{"id":149319,"date":"2026-04-21T15:22:18","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T23:22:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/04\/21\/did-kash-patels-lawyers-have-chatgpt-file-a-250-million-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2026-04-21T15:22:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T23:22:18","slug":"did-kash-patels-lawyers-have-chatgpt-file-a-250-million-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/04\/21\/did-kash-patels-lawyers-have-chatgpt-file-a-250-million-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Kash Patel\u2019s Lawyers Have ChatGPT File A $250 Million Lawsuit?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kash Patel\u2019s massive lawsuit against The Atlantic<\/em> asserts dubious defamation claims, but could it also be\u2026 AI slop? The $250 million complaint<\/a> filed in D.C. federal court \u2014 a necessity to avoid the anti-SLAPP laws that would almost certainly make this a financial albatross for Patel down the road \u2014 largely underwhelmed<\/a>. Irrelevant preening, misspellings, and a complete disregard for the looming \u201cactual malice\u201d roadblock made the complaint look less like a serious defamation claim and more a desperate performative plea to convince Donald Trump that Patel is \u201ca fighter\u201d who doesn\u2019t deserve to be kicked to the curb like so many other scandal-plagued administration officials.<\/p>\n

Big Lie lawyer Jesse Binnall \u2014 who launched this case by promptly publicizing allegations that The Atlantic<\/em> did NOT actually print, exposing his own client to claims they contend are defamatory \u2014 managed to get the lawsuit filed first thing on Monday. While we focused on the flimsy legal claims and embarrassing strategic choices, Caroline Stout locked in on some curious phrasing:<\/p>\n

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

This rhetorical device, which I call \u201cDigiorno Parallelism\u201d as in \u201cit\u2019s not delivery; it\u2019s Digiorno,\u201d ranks among the more infamous signs of AI. It\u2019s not fair to blame AI every time you run across this construction \u2014 just like not every em-dash is computer-generated \u2014 but it doesn\u2019t inspire a lot of confidence in human authorship.<\/p>\n

You might assume \u2014 as I did \u2014 that AI is not dumb enough to use words like \u201cfeable\u201d or \u201cpolitices,\u201d two prominent misspellings in the complaint, and presume that indicates human writing. While it might prove to be human slop, those errors are, as I discovered, the rare sorts of misspellings AI can make. Most humans would misspell \u201cfeeble\u201d by leaving out an \u201ce,\u201d but LLMs are more prone to make phonetic spelling errors, such as imagining a \u201cfea-\u201d opening. Likewise, \u201cpolitices\u201d is the sort of token sequence confusion an LLM can fall prey to, especially in a complaint that bounces between politics and policies.<\/p>\n

That said, humans definitely wrote some of this complaint. Most AI products understand the legal process well enough not to litter the text with gratuitous, irrelevant editorializing. There are too many asides like suggesting the reporter wasn\u2019t \u201ca minimally competent journalist,\u201d or other bush league flourishes that AI would be too professional to include unprompted.<\/p>\n

Still, Stout\u2019s observation got me looking at the text and finding more and more quirky language. So I decided to run the whole complaint through an AI detector to see what\u2019s up. What does TextGuard have to say:<\/p>\n

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

Now, recently an AI detector decided that Mary Shelley\u2019s Frankenstein was likely AI-generated, so take these findings with the appropriate margarita rim of salt. Complaints are stylized documents, and it\u2019s easy for a detector to confuse their repetition for an LLM.<\/p>\n

But even if the lawyers used AI to create a draft complaint\u2026 there\u2019s nothing necessarily wrong with that! <\/p>\n

It\u2019s not a party foul to use AI tools to generate a complaint under time pressure \u2014 even if the time pressure in this case was entirely self-imposed by a client hoping to seize the narrative upper hand. Complaints (should be) relatively mechanistic, making them prime candidates for AI collaboration. Frankly, AI could help an overeager human lawyer from allowing zealous bloviating take over the cold, formal tone plaintiffs should aspire to bring to their complaints. As long as the user doesn\u2019t go back and tell the algorithm to punch up the vitriol.<\/p>\n

Purists may cringe at some of the AI-isms \u2014 and human editors should be vigilant in weeding them out \u2014 but AI will increasingly be a fixture of the lawyer workflow. If Patel\u2019s lawyers weren\u2019t using it, they were sacrificing efficiency. An AI complaint isn\u2019t creating a lot of the mischief we associate with AI. Ideally, it\u2019s derived from a clear timeline and documented facts, just rearranged into a standard format. That\u2019s where AI typically shines, if the user will let it. It\u2019s not like a complaint includes any hallucinated law.<\/p>\n

Unless you count whatever Binnall read that made him think he could clear the actual malice hurdle with \u201c[n]umerous Atlantic pieces over the past two years have characterized Director Patel as unqualified, dangerous, corrupt, or mentally unstable.\u201d Because that case very much does not exist.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Kash Patel\u2019s $250 Million Defamation Lawsuit Looks Better With Beer Goggles<\/a>
FBI Director Promises To Pound \u2018The Atlantic\u2019 Like A Six Pack On A Tuesday<\/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

The post Did Kash Patel\u2019s Lawyers Have ChatGPT File A $250 Million Lawsuit?<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Kash Patel\u2019s massive lawsuit against The Atlantic<\/em> asserts dubious defamation claims, but could it also be\u2026 AI slop? The $250 million complaint<\/a> filed in D.C. federal court \u2014 a necessity to avoid the anti-SLAPP laws that would almost certainly make this a financial albatross for Patel down the road \u2014 largely underwhelmed<\/a>. Irrelevant preening, misspellings, and a complete disregard for the looming \u201cactual malice\u201d roadblock made the complaint look less like a serious defamation claim and more a desperate performative plea to convince Donald Trump that Patel is \u201ca fighter\u201d who doesn\u2019t deserve to be kicked to the curb like so many other scandal-plagued administration officials.<\/p>\n

Big Lie lawyer Jesse Binnall \u2014 who launched this case by promptly publicizing allegations that The Atlantic<\/em> did NOT actually print, exposing his own client to claims they contend are defamatory \u2014 managed to get the lawsuit filed first thing on Monday. While we focused on the flimsy legal claims and embarrassing strategic choices, Caroline Stout locked in on some curious phrasing:<\/p>\n

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

This rhetorical device, which I call \u201cDigiorno Parallelism\u201d as in \u201cit\u2019s not delivery; it\u2019s Digiorno,\u201d ranks among the more infamous signs of AI. It\u2019s not fair to blame AI every time you run across this construction \u2014 just like not every em-dash is computer-generated \u2014 but it doesn\u2019t inspire a lot of confidence in human authorship.<\/p>\n

You might assume \u2014 as I did \u2014 that AI is not dumb enough to use words like \u201cfeable\u201d or \u201cpolitices,\u201d two prominent misspellings in the complaint, and presume that indicates human writing. While it might prove to be human slop, those errors are, as I discovered, the rare sorts of misspellings AI can make. Most humans would misspell \u201cfeeble\u201d by leaving out an \u201ce,\u201d but LLMs are more prone to make phonetic spelling errors, such as imagining a \u201cfea-\u201d opening. Likewise, \u201cpolitices\u201d is the sort of token sequence confusion an LLM can fall prey to, especially in a complaint that bounces between politics and policies.<\/p>\n

That said, humans definitely wrote some of this complaint. Most AI products understand the legal process well enough not to litter the text with gratuitous, irrelevant editorializing. There are too many asides like suggesting the reporter wasn\u2019t \u201ca minimally competent journalist,\u201d or other bush league flourishes that AI would be too professional to include unprompted.<\/p>\n

Still, Stout\u2019s observation got me looking at the text and finding more and more quirky language. So I decided to run the whole complaint through an AI detector to see what\u2019s up. What does TextGuard have to say:<\/p>\n

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

Now, recently an AI detector decided that Mary Shelley\u2019s Frankenstein was likely AI-generated, so take these findings with the appropriate margarita rim of salt. Complaints are stylized documents, and it\u2019s easy for a detector to confuse their repetition for an LLM.<\/p>\n

But even if the lawyers used AI to create a draft complaint\u2026 there\u2019s nothing necessarily wrong with that! <\/p>\n

It\u2019s not a party foul to use AI tools to generate a complaint under time pressure \u2014 even if the time pressure in this case was entirely self-imposed by a client hoping to seize the narrative upper hand. Complaints (should be) relatively mechanistic, making them prime candidates for AI collaboration. Frankly, AI could help an overeager human lawyer from allowing zealous bloviating take over the cold, formal tone plaintiffs should aspire to bring to their complaints. As long as the user doesn\u2019t go back and tell the algorithm to punch up the vitriol.<\/p>\n

Purists may cringe at some of the AI-isms \u2014 and human editors should be vigilant in weeding them out \u2014 but AI will increasingly be a fixture of the lawyer workflow. If Patel\u2019s lawyers weren\u2019t using it, they were sacrificing efficiency. An AI complaint isn\u2019t creating a lot of the mischief we associate with AI. Ideally, it\u2019s derived from a clear timeline and documented facts, just rearranged into a standard format. That\u2019s where AI typically shines, if the user will let it. It\u2019s not like a complaint includes any hallucinated law.<\/p>\n

Unless you count whatever Binnall read that made him think he could clear the actual malice hurdle with \u201c[n]umerous Atlantic pieces over the past two years have characterized Director Patel as unqualified, dangerous, corrupt, or mentally unstable.\u201d Because that case very much does not exist.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Kash Patel\u2019s $250 Million Defamation Lawsuit Looks Better With Beer Goggles<\/a>
FBI Director Promises To Pound \u2018The Atlantic\u2019 Like A Six Pack On A Tuesday<\/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

The post Did Kash Patel\u2019s Lawyers Have ChatGPT File A $250 Million Lawsuit?<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kash Patel\u2019s massive lawsuit against The Atlantic asserts dubious defamation claims, but could it also be\u2026 AI slop? The $250 million complaint filed in D.C. federal court \u2014 a necessity to avoid the anti-SLAPP laws that would almost certainly make this a financial albatross for Patel down the road \u2014 largely underwhelmed. Irrelevant preening, misspellings, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":149320,"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-149319","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\/2026\/04\/Headshot-300x200-7Oi3Ex.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149319","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=149319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149319\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/149320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}