07/01/2026
I was recently quoted in a Law.com article by reporter Tom Spigolon regarding a federal court order sanctioning and disqualifying attorneys on both sides of a case after they filed briefs containing cases hallucinated by artificial intelligence. Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No.1:24-CV-218-SA-RP, 2026 WL 1653484 (N.D. Miss. June 6, 2026). My comments read, in part, "This case really demonstrates how pervasive the abuse of AI is. This wasn't one side, this was both sides of the case, plaintiff and defendant, citing hallucinated cases and admitting they hadn't verified the authenticity of the cases they cited."
This case is an important reminder that AI has created new legal malpractice exposure for attorneys. Even when AI is used, we remain responsible for the accuracy of pleadings we file with the court, including the certification of accuracy we provide when we sign federal court pleadings, as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. That responsibility is not satisfied because a citation was generated by AI. This is especially significant for local counsel, a role which has sometimes been viewed as a professional courtesy. Cases like Withers v. City of Aberdeen make it clear that signing and filing pleadings carries real obligations and risks.
Every lawyer whose name appears on a filing should be prepared to stand behind it. AI may be a useful tool, but it is not a substitute for professional diligence. As AI becomes more common in the practice of law, lawyers need to be even more careful about confirming the truthfulness and accuracy of legal filings.
Read the article here: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2026/06/12/latest-sanctions-for-ai-misuse-raise-stakes-for-local-counsel-who-file-for-pro-hac-attorneys/
“This case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubber stamp when acting as local counsel,” wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi.