Sanctions for Another Lawyer Filing AI-Hallucinated Material …

From Nora v. M & A Transport, Inc., decided yesterday by Judge Susie Morgan (E.D. La.):

On June 30, 2025, Ms. Hamilton, on behalf of Plaintiff, signed and filed a Motion to Transfer Venue. On July 8, 2025, Defendants M & A Transport, LLS Leasing, Linda Stivason, and Mike Stivason (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue. In this opposition, Defendants identified what they referred to as three “suspicious” citations.

The first of these “suspicious” citations is Ms. Hamilton’s citation to Gallagher v. Wilton Enterprises, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Ms. Hamilton cited Gallagher as a case in which “the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred a case filed in the wrong district rather than dismissing it, applying principles of equitable tolling and observing that transfer avoids harsh outcomes based on technical filing errors.” The citation “962 F. Supp. 1162″ corresponds to Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc. rather than Gallagher. Although Gallagher v. Wilton Enterprises, Inc. is the name of a reported opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, neither Gallagher nor Kenro discuss venue transfer or equitable tolling.

Second, Ms. Hamilton cited Mader v. Advanced Neuromodulation Sys., Inc., 2005 WL 1863181 (E.D. La. Aug. 3, 2005) as a case in which “this Court granted a transfer where venue was technically improper but the claim was timely filed, reasoning that dismissal would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.” The Court’s research does not reveal any cases bearing the name Mader v. Advanced Neuromodulation Sys., Inc. The citation “2005 WL 1863181″ is for In re Yacavino, which is a New Jersey Supreme Court case on an attorney disciplinary matter.

Third, Ms. Hamilton cited Krapf v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 4 A.3d 642 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) for the proposition that “Courts favor transferring such cases rather than dismissing them when doing so serves the interest of justice and avoids prejudice.” Krapf, a real case, does not address transfer of venue. …

[In a later filing,] Ms. Hamilton “acknowledge[d] the cited authorities were inaccurate and mistakenly verified using Westlaw Precision, an AI-assisted research tool, rather than Westlaw’s standalone legal database.” Ms. Hamilton further wrote that she “now understands that Westlaw Precision incorporates AI-assisted research, which can generate fictitious legal authority if not independently verified.”

On July 21, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to “provide the Court with the AI-assisted research history that resulted in the three citations at issue in the Motion to Transfer.” On July 22, 2025, Ms. Hamilton filed a response to the Court’s July 21, 2025 order and attached her research history but, by her own admission, the research history does not include the incorrect citations. In her response, Ms. Hamilton admitted that “[w]hile [the attached research] reflects research [that Ms. Hamilton] personally conducted in connection with this matter, it does not include the inaccurate citations at issue” because “[t]he Motion to Transfer (Doc. 24) was initially prepared as a collaboration” and “the authorities in question were sent in an e-mail from another attorney in the firm.”

On July 22, 2025, after Ms. Hamilton filed her response to the Court’s July 21, 2025 order, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to “provide to the Court for in camera review the AI-assisted research history performed by the lawyer who did the research.” Ms. Hamilton testified she was unable to provide the Court with this research history because the lawyer who produced the AI-generated citations is currently suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana. Ms. Hamilton did produce for the Court’s in camera review an email in which the now suspended lawyer sent Ms. Hamilton the AI-generated citations.

On July 24, 2025, the Court held oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Due to Improper Venue. At the oral argument, Ms. Hamilton made an appearance for Plaintiff. After argument, the Court placed Ms. Hamilton under oath and questioned her regarding her usage of AI-assisted research. The Court asked Ms. Hamilton to explain the basis for her representation that Westlaw generated the fabricated citations. Ms. Hamilton stated that she “assumed” Westlaw was the origin of the fabricated citations because she does all of her research on Westlaw. Ms. Hamilton agreed that Westlaw did not generate the fabricated citations. Ms. Hamilton confirmed that, at the time she filed the reply memorandum in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue, she did not review her Westlaw research history to verify that Westlaw generated the fabricated citations….

The Court finds Ms. Hamilton’s conduct is in violation of Rules 11(b)(2) & (3). In determining whether an attorney has complied with Rule 11, the court applies “an objective, not subjective, standard of reasonableness.” “[T]he central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court and … streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts.” “At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely.”

Ms. Hamilton, who signed and filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue, did not verify that several of the legal contentions in the Motion to Transfer Venue were warranted by existing law. Ms. Hamilton violated Rule 11(b)(2) by citing to fabricated, AI-generated cases without verifying the accuracy, or even the existence, of the cases. Furthermore, Ms. Hamilton violated Rule 11(b)(3) by misrepresenting to the Court the origin of the AI-generated cases in her reply memorandum in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue. Ms. Hamilton admitted to these violations of Rules 11(b)(2) & (3) at her show cause hearing on August 4, 2025.

The court ordered that Ms. Hamilton pay $1000 in sanctions (“This amount must be paid by Ms. Hamilton personally, and may not be paid for by her law firm or the Plaintiff”), that she “attend 1 hour of Continuing Legal Education on the topic of Generative A.I.,” and that she be “REFERRED to the Disciplinary Committee of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in accordance with the Eastern District’s Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.”

The post Sanctions for Another Lawyer Filing AI-Hallucinated Material … appeared first on Reason.com.