217)" (Id.) (emphasis added).
- "Critically, the Plaintiff must 'specifically identify the content of the defamatory statements'—vague accusations or generalized assertions of wrongdoing are not Moses v. McWilliams, 549 A.2d 950, 960 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988); Spain v. Vicente, 461 A.2d 833, 836 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)." (Id.) (emphasis added).
- "The Supreme Court has made clear that '[f]ailure to investigate, without more, does not establish actual malice unless the speaker in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication.' St. Amant Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968); accord Wanless v. Rothballer, 115 Ill. 2d 158, 172 (1986)." (Id. at 10) (emphasis added).
- "The Third Circuit is in accord: 'Failure to investigate, without more, does not demonstrate actual malice unless the plaintiff pleads facts showing the defendant purposefully avoided the truth.' Marcone v. Penthouse Int'!, 754 2d 1072, 1083 (3d Cir. 1985) (citing St. Amant); Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686, 703 (11th Cir. 2016)." (Id.) (emphasis added).
These quotations are merely representative of the fabricated statements in Blackburn's briefs. There are additional fabricated quotations that the Court does not enumerate in this order. In addition to including non-existent quotations in his briefs, Blackburn also cited cases for propositions that they do not represent. The Court will not recite every time Blackburn misconstrued a case in his briefs as it believes the above quotations represent the most serious and alarming issues with the documents. Attorneys are permitted to make creative case comparisons and may even stretch existing case law to support their arguments. Nevertheless, advocacy is confined by Rule 11(b) and Pa. RPC 3.3. Attorneys have a duty of candor to the Court. They must make reasonable inquiries under the circumstances to ensure their legal contentions are warranted by existing law. Attorneys may not fabricate non-existent quotations, from case law or the Court's opinion, and may not cite cases for legal propositions for which they do not stand (or even discuss).
The Court presumes that Youngblood' s briefs were constructed by generative artificial intelligence used by Blackburn, rather than an effort by Blackburn to personally construct false and misleading briefs. It does not matter. Attorneys have ethical obligations under Rule 11 and their state's respective professional canons to review every document submitted to a court under their name and signature to ensure accuracy, candor, and overall compliance with ethical obligations.
This duty is non-delegable. An attorney who signs and files a brief authored by a non-lawyer, such as a paralegal, secretary or intern, is personally responsible for all that it contains.
The same applies to artificial intelligence. In other words, Youngblood could not outsource his obligations to the Court and his client to a third party—including artificial socalled "intelligence." Whoever or whatever drafted the briefs signed and filed by Blackburn, it is clear that he, at the very best, acted with culpable neglect of his professional obligations. The alternative is that he acted in a conscious effort to deceive and mislead the Court. At this point, in light of Blackburn' s continuing offenses in his reply brief, the Court is inclined to believe the latter.
AND NOW this 26 day of June 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Duane Youngblood's Motion to Dismiss according to Rule 12(b)(6) and Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant Duane Youngblood' s Motion to Dismiss are STRICKEN from the record. {The Court is so alarmed by the deficiencies and potential rule violations in Blackburn' s filings that it will not consider any of the substantive arguments raised in Youngblood' s motion to dismiss or reply brief.} In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Youngblood must answer Jakes' complaint on or before July 11, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Blackburn is ordered to show cause, not to exceed fifteen pages, by July 18, 2025, as to why his statements in ECF Nos. 43 and 46 have not violated Rule 11(b) and Pa. RPC 3.3. Specifically, Blackburn is directed to thus show cause as to the fabricated quotations and blatant misrepresentations of case law and the Court's opinion in his briefs. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to, monetary sanctions (including attorneys' fees related to the litigation of the motions at issue), revocation of Blackburn's pro hac vice status, and any other sanctions deemed appropriate by the Court.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that a show cause hearing will be held on July 24, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8B for Blackburn to show cause as to why sanctions should not be issued relative to potential violations of Rule 11(b). If Jakes plans to seek attorneys' fees in relation to the litigation surrounding the motion to dismiss, Jakes and his counsel must attend the hearing. Otherwise, all parties and counsel are welcome to attend the show cause hearing, but only Blackburn's attendance is required. Blackburn shall provide a copy of this order to his client, Youngblood, and file a notice of compliance on the Court's docket after doing so. Blackburn's attempt to withdraw as counsel in this action does not insulate him from the repercussions of his actions. His pending Withdrawal of Appearance will remain under advisement until the resolution of the show cause hearing.
UPDATE 6/26/25 5:01 pm: Here's a statement in response from Mr. Blackburn:
I have a new system that I use to assist with my legal research and drafting. There is an AI element to it. All of the cases I used were researched. I have over 200 cases that are time- and date-stamped. I made a mistake, which I will explain to the court. I will provide all the cases, my research history, and the app's history. I am not as adept at using these new systems as I thought I was. The court is correct, I could have been more careful, and I will explain what happened.