Last week, we wrote about yet another lawyer filing a brief riddled with AI hallucinations. But to spice up the story, the attorney, Steven Feldman, responded to the Order to Show Cause with a bunch of overwrought meditations on the nature of lawyering. “Each citation, each argument, each procedural decision is a mark upon the clay, an indelible impression,” he wrote, triggering painful fits of snickering. “[I]n the ancient libraries of Ashurbanipal, scribes carried their stylus as both tool and sacred trust—understanding that every mark upon clay would endure long beyond their mortal span,” he added.
Judge Failla was not impressed by the lost treasures of Ashurbanipal.
The Court wants to hear directly from Mr. Feldman, so that it can give him the opportunity to — as he puts it — “prove [himself] worthy to carry the stylus once more in service of justice and truth.”
Stone. Cold.
Other than the unnecessarily pretentious profession fluffing, the attorney’s letter struck me as pretty decent. Obviously the best course of action is not to file briefs with fake cites at all, but if a lawyer has found themselves in a grave professional mistake — especially this one which we’ve talked about for years now — this response provided a nice template of explaining how it happened, expressing contrition, and proactively giving the judge a gameplan to avoid future mistakes. Though all the sanctimonious filler did seem like it could undermine the sincerity.
Apparently Judge Failla thought it did:
The Court looked askance at Mr. Feldman’s Response because the writing style in it differed markedly from the writing style in the letter he submitted to the Court three days later. (Compare Response with Dkt. #166). Mr. Feldman’s Response contains an extended quote from Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 and a metaphor about an ancient stylus. (Response 3, 7). By contrast, his July 14, 2025 letter contains typographical errors in the very first paragraph, and, indeed, throughout.
On last week’s Legaltech Week Journalists’ Roundtable show, panelists hypothesized that all the sappy professional talk might have been AI generated. Judge Failla appears to have the same suspicion, though it might well be that a lawyer pulls out more flowery stops when fighting for their professional reputation than when asking to submit more documents on behalf of a client. Though it doesn’t bode well for the pledge to practice more carefully if the letter he wrote on behalf of the client three days later is filled with typos.
The judge also noted that in his response, Feldman cited the infamous Mata v. Avianca, Inc. case, providing a choice quote. Except…
This quote appears nowhere in Mata. A Google search revealed it to be a direct quote from an October 24, 2023 article that recaps an analysis of Mata done by an attorney named Christopher F. Lyon. Christopher F. Lyon Delves into Risks of ChatGPT in Legal Field for NYLitigator, GoldbergSegalla (Oct. 24, 2023), www.goldbergsegalla.com/news-and-knowledge/news/christopher-f-lyon-delves-into-risks-of-chatgpt-in-legal-field-for-nylitigator (last visited July 18, 2025). Mr. Feldman did not attribute the quote to this article. That is especially concerning considering that he was responding to an Order to Show Cause why he should not be sanctioned for his erroneous citations. And it would be especially concerning, and indeed unacceptable, if Mr. Feldman used a large language model to draft his Response without verifying whether the quotations in it were accurately attributed.
Oh no, buddy, no.
Nor did the judge accept his claim that losing access to Casetext caused his woes and managed to throw in another barb while doing so:
To take a page out of Mr. Feldman’s book, this is so much “sound and fury, [s]ignifying nothing.” William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene V, Lines 30-31. Mr. Feldman must know how to verify that a case exists on Westlaw without the added benefit of AI tools. He claims that, going forward, he will undertake certain “remedial efforts,” including, inter alia, “establish[ing] … database reconciliation procedures involving resolution of discrepancies through direct consultation of archival legal resources and substitution of alternative, verifiable authorities where necessary.” (Response 5). Most lawyers simply call this “conducting legal research.” All lawyers must know how to do it. Mr. Feldman is not excused from this professional obligation by dint of using emerging technology.
Harsh but fair. I was more sympathetic to this excuse than the judge because there is a population of mostly small firms out there who put a lot of eggs in a basket that moved beyond a paywall that they might not be able to afford. In the movie Grosse Pointe Blank, John Cusack’s main character at one point says “that’s not an excuse, it’s a reason” which seems apropos here. Of course the lawyer needed to check the work again, but it’s also entirely possible that he thought he had before this switch. The right answer would’ve been to do it all again, but at least you can see how it happened and it’s worth getting out there on the public record to avoid more fallout from lawyers impacted by that change. Hopefully this story alerts some other lawyer to this risk before they casually hit the send button.
Maybe that can be the mark upon the clay, leaving an indelible impression.
Meanwhile, the judge reserved the issue of sanctions pending a hearing, but based on this order one suspects Feldman is going to be receiving an indelible impression from the judge soon enough.
(Order on the next page…)
Earlier: Lawyer Cites AI Hallucinations, Responds With Pretentious Meditation On Nature Of Being
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
The post Judge Trolls Lawyer Over Flowery Excuses For AI Hallucinations appeared first on Above the Law.
Last week, we wrote about yet another lawyer filing a brief riddled with AI hallucinations. But to spice up the story, the attorney, Steven Feldman, responded to the Order to Show Cause with a bunch of overwrought meditations on the nature of lawyering. “Each citation, each argument, each procedural decision is a mark upon the clay, an indelible impression,” he wrote, triggering painful fits of snickering. “[I]n the ancient libraries of Ashurbanipal, scribes carried their stylus as both tool and sacred trust—understanding that every mark upon clay would endure long beyond their mortal span,” he added.
Judge Failla was not impressed by the lost treasures of Ashurbanipal.
The Court wants to hear directly from Mr. Feldman, so that it can give him the opportunity to — as he puts it — “prove [himself] worthy to carry the stylus once more in service of justice and truth.”
Stone. Cold.
Other than the unnecessarily pretentious profession fluffing, the attorney’s letter struck me as pretty decent. Obviously the best course of action is not to file briefs with fake cites at all, but if a lawyer has found themselves in a grave professional mistake — especially this one which we’ve talked about for years now — this response provided a nice template of explaining how it happened, expressing contrition, and proactively giving the judge a gameplan to avoid future mistakes. Though all the sanctimonious filler did seem like it could undermine the sincerity.
Apparently Judge Failla thought it did:
The Court looked askance at Mr. Feldman’s Response because the writing style in it differed markedly from the writing style in the letter he submitted to the Court three days later. (Compare Response with Dkt. #166). Mr. Feldman’s Response contains an extended quote from Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 and a metaphor about an ancient stylus. (Response 3, 7). By contrast, his July 14, 2025 letter contains typographical errors in the very first paragraph, and, indeed, throughout.
On last week’s Legaltech Week Journalists’ Roundtable show, panelists hypothesized that all the sappy professional talk might have been AI generated. Judge Failla appears to have the same suspicion, though it might well be that a lawyer pulls out more flowery stops when fighting for their professional reputation than when asking to submit more documents on behalf of a client. Though it doesn’t bode well for the pledge to practice more carefully if the letter he wrote on behalf of the client three days later is filled with typos.
The judge also noted that in his response, Feldman cited the infamous Mata v. Avianca, Inc. case, providing a choice quote. Except…
This quote appears nowhere in Mata. A Google search revealed it to be a direct quote from an October 24, 2023 article that recaps an analysis of Mata done by an attorney named Christopher F. Lyon. Christopher F. Lyon Delves into Risks of ChatGPT in Legal Field for NYLitigator, GoldbergSegalla (Oct. 24, 2023), www.goldbergsegalla.com/news-and-knowledge/news/christopher-f-lyon-delves-into-risks-of-chatgpt-in-legal-field-for-nylitigator (last visited July 18, 2025). Mr. Feldman did not attribute the quote to this article. That is especially concerning considering that he was responding to an Order to Show Cause why he should not be sanctioned for his erroneous citations. And it would be especially concerning, and indeed unacceptable, if Mr. Feldman used a large language model to draft his Response without verifying whether the quotations in it were accurately attributed.
Oh no, buddy, no.
Nor did the judge accept his claim that losing access to Casetext caused his woes and managed to throw in another barb while doing so:
To take a page out of Mr. Feldman’s book, this is so much “sound and fury, [s]ignifying nothing.” William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene V, Lines 30-31. Mr. Feldman must know how to verify that a case exists on Westlaw without the added benefit of AI tools. He claims that, going forward, he will undertake certain “remedial efforts,” including, inter alia, “establish[ing] … database reconciliation procedures involving resolution of discrepancies through direct consultation of archival legal resources and substitution of alternative, verifiable authorities where necessary.” (Response 5). Most lawyers simply call this “conducting legal research.” All lawyers must know how to do it. Mr. Feldman is not excused from this professional obligation by dint of using emerging technology.
Harsh but fair. I was more sympathetic to this excuse than the judge because there is a population of mostly small firms out there who put a lot of eggs in a basket that moved beyond a paywall that they might not be able to afford. In the movie Grosse Pointe Blank, John Cusack’s main character at one point says “that’s not an excuse, it’s a reason” which seems apropos here. Of course the lawyer needed to check the work again, but it’s also entirely possible that he thought he had before this switch. The right answer would’ve been to do it all again, but at least you can see how it happened and it’s worth getting out there on the public record to avoid more fallout from lawyers impacted by that change. Hopefully this story alerts some other lawyer to this risk before they casually hit the send button.
Maybe that can be the mark upon the clay, leaving an indelible impression.
Meanwhile, the judge reserved the issue of sanctions pending a hearing, but based on this order one suspects Feldman is going to be receiving an indelible impression from the judge soon enough.
(Order on the next page…)
Earlier: Lawyer Cites AI Hallucinations, Responds With Pretentious Meditation On Nature Of Being
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
