When a New York federal judge caught one of the earliest incidents of a bogus citation blamed on a chatbot in June 2023, he fined the two lawyers responsible $5,000 and ordered them to notify their client of their error. In the ensuing two years, penalties of up to $15,000 have become the norm, but judges are now beginning to grow frustrated, said legal ethics expert Sari Montgomery, a partner at Robinson Stewart Montgomery & Doppke LLC.
"I understand why they're looking for more severe measures to send a message," Montgomery told Law 360 Pulse, citing a recent case playing out in Alabama federal court. "Unfortunately for these lawyers, they're being made an example of, because the judge, apparently, lost patience."
In the Alabama case, on Wednesday U.S. District Judge Anna M. Manasco of the Northern District of Alabama reprimanded three lawyers after they were found to have submitted motions to the court relying on false citations blamed on AI — another typical sanction.
But Judge Manasco went further, disqualifying the lawyers from appearing on the case, referring the matter to the state bar and ordering the three to copy her sanctions order to all of their clients, opposing counsel and presiding judges "in every pending state or federal case in which they are counsel of record."
"Fabricating legal authority is serious misconduct that demands a serious sanction," Judge Manasco wrote. "In the court's view, it demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse."
"As a practical matter, time is telling us — quickly and loudly — that those sanctions are insufficient deterrents," Judge Manasco went on. "In principle, they do not account for the danger that fake citations pose for the fair administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial system."
Judge Manasco's directive that the lawyers publish the sanctions order in their other pending cases particularly jumped out at Jayne Reardon, an ethics expert and partner and deputy general counsel at FisherBroyles LLP.
"All professionals, but perhaps lawyers more than others, are very much aware of their reputation," Reardon said, adding, "If they get sanctioned, and then have to tell not only the client in the current case, but all the clients in every case — every pending matter — that's a source of great embarrassment, and I think that it will likely get some attention."
The move represents a break from a standard reprimand, which can generally only be found when looking up a lawyer's disciplinary history. Publishing the information is a "unique approach," Reardon said, "but perhaps that's what it's going to take to get lawyers' attention."
The move is meant to strike fear in lawyers' hearts, said Christina M. Frohock, a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami School of Law, "because, as attorneys, we rise and fall on our reputation."
Frohock pointed to a similar sanction U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz recently issued against an attorney appearing in four cases in the Southern District of Florida.
In an order filed July 17, Judge Leibowitz imposed "substantial sanctions" against the lawyer, James Paul of Justice Law Group LLP, after finding that he submitted bogus citations. He dismissed all four cases, ordered Paul to pay attorney's fees to opposing counsel for the time they spent responding to the bogus citations, referred him for discipline and ordered that if he files any case in Florida's Southern District in the next two years he must attach a copy of the sanctions order to the complaint.
The proliferation of false case law presents a genuine danger to the legal profession and rule of law, Frohock said, adding, "I think the judges are aware of that, and in these orders, they're turning up the heat, clearly."
Montgomery, who is also chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Professional Regulation, stressed that a referral to discipline is just the first step toward a potential ethics case and is not itself disciplinary.
"But, you know, if it results in public discipline, that's something that follows a lawyer through their whole career," she added. "Most states don't have an expungement."
And judges ordering lawyers to publicize their use of false citations has a broader effect, said Peter A. Joy, a professor and vice dean of academic affairs at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis: a warning to other lawyers.
"If one thinks about punishment, there's specific deterrence and general deterrence," Joy said. "In terms of specific deterrence, I am sure that the lawyers involved, and everybody in that law firm, will never make that same mistake again. In terms of the general deterrence, I think that's what the judge is getting at by having them spread her court order around — hoping to get the word out more."
Joy said he continues to be surprised as instances of attorneys relying on false case citations show no sign of stopping, calling the trend "really shocking."
Part of that shock is due to how many law firms have put rules in place and how many courts have issued standing orders regulating AI use since 2023.
"This has been in the news so much that unless a person never reads anything, they should know that this is a danger," Joy said. "Lawyers and law firms continue to do it. So, in response, courts have been escalating the sanctions that they're imposing."
--Additional reporting by Ryan Boysen, Steven Lerner, David Minsky and Sarah Martinson. Editing by Brian Baresch and Karin Roberts.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
