Examples of attorneys getting trouble for utilizing AI tools for legal research and then not checking the accuracy of the information gathered has occurred in Pennsylvania. Inaccurate information secured from AI sources are known as hallucinations.
In the Pennsylvania federal court case of Jakes v. Youngblood, No. 2:24-cv-1608 (W.D. Pa. June 26, 2025 Stickman, J.), the court faulted an attorney for submitting briefs with wholly fabricated quotations from case law, including fabricated quotations from this court’s own prior Opinion.
The court faulted that attorney for not only failing to offer any explanation for the deficiencies and fabrications in his own brief, but for also attacking the content of the opposing party’s brief, which the court noted did not contain any fabricated quotations or misrepresented case law.
The court also noted that, “[e]ven more outrageously,” a review of the AI-happy attorney’s reply brief demonstrated that that brief also contained fabricated quotes and misrepresented case law.
The court noted that it found it to be “very troubling” that, when accused of serious ethical violations, the attorney at fault “chose to double down” and not admit to wrongdoing.
The court noted that it found it to be “very troubling” that, when accused of serious ethical violations, the attorney at fault “chose to double down” and not admit to wrongdoing.
In the end, the court noted that it viewed the attorney’s “conduct as a clear ethical violation of the highest order.”
In its Opinion, the court noted that the attorney at fault had filed a Withdrawal of Appearance in response to the issues presented.
This Pennsylvania federal court cited to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as confirming that attorneys have legal and ethical duties owed to the court in terms of filings presented to the Court. The court also cited to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 regarding candor toward a tribunal.
In its Opinion, the court presumed that the at fault attorney’s briefs were constructed by generative artificial intelligence utilized by the attorney, rather than an effort by the attorney to personally construct false and misleading information. Regardless, the court noted that the attorney still had an ethical obligation under Rule 11 and the state’s professional canons to review every document submitted to the court under their name and signature in order to ensure the accuracy of the document.
The court also noted that, an attorney who signs and files a brief authored by a non-lawyer, such as a paralegal or an intern or a clerk, is personally responsible for all that the filing contains. The court noted that the same rule applies to the use of artificial intelligence.
In the end, the Jakes court dismissed the filings presented by the at fault attorney and ordered that attorney to show cause as to why his filings should not be viewed as having violated Rule 11 and Pa. RPC 3.3.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK
Source of image: Photo by Igor Omilaev on www.unsplash.com.
