Judge Criticizes Lawyers for Using Bogus AI-Generated Legal Research

In a recent ruling, California Judge Michael Wilner imposed $31,000 in sanctions against two law firms for submitting a supplemental brief containing numerous false, inaccurate, and misleading legal citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI). This incident underscores the growing challenges and risks associated with the use of AI in legal research and writing.

Judge Wilner expressed strong disapproval, stating that “no reasonably competent attorney should outsource research and writing” to AI without proper oversight. He revealed that upon reviewing the brief, he found that some cited legal authorities did not exist, which nearly led to these fabricated sources being included in a judicial order.

The issue originated when a plaintiff’s legal representative used AI tools such as Google Gemini and Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel to generate an outline for a supplemental brief. This AI-generated research, containing fabricated citations, was then passed to another law firm, K&L Gates, which incorporated the information into a formal brief without verifying the sources.

After the judge’s inquiry, K&L Gates resubmitted the brief, which contained even more fabricated citations and quotations. This led to an Order to Show Cause, requiring lawyers to provide sworn statements confirming the use of AI in drafting the brief.

This case is not isolated. Other legal professionals, including former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, have mistakenly relied on AI-generated content, resulting in fabricated court cases being cited in legal documents. Judges have repeatedly warned about the dangers of undisclosed and unchecked AI use in the courtroom.

Judge Wilner emphasized that the initial undisclosed use of AI to generate the brief’s first draft was “flat-out wrong” and that passing this material to other lawyers without disclosure placed them at professional risk. This ruling highlights the critical need for transparency, rigorous fact-checking, and responsible AI integration in legal practice.

Implications for the Legal Industry

This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for law firms and legal professionals exploring AI tools. While AI can enhance efficiency in legal research and drafting, it must be used with caution and full transparency. Attorneys must verify all AI-generated content to avoid ethical breaches and maintain the integrity of legal proceedings.

Law firms should establish clear protocols for AI use, including disclosure requirements and rigorous fact-checking processes. Failure to do so risks sanctions, damage to reputation, and potential harm to clients’ cases.

The Future of AI in Legal Practice

As AI technologies evolve, their integration into legal workflows will likely increase. However, this case highlights the necessity of balancing innovation with ethical responsibility. Legal professionals must remain vigilant, ensuring AI serves as a tool to augment—not replace—human judgment and expertise.

Ultimately, the legal industry’s ability to harness AI effectively will depend on developing standards, training, and oversight mechanisms that prevent misuse and uphold the highest standards of legal practice.