Artificial Intelligence: Sanctions Rulings 2023-2024

In Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, No. 24CA0190, 2024 WL 5230126, at *1 (Colo. App. Dec. 26, 2024), the pro se plaintiff relied on GAI tools to draft a court filing, only to discover later, to his chagrin, that the filing contained hallucinations. The court noted that this case was the first opportunity for a Colorado appellate court to address the appropriate sanction when a pro se litigant filed a brief peppered with GAI-produced hallucinations. Id. The plaintiff's appellate brief contained citations to seven fake cases. Id. at *5. In response to the court about the fake cases, the plaintiff admitted to relying on AI to assist with the preparation of his brief, confirmed that the citations were hallucinations, and that he failed to review the brief. Id. Before reaching a conclusion on whether to sanction the plaintiff, the court provided an extensive review of the LLM underlying GAI technology. Id. at *5-6. The court also referenced the oft-repeated refrain from Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448: "Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions.” Id. at *6. Accordingly, the court declared that "individuals using the current generation of general-purpose GAI tools to assist with legal research and drafting must be aware of the tools’ propensity to generate outputs containing fictitious legal authorities and must ensure that such fictitious citations do not appear in any court filing." Id. While the court emphasized that pro se litigants must adhere to the same procedural rules as licensed attorneys and be prepared to accept the consequences of their mistakes, the court recognized that other courts acted with leniency in similar situations. Id. at *6-7. In an act of discretion, the court did not impose sanctions on the plaintiff, because the record does not show that the plaintiff previously filed court documents containing fake citations. Id. at *8.

In a pro se action that evolved from an allegation of unlawful cancellation of a health insurance policy into a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,  the court addressed the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, for hearing on summary judgment, for leave to file a second amended complaint, and for recusal, as well as the defendant's motion to dismiss. Rubio v. District of Columbia, No. 23-cv-719, 2024 WL 3400227, at *1 (D.D.C. July 12, 2024), ECF No. 47. In a comprehensive ruling, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Id. at *15. With respect to the plaintiff's motions, the court denied the motion for recusal; the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint without prejudice; and the motions for summary judgment and for a hearing on summary judgment without prejudice. Id. In reaching a decision, the court noted that the plaintiff made "admirable efforts as a pro se litigant to understand several complex areas of the law and to state a claim for the losses that he alleges he endured." Id. at *13. Although the plaintiff had not yet stated a claim, the court found that the plaintiff's arguments warranted further exploration and development (perhaps) with the assistance of counsel. Id. Accordingly, the court would appoint counsel and hold the case in abeyance for 60 days. Id.

The proceedings continued with the plaintiff acting pro se, after he rejected court-appointed pro bono counsel. Rubio, No. 23-cv-719 2024 WL 4957373, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2024), ECF No. 47. At this point, the court denied the plaintiff's fourth attempt to plead his claims, denying the current iteration for motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Id. The court also resolved "a host of additional motions" filed by the plaintiff and entered final judgment in favor of the defendant. Id. In reaching a conclusion, the court observed that many of the cases cited by the plaintiff appeared to have been AI inventions. Id. at *4. Notably, the court opined that the plaintiff's proposed complaint included "some of the hallmarks of an AI response to a user's inquiry." Id. While the court recognized that other courts imposed AI sanctions "for improper use of AI assistance," it declined to penalize the plaintiff in this matter. Id.

In Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024), the court dismissed the pro se appellant's appeals as a sanction and a bar from further appellate pro se filings in a probate action. The consolidated appeals were the 13th and 14th appeals from the underlying probate actions. Id. at 1187. On appeal, the court noted that the appellant failed to respond to multiple show cause orders. Id. Moreover, the appellant's filings did not comply with procedural rules, and "[a]larmingly, the bulk of the cases cited by [the appellant] do not in fact exist in the body of Florida case law, and therefore constitute fake or 'phantom case law.'” Id. While the court did not impose a monetary sanction, the court dismissed the consolidated appeals and barred the appellant "from future filings related to the underlying probate actions without the review and signature of a member of the Florida Bar." Id. at 1188.

In Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 23-CV-281, 2024 WL 4882651, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024), the plaintiff's brief contained citations to two non-existent cases as well as multiple quotations that could not be found in the cited authority. The plaintiff's attorney used an unspecified GAI tool to produce the brief but failed to verify the content. Id. The attorney claimed that he used Lexis AI to check the material; however, it did not flag any issues within the brief. Id. In deciding whether to impose sanctions under Rule 11, the court highlighted that the Local Rules explicitly caution attorneys that GAI tools may produce factual and legal inaccuracies. Id. at *2. Further, attorneys are reminded that they must verify the information submitted to the court. Id. Ultimately, the court imposed a sanction of $2,000 and required the attorney to attend a CLE course focused on the use of GAI in the legal profession. Id. at *3.

In Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., No. 24-cv-07189, 2024 WL 4308032, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2024), the plaintiff repeatedly flouted court rules and orders, including failing to disclose that GAI was used in drafting court filings. Significantly, the court identified errors in the filings, "including reliance on a fabricated case and the use of fabricated quotations from the complaint." Mortazavi, No. 24-cv-07189, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024), ECF No. 48. Accordingly, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s counsel violated Rule 11, as "[i]t should go without saying that a lawyer is not allowed to rely on fabricated legal authority and non-existent pleading allegations in any motion filed with a court." Id. at *3. The court acknowledged that a lawyer may use AI for assistance, but remains "fully responsible for the contents of the generated product submitted in the filing—and that responsibility is not diminished in the least when the machine goes rogue." Id. The court imposed $2,500 in sanctions and ordered the plaintiff's counsel to notify the California State Bar of the sanction. Id. at *3-4. Docket.

In Dukuray v. Experian Info. Sols., No. 23 Civ. 9043, 2024 WL 3812259, at *1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024), while ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court observed that the pro se plaintiff's filings included citations to several non-existent judicial opinions with false reporter numbers. Even in light of several high-profile cases, the court recognized the possibility that the plaintiff was not aware of the risk that ChatGPT and other AI programs were capable of generating fake case citations and misstatements of law. Id. at *11. Ultimately, the court warned the plaintiff that any further filings with citations to non-existent cases may result in sanctions, including stricken submissions, filing restrictions, imposition of monetary penalties, or dismissal of the case. Id. at *12.

In Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Assocs., Ltd., No. 21-cv-00064, 2024 WL 3520170, at *7 (W.D. Va. July 24, 2024), the court took exception to the plaintiff's brief that cited multiple cases and quotations that do not appear to exist. At the show cause hearing, the plaintiff's counsel accepted responsibility for failing to use safeguards to ensure the accuracy of the AI output. Transcript of Show Cause Hearing at 8, Iovino, No. 21-cv-00064, ECF No. 204. Further, the court appreciated that the plaintiff's counsel pledged to implement relevant safeguards to avoid this situation in the future. Id. at 9. The court distinguished the case from Mata, noting that there was no intentional conduct by the plaintiff's counsel. Id. at 10. In a subsequent order, the court concluded that no sanction was warranted. Iovino, No. 21-cv-00064, slip op. at 1, ECF No. 200. Docket.

In Anonymous v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 24-cv-04232, 2024 WL 3460049, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024), the court observed that the pro se plaintiff cited to and relied upon non-existent legal authority. In recognizing its obligation to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants, including leniency in applying procedural rules, the court declined to issue sanctions but warned the pro se plaintiff to avoid such missteps in the future. Id.

In a pro se state case, the court imposed heavy sanctions on the pro se appellant, including dismissal of the appeal and imposition of damages, where the appellant's filings were riddled with procedural deficiencies as well as a brief that was filled with inaccurate or entirely fictitious citations to authority (purportedly obtained from an online “consultant” using AI). Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 47–49, 51–52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). In reviewing the appeal, the court itemized each of the twenty-two inaccurate case citations provided by the appellant, as well as erroneous citations to Missouri statutes and rules. Id. at 49-51. While the court recognized the challenges faced by pro se litigants, the instant appeal did not involve only minor technical briefing deficiencies. Id. at 52. Rather, the significant violations of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04 mandated the dismissal of the appeal. Id. at 53. The court further determined that the appeal was frivolous, resulting in sanctions of $10,000 to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. Id. at 53-54.

In Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 612–13 (2d Cir. 2024), the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's case, citing the plaintiff's attorney's repeated non-compliance with discovery orders. Another significant issue on appeal was that a reply brief filed by the plaintiff’s attorney referenced a non-existent case generated by ChatGPT. Id. The Second Circuit emphasized that attorneys must ensure the accuracy of their submissions and found the attorney's performance lacking, including a late submission containing only two case references, one of which was fabricated. Id. at 613-15. The Second Circuit referred to Mata to highlight that a fictitious opinion does not constitute existing law. Id. at 615. The Second Circuit referred the plaintiff's attorney to the Grievance Panel for potential disciplinary action due to a false statement of law in the brief and a failure to validate the arguments as required by Rule 11. Id. at 615-16.

In an unrelated case, the sanctioned attorney in Park (the plaintiff in this case) filed a pro se action against Delta Airlines to redress racially discriminatory conduct that the plaintiff allegedly suffered when flying as a passenger on a Delta flight. Lee v. Delta Airlines, No. 20-CV-01705, 2023 WL 9184679, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2023). The case was ultimately disposed of via motion practice in favor of Delta. Lee v. Delta Airlines, No. 20-CV-01705, 2024 WL 1230263, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2024). In making a decision, the court expressed "serious concern" that at least one of the plaintiff's case citations was non-existent and may have been the product of GAI hallucinations. Id. at *3. The court specifically referenced the plaintiff's conduct in Park. Id. While the court did not impose sanctions, the lesson cannot be clearer for attorneys: check your work!

In a contested probate proceeding, the petitioner sought to deny probate of a will. Will of Samuel, 206 N.Y.S.3d 888, 889-90 (Sur. Ct. 2024). In reviewing the petitioner's filings, the court addressed an allegation that the petitioner's counsel submitted reply papers containing "fictional and/or erroneous citations" created by GAI. Id.at 891. The court expressed reservations about using AI to draft legal documents; however, the primary issue was counsel's failure to thoroughly examine and scrutinize the AI-generated sources. Id. In exercising discretion, the court concluded that sanctions for the petitioner's counsel will be addressed at a later date. Id. at 892.

A pro se plaintiff's employment discrimination action was the second opportunity for a federal court to address phony AI-generated case citations. Morgan v. Comty. Against Violence, No. 23-cv-353, 2023 WL 6976510, at *1, 8 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2023). In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss in part, the court warned the plaintiff against abusing the judicial process. Id. at *7. The court noted that the plaintiff's response brief cited five fake or non-existent cases. Id. at *8 n.3. The court declined to impose sanctions in this case, but cautioned the plaintiff that "[a]ny future filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions such as the pleading being stricken, filing restrictions imposed, or the case being dismissed." Id.

In Ruggierlo, Velardo, Burke, Reizen & Fox, P.C. v. Lancaster, No. 22-cv-12010, 2023 WL 5846798, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2023), the plaintiff law firm sued the pro se defendant to collect unpaid legal fees. In ruling to remand the case to the state court, the court noted that the defendant included "a mutant citation" in his filing. Id. at *2 n.5. The court observed that "[t]hese and other fabrications within [the defendant's] objections may be from [his] imagination, a generative artificial intelligence tool's hallucination, both, or something else entirely." Id. Nevertheless, the court declined to impose sanctions, but warned the defendant that citing fabricated law may result in significant sanctions in subsequent litigation. Id.

In a criminal case, the defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus asking to either be released or have bail reduced. Ex parte Lee, 673 S.W.3d 755, 756 (Tex. App. 2023). After a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's application; the appellate court affirmed. Id. at 756-57. In reaching a conclusion, the appellate court noted that the defendant's brief contained numerous defects, including no citations to the record and inadequate citations to relevant authority. Id. Particularly, "[n]one of the three published cases cited actually exist in the Southwest Reporter." Id. at 756. Nevertheless, the appellate court "resist[ed] the temptation to issue a show cause order as [in Mata] or report the attorney to the State Bar of Texas for a potential investigation for a violation of the State Bar rules." Id. at 757 n.2.