In the case of McCarthy v. U.S. DEA, No. 24-2704 (3d Cir. July 21, 2025) (Op. by Chung, J.) (not precedential), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case involving issues arising from the Drug Enforcement Administration revoking a Certificate of Registration to the Plaintiff who was a P.A. the court chastised the Plaintiff’s attorney for relying upon “summaries” of eight (8) previous DEA adjudications that the attorney secured through research on an artificial intelligence tool.
The court confirmed that the Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that seven (7) of the summaries were inaccurate and the eighth did not exist. The attorney further acknowledged to the court that he “never took care to confirm the accuracy of the summaries or even that the decisions existed.”
The court confirmed that it would not consider this faulty portion of the Plaintiff’s attorney’s Brief.
In this decision, the court also noted that it was separately ordering Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his conduct “particularly for his lack of candor to the court.” See Op. at 7 n. 5.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
The court confirmed that it would not consider this faulty portion of the Plaintiff’s attorney’s Brief.
In this decision, the court also noted that it was separately ordering Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his conduct “particularly for his lack of candor to the court.” See Op. at 7 n. 5.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.