{"id":126102,"date":"2025-07-09T09:23:26","date_gmt":"2025-07-09T17:23:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/09\/mike-lindell-lawyers-earn-pillow-soft-sanction-after-letting-ai-do-the-thinking\/"},"modified":"2025-07-09T09:23:26","modified_gmt":"2025-07-09T17:23:26","slug":"mike-lindell-lawyers-earn-pillow-soft-sanction-after-letting-ai-do-the-thinking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/09\/mike-lindell-lawyers-earn-pillow-soft-sanction-after-letting-ai-do-the-thinking\/","title":{"rendered":"Mike Lindell Lawyers Earn Pillow-Soft Sanction After Letting AI Do The Thinking"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Photo by JIM WATSON\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Given Mike \u201cMyPillow\u201d Lindell\u2019s history of claims about the 2020 election, it\u2019s a fair question whether turning his legal filings over to generative AI might actually reduce the hallucinatory nonsense.<\/p>\n

Alas, the court did not engage in that comparative analysis and slapped Rule 11 fines<\/a> on two of the pillow purveyor\u2019s lawyers \u2014 Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster\u00a0\u2014 over a series of fake cites and quotes in Lindell\u2019s filings. Specifically, Judge Nina Wang\u2019s order noted that the issue arose after argued a motion in limine and asked if there was anything else the judge wanted him to address. At that point Judge Wang discussed:<\/p>\n

\n

[M]isquotes of cited cases; misrepresentations of principles of law associated with cited cases, including discussions of legal principles that simply do not appear within such decisions; misstatements regarding whether case law originated from a binding authority such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; misattributions of case law to this District; and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That may sound bad, but then you notice the order reads \u201cThe discussed errors included but were not limited to<\/em>.\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

The mistakes, of course, originated with generative AI, but it\u2019s still not fair to blame the technology<\/a>. Westlaw isn\u2019t responsible if your bad search brought up a case that doesn\u2019t fit. The problem is, and always has been, lawyers who treat \u201cverify your work\u201d as a suggestion instead of a professional obligation. <\/p>\n

Maybe Lindell saw the bill and thought it read \u201cverify your WOKE\u201d and refused to pay?<\/p>\n

On the subject of Westlaw being responsible for errors, the lawyers defended themselves by pointing to a \u201cWestlaw Report\u201d that analyzed the brief and suggested better cases. According to contemporaneous email correspondence, DeMaster told Kachouroff that the report \u201cdidn\u2019t flag us for any obviously bad case law.\u201d They then claim that the Westlaw Report allowed them to fix the final version but that they then accidentally filed an earlier broken version. The judge didn\u2019t see it that way, noting that the version referred to in the Westlaw Report email seems to have the same mistakes as the filed version. \u201cPut simply, neither defense counsel\u2019s communications nor the \u2018final\u2019 version of the Opposition that they reviewed corroborate the existence of the \u2018correct\u2019 version.\u201d<\/p>\n

But either way, the defense seems to be \u201cwe used a different tech tool<\/em> to do the cite checking for us,\u201d which is still not really the same as CITE CHECKING.<\/p>\n

The judge fined each $3000. Lindell\u2019s attorneys should be ecstatic they\u2019re getting off this easy. <\/p>\n

In 2023\u2019s legal ChatPocalypse Mata v. Avianca<\/em>, a hapless New York lawyer who took ChatGPT\u2019s word for it that all those suspiciously perfectly tailored precedents were real and not AI shamelessly sucking up to him like the AI from Her<\/em>. While ruthless professional mockery took its toll, the court cut that guy some slack for being the first unlucky sod to fall for generative AI. It was a teachable moment and a $5,000 slap on the wrist seemed fine. <\/p>\n

But we\u2019ve had that moment. This is a sequel \u2014 and everyone knows sequels have a higher body count.<\/p>\n

Actually, this is the sequel of a sequel of a sequel in a case with substantial public notoriety because the litigant is a Pillow Pitching loon. In light of Avianca<\/em>, lawyers making this mistake today are clearly dissuaded by the possibility of a $5000 sanction much less a $3000 one. We recently saw a $31,000 sanction for a generative AI error<\/a>. That\u2019s far more in line with where we are right now. Without higher stakes for lawyers making this mistake \u2014 one that everyone has full and fair warning about \u2014 there\u2019s no incentive for lawyers to get it right.<\/p>\n

Indeed, $3000 is chump change if turning a blind eye to the AI-juiced brief convinces a judge to side with the client. As much as we all rely on judges to act as an impermeable firewall for fakery, a judge just fell for AI cases in Georgia<\/a>. <\/p>\n

And so, for their sins, Lindell\u2019s lawyers must take their lumps and pay up by August 4. Just don\u2019t use words like \u201clumps\u201d when talking about Lindell\u2019s pillows<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

(Check out the order on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Mike Lindell Lawyers Earn Pillow-Soft Sanction After Letting AI Do The Thinking<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Photo by JIM WATSON\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Given Mike \u201cMyPillow\u201d Lindell\u2019s history of claims about the 2020 election, it\u2019s a fair question whether turning his legal filings over to generative AI might actually reduce the hallucinatory nonsense.<\/p>\n

Alas, the court did not engage in that comparative analysis and slapped Rule 11 fines<\/a> on two of the pillow purveyor\u2019s lawyers \u2014 Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster\u00a0\u2014 over a series of fake cites and quotes in Lindell\u2019s filings. Specifically, Judge Nina Wang\u2019s order noted that the issue arose after argued a motion in limine and asked if there was anything else the judge wanted him to address. At that point Judge Wang discussed:<\/p>\n

\n

[M]isquotes of cited cases; misrepresentations of principles of law associated with cited cases, including discussions of legal principles that simply do not appear within such decisions; misstatements regarding whether case law originated from a binding authority such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; misattributions of case law to this District; and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That may sound bad, but then you notice the order reads \u201cThe discussed errors included but were not limited to<\/em>.\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

The mistakes, of course, originated with generative AI, but it\u2019s still not fair to blame the technology<\/a>. Westlaw isn\u2019t responsible if your bad search brought up a case that doesn\u2019t fit. The problem is, and always has been, lawyers who treat \u201cverify your work\u201d as a suggestion instead of a professional obligation. <\/p>\n

Maybe Lindell saw the bill and thought it read \u201cverify your WOKE\u201d and refused to pay?<\/p>\n

On the subject of Westlaw being responsible for errors, the lawyers defended themselves by pointing to a \u201cWestlaw Report\u201d that analyzed the brief and suggested better cases. According to contemporaneous email correspondence, DeMaster told Kachouroff that the report \u201cdidn\u2019t flag us for any obviously bad case law.\u201d They then claim that the Westlaw Report allowed them to fix the final version but that they then accidentally filed an earlier broken version. The judge didn\u2019t see it that way, noting that the version referred to in the Westlaw Report email seems to have the same mistakes as the filed version. \u201cPut simply, neither defense counsel\u2019s communications nor the \u2018final\u2019 version of the Opposition that they reviewed corroborate the existence of the \u2018correct\u2019 version.\u201d<\/p>\n

But either way, the defense seems to be \u201cwe used a different tech tool<\/em> to do the cite checking for us,\u201d which is still not really the same as CITE CHECKING.<\/p>\n

The judge fined each $3000. Lindell\u2019s attorneys should be ecstatic they\u2019re getting off this easy. <\/p>\n

In 2023\u2019s legal ChatPocalypse Mata v. Avianca<\/em>, a hapless New York lawyer who took ChatGPT\u2019s word for it that all those suspiciously perfectly tailored precedents were real and not AI shamelessly sucking up to him like the AI from Her<\/em>. While ruthless professional mockery took its toll, the court cut that guy some slack for being the first unlucky sod to fall for generative AI. It was a teachable moment and a $5,000 slap on the wrist seemed fine. <\/p>\n

But we\u2019ve had that moment. This is a sequel \u2014 and everyone knows sequels have a higher body count.<\/p>\n

Actually, this is the sequel of a sequel of a sequel in a case with substantial public notoriety because the litigant is a Pillow Pitching loon. In light of Avianca<\/em>, lawyers making this mistake today are clearly dissuaded by the possibility of a $5000 sanction much less a $3000 one. We recently saw a $31,000 sanction for a generative AI error<\/a>. That\u2019s far more in line with where we are right now. Without higher stakes for lawyers making this mistake \u2014 one that everyone has full and fair warning about \u2014 there\u2019s no incentive for lawyers to get it right.<\/p>\n

Indeed, $3000 is chump change if turning a blind eye to the AI-juiced brief convinces a judge to side with the client. As much as we all rely on judges to act as an impermeable firewall for fakery, a judge just fell for AI cases in Georgia<\/a>. <\/p>\n

And so, for their sins, Lindell\u2019s lawyers must take their lumps and pay up by August 4. Just don\u2019t use words like \u201clumps\u201d when talking about Lindell\u2019s pillows<\/a>.<\/p>\n