{"id":128308,"date":"2025-07-25T08:23:51","date_gmt":"2025-07-25T16:23:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/25\/court-kicks-lawyers-off-case-after-finding-fake-ai-cases-in-filings\/"},"modified":"2025-07-25T08:23:51","modified_gmt":"2025-07-25T16:23:51","slug":"court-kicks-lawyers-off-case-after-finding-fake-ai-cases-in-filings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/25\/court-kicks-lawyers-off-case-after-finding-fake-ai-cases-in-filings\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Kicks Lawyers Off Case After Finding Fake AI Cases In Filings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Back in May, Butler Snow received a particularly irate order to show cause<\/a>. The firm represented the Alabama Department of Corrections in case where an inmate was\u00a0stabbed 20 times<\/a> \u2014 not 20 times in one sitting, 20 different times<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 and the inmate objected to the timing of a proposed deposition noting that the Corrections filing \u201cappears to have fabricated citations to legal authority in his motion for leave, \u2018possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence,’\u201d as the order explained.<\/p>\n

Judge Anna Manasco just issued her decision on this one and it\u2019s 51 pages of hot fire. <\/p>\n

When the dust settled, three attorneys \u2014 two partners and an of counsel \u2014 earned a public reprimand, got disqualified from the case, and referred to the state bar. The court also went out of its way to release without sanction the associates on the case and the firm itself. In a profession where accolades accumulate at the top and responsibility gets pushed downhill, it\u2019s refreshing that the associates who declared that they had nothing to do with the fake citations inserted by a partner avoided punishment for being dragged along for the ride. <\/p>\n

A new trend in AI hallucination cases is the \u201cwrong case, right law\u201d phenomenon. While some cases involve entirely false statements of law, more and more we\u2019re seeing the algorithms inventing fake captions to support otherwise correct statements of law. ChatGPT\u2019s basically trying out for Law Review and refuses to cite one case when it could throw in 20. When caught in a hallucination, lawyers in this situation<\/a> have clung to the \u201cno one was really misled\u201d argument. Judge Manasco is unpersuaded:<\/p>\n

\n

At the threshold, the court rejects the invitation to consider that actual authorities stand for the proposition that the bogus authorities were offered to support. That is a stroke of pure luck for these lawyers, and one that did not remediate the waste and harm their misconduct wrought. Further, any sanctions discount on this basis would amplify the siren call of unverified AI for lawyers who are already confident in their legal conclusion. This court will have no part of that.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Nor did the judge appreciate the \u201cwe\u2019ve suffered enough\u201d argument:<\/p>\n

\n

Likewise, the court rejects the invitation to consider that the involved lawyers and firm have been deeply embarrassed in media reports. For many very good reasons, courts traditionally have not relied on the media to do the difficult work of professional discipline, and this court is not about to start.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As a representative of the media who often finds himself meting out professional ridicule, this is a good standard.<\/p>\n

Recently, I\u2019ve been making the argument that slap-on-the-wrist punishments made sense in the infancy of ChatGPT, but in 2025, there\u2019s no excuse for anyone continuing to make the same old mistakes. At least find new and interesting ways to make mistakes. Like, say you put the right cases in but then an \u201cAgentic tool\u201d overrode them. There are so many ways to be negligent without being reckless!<\/p>\n

To that point, Judge Manasco feels we\u2019ve very much crossed into reckless territory:<\/p>\n

\n

The court has no difficulty finding that Mr. Reeves\u2019s misconduct was more than mere recklessness. In the light of repeated general warnings from federal courts about the risks of bogus citations generated by AI, as well as the persistent specific warnings, policies, and expectations of his colleagues and law firm with respect to AI, Mr. Reeves\u2019s misconduct was particularly egregious. Having been so extensively alerted of the risk that AI will make things up, and having blown through all of his firm\u2019s internal controls designed to protect court filings from counterfeit citations, Mr. Reeves\u2019s repeated decisions to parrot citations generated by AI without verifying even one of them reflect complete and utter disregard for his professional duty of candor. This is recklessness in the extreme, and it is tantamount to bad faith. Accordingly, the court will impose an appropriate sanction under its inherent authority.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While Reeves inserted the cases, the judge had more issues with the rest of the senior team. Breaking down the order on social media, Kathryn Tewson wrote<\/a>, \u201cI would describe the court\u2019s commentary about how little effort Mr. Cransford would have needed to expend to prevent this disaster as \u2018withering,\u2019\u201d and that\u2019s an apt description.<\/p>\n

\n

This misconduct was more than simple recklessness and is particularly egregious, especially in the light of how little effort would have been required of Mr. Cranford to uncover any of the falsehoods. The unacceptable result of Mr. Cranford\u2019s decisions is that motions were filed with the court that no attorney ensured were free from false statements. Attorneys who sign motions must know \u2014 as Mr. Cranford
acknowledges \u2014 that they risk serious sanctions when they make no effort to ensure that those motions tell the truth. Accordingly, the court finds that Mr. Cranford\u2019s misconduct was tantamount to bad faith and will sanction him under its inherent power.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The court refers to \u201cits inherent power\u201d because, apparently, Rule 11 doesn\u2019t actually apply to discovery motions. Which seems\u2026 like a weird oversight. <\/p>\n

Arguably the harshest criticism fell upon the final attorney, William Lunsford, who both works at Butler Snow and \u201cholds the designation of deputy attorney general\u201d for the state of Alabama. Lunsford first \u201ctroubled the court\u201d by immediately asking to be excused from the order to show cause \u2014 that was denied \u2014 and then explained that his \u201cname and signature appear on all of the current public contracts for
professional services provided by outside legal counsel to the State of Alabama (the \u201cState\u201d) on a limited number of matters for which the State elects to hire outside counsel.\u201d Seemingly making the argument that, as part of the deputy attorney general role, he\u2019s just the figurehead on these filings.<\/p>\n

Guess who was not amused\u2026<\/p>\n

\n

Both before and at the show cause hearing, Mr. Lunsford deepened rather than allayed the court\u2019s concerns about his understanding of his professional responsibility with respect to court filings that bear his name in the signature block.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Oof. The order explains that Lunsford told the court that he didn\u2019t know about the use of AI because these cases \u201coften involve similar facts and law, when the team he leads has a need for legal research in a case, it is their ordinary practice to re-use (apparently without verification) material from filings in other cases.\u201d Which\u2026 yeah, that happens in well-tread areas of law, but you still at least take a look. Also, the fact that the caselaw supporting \u201cthe state doesn\u2019t care if inmates get stabbed 20 times\u201d is so established that it earns such blas\u00e9 treatment should be a deeper red flag about how we treat our prisons.<\/p>\n

After describing Lunsford\u2019s actions as \u201cparticularly egregious, more than mere recklessness and tantamount to bad faith,\u201d Judge Manasco went nuclear:<\/p>\n

\n

To be clear, the court\u2019s finding in this regard is not simply a harsh inference: when it became apparent that multiple motions with his name in the signature block contained fabricated citations, Mr. Lunsford\u2019s nearly immediate response was to try to skip the show cause hearing and leave the mess for someone else. And when the court compelled him to appear at the hearing, he paired his apology with an
explanation in greater fullness of how very little work he personally puts in to be sure that his team\u2019s motions tell the truth. This cannot be how litigators, particularly seasoned ones, practice in federal court or run their teams.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I would simply curl up and poof out of existence if this were written about me.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been bemoaning the unwillingness of courts to pull out sanctions with teeth \u2014 Judge Manasco heard that call. In any event, she reminds us all that the thing about a disincentive is that it actually has to disincentivize something<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

Having considered these cases carefully, the court finds that a fine and public reprimand are insufficient here. If fines and public embarrassment were effective deterrents, there would not be so many cases to cite<\/strong>. And in any event, fines do not account for the extreme dereliction of professional responsibility that fabricating citations reflects, nor for the many harms it causes. In any event, a fine would not rectify the egregious misconduct in this case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Emphasis added because it cannot be emphasized enough. <\/p>\n

(Order on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Am Law 200 Firm Slapped With Order To Show Cause Over Fake Citations\u2026 You Know Where This Is Going<\/a>
Law Firm Tagged Over Fake Citations Quietly Deletes Blog Post Encouraging Lawyers To Use AI<\/a><\/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 Court Kicks Lawyers Off Case After Finding Fake AI Cases In Filings<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Back in May, Butler Snow received a particularly irate order to show cause<\/a>. The firm represented the Alabama Department of Corrections in case where an inmate was\u00a0stabbed 20 times<\/a> \u2014 not 20 times in one sitting, 20 different times<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 and the inmate objected to the timing of a proposed deposition noting that the Corrections filing \u201cappears to have fabricated citations to legal authority in his motion for leave, \u2018possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence,’\u201d as the order explained.<\/p>\n

Judge Anna Manasco just issued her decision on this one and it\u2019s 51 pages of hot fire. <\/p>\n

When the dust settled, three attorneys \u2014 two partners and an of counsel \u2014 earned a public reprimand, got disqualified from the case, and referred to the state bar. The court also went out of its way to release without sanction the associates on the case and the firm itself. In a profession where accolades accumulate at the top and responsibility gets pushed downhill, it\u2019s refreshing that the associates who declared that they had nothing to do with the fake citations inserted by a partner avoided punishment for being dragged along for the ride. <\/p>\n

A new trend in AI hallucination cases is the \u201cwrong case, right law\u201d phenomenon. While some cases involve entirely false statements of law, more and more we\u2019re seeing the algorithms inventing fake captions to support otherwise correct statements of law. ChatGPT\u2019s basically trying out for Law Review and refuses to cite one case when it could throw in 20. When caught in a hallucination, lawyers in this situation<\/a> have clung to the \u201cno one was really misled\u201d argument. Judge Manasco is unpersuaded:<\/p>\n

\n

At the threshold, the court rejects the invitation to consider that actual authorities stand for the proposition that the bogus authorities were offered to support. That is a stroke of pure luck for these lawyers, and one that did not remediate the waste and harm their misconduct wrought. Further, any sanctions discount on this basis would amplify the siren call of unverified AI for lawyers who are already confident in their legal conclusion. This court will have no part of that.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Nor did the judge appreciate the \u201cwe\u2019ve suffered enough\u201d argument:<\/p>\n

\n

Likewise, the court rejects the invitation to consider that the involved lawyers and firm have been deeply embarrassed in media reports. For many very good reasons, courts traditionally have not relied on the media to do the difficult work of professional discipline, and this court is not about to start.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As a representative of the media who often finds himself meting out professional ridicule, this is a good standard.<\/p>\n

Recently, I\u2019ve been making the argument that slap-on-the-wrist punishments made sense in the infancy of ChatGPT, but in 2025, there\u2019s no excuse for anyone continuing to make the same old mistakes. At least find new and interesting ways to make mistakes. Like, say you put the right cases in but then an \u201cAgentic tool\u201d overrode them. There are so many ways to be negligent without being reckless!<\/p>\n

To that point, Judge Manasco feels we\u2019ve very much crossed into reckless territory:<\/p>\n

\n

The court has no difficulty finding that Mr. Reeves\u2019s misconduct was more than mere recklessness. In the light of repeated general warnings from federal courts about the risks of bogus citations generated by AI, as well as the persistent specific warnings, policies, and expectations of his colleagues and law firm with respect to AI, Mr. Reeves\u2019s misconduct was particularly egregious. Having been so extensively alerted of the risk that AI will make things up, and having blown through all of his firm\u2019s internal controls designed to protect court filings from counterfeit citations, Mr. Reeves\u2019s repeated decisions to parrot citations generated by AI without verifying even one of them reflect complete and utter disregard for his professional duty of candor. This is recklessness in the extreme, and it is tantamount to bad faith. Accordingly, the court will impose an appropriate sanction under its inherent authority.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While Reeves inserted the cases, the judge had more issues with the rest of the senior team. Breaking down the order on social media, Kathryn Tewson wrote<\/a>, \u201cI would describe the court\u2019s commentary about how little effort Mr. Cransford would have needed to expend to prevent this disaster as \u2018withering,\u2019\u201d and that\u2019s an apt description.<\/p>\n

\n

This misconduct was more than simple recklessness and is particularly egregious, especially in the light of how little effort would have been required of Mr. Cranford to uncover any of the falsehoods. The unacceptable result of Mr. Cranford\u2019s decisions is that motions were filed with the court that no attorney ensured were free from false statements. Attorneys who sign motions must know \u2014 as Mr. Cranford
acknowledges \u2014 that they risk serious sanctions when they make no effort to ensure that those motions tell the truth. Accordingly, the court finds that Mr. Cranford\u2019s misconduct was tantamount to bad faith and will sanction him under its inherent power.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The court refers to \u201cits inherent power\u201d because, apparently, Rule 11 doesn\u2019t actually apply to discovery motions. Which seems\u2026 like a weird oversight. <\/p>\n

Arguably the harshest criticism fell upon the final attorney, William Lunsford, who both works at Butler Snow and \u201cholds the designation of deputy attorney general\u201d for the state of Alabama. Lunsford first \u201ctroubled the court\u201d by immediately asking to be excused from the order to show cause \u2014 that was denied \u2014 and then explained that his \u201cname and signature appear on all of the current public contracts for
professional services provided by outside legal counsel to the State of Alabama (the \u201cState\u201d) on a limited number of matters for which the State elects to hire outside counsel.\u201d Seemingly making the argument that, as part of the deputy attorney general role, he\u2019s just the figurehead on these filings.<\/p>\n

Guess who was not amused\u2026<\/p>\n

\n

Both before and at the show cause hearing, Mr. Lunsford deepened rather than allayed the court\u2019s concerns about his understanding of his professional responsibility with respect to court filings that bear his name in the signature block.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Oof. The order explains that Lunsford told the court that he didn\u2019t know about the use of AI because these cases \u201coften involve similar facts and law, when the team he leads has a need for legal research in a case, it is their ordinary practice to re-use (apparently without verification) material from filings in other cases.\u201d Which\u2026 yeah, that happens in well-tread areas of law, but you still at least take a look. Also, the fact that the caselaw supporting \u201cthe state doesn\u2019t care if inmates get stabbed 20 times\u201d is so established that it earns such blas\u00e9 treatment should be a deeper red flag about how we treat our prisons.<\/p>\n

After describing Lunsford\u2019s actions as \u201cparticularly egregious, more than mere recklessness and tantamount to bad faith,\u201d Judge Manasco went nuclear:<\/p>\n

\n

To be clear, the court\u2019s finding in this regard is not simply a harsh inference: when it became apparent that multiple motions with his name in the signature block contained fabricated citations, Mr. Lunsford\u2019s nearly immediate response was to try to skip the show cause hearing and leave the mess for someone else. And when the court compelled him to appear at the hearing, he paired his apology with an
explanation in greater fullness of how very little work he personally puts in to be sure that his team\u2019s motions tell the truth. This cannot be how litigators, particularly seasoned ones, practice in federal court or run their teams.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I would simply curl up and poof out of existence if this were written about me.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been bemoaning the unwillingness of courts to pull out sanctions with teeth \u2014 Judge Manasco heard that call. In any event, she reminds us all that the thing about a disincentive is that it actually has to disincentivize something<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

Having considered these cases carefully, the court finds that a fine and public reprimand are insufficient here. If fines and public embarrassment were effective deterrents, there would not be so many cases to cite<\/strong>. And in any event, fines do not account for the extreme dereliction of professional responsibility that fabricating citations reflects, nor for the many harms it causes. In any event, a fine would not rectify the egregious misconduct in this case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Emphasis added because it cannot be emphasized enough. <\/p>\n

(Order on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Am Law 200 Firm Slapped With Order To Show Cause Over Fake Citations\u2026 You Know Where This Is Going<\/a>
Law Firm Tagged Over Fake Citations Quietly Deletes Blog Post Encouraging Lawyers To Use AI<\/a><\/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

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Back in May, Butler Snow received a particularly irate order to show cause. The firm represented the Alabama Department of Corrections in case where an inmate was\u00a0stabbed 20 times \u2014 not 20 times in one sitting, 20 different times\u00a0\u2014 and the inmate objected to the timing of a proposed deposition noting that the Corrections filing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":128174,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Headshot-300x200-BAg6fy.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128308\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/128174"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}