Celebrating Over 75 Years of Serving Nevada’s Legal, Business, Government, and Civic Communities
AI-Generated Deficiencies in Filings: Sanctions and How to Avoid Them
Litigation attorney Jane Susskind published an article in Clark County Bar Association’s Communique’ magazine that examines recent cases in which practitioners have been sanctioned for submitting briefs with AI-generated errors. Jane also examines remedial steps that practitioners have taken to avoid or lessen sanctions. Reviewing these cases helps provide guidance for efficiently and ethically incorporating AI into the practice of law. Jane’s article is provided below and available as a PDF here.
“AI-Generated Deficiencies in Filings: Sanctions and How to Avoid Them”
Communique’, June/July issue, 2025
Artificial intelligence (“AI”) promises to transform how we practice law. But while AI-powered tools can increase efficiency, they also introduce risks and ethical concerns. Recognizing these risks, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued its first opinion in July 2024 on the use of generative AI and many judges across the country have established protocols for using AI in their courtrooms. For example, Judge Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California instructs in her standing order that “[a]ny submission containing AI-generated content must include a certification that lead trial counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy.” (See Standing Order for Civil Cases Before District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín) Law firms are following suit, regularly updating their AI policies to keep up with AI’s adoption in the legal profession.
Even with this guidance, attorneys have landed in the national spotlight – not for persuasive legal writing or skilled advocacy, but for submitting briefs with AI-generated errors. By now, we’ve all seen news headlines and heard of the phrase “AI hallucinations,” which refers to false information (e.g., non-existent cases, holdings, and quotations) generated by large language model systems. These cases can help us understand the scope of sanctions for improperly relying on AI, as well as remedial steps we can take to avoid sanctions. Most importantly, these cases provide guidance for attorneys who want to efficiently and ethically incorporate AI into their practice.
Scope of Sanctions
It’s important to consider the scope of sanctions for submitting briefs with AI-generated hallucinations and errors. In one of the first decisions addressing these concerns, a New York federal judge imposed a $5,000 fine on attorneys who submitted a brief with AI-generated fake cases. Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Since then, courts have not shied away from imposing monetary sanctions for similar misconduct. See, e.g., Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:23-CV-281, 2024 WL 4882651 (E.D. Tex. 2024) (imposing a $2,000 sanction); Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489 (D. Wyo. 2025) (imposing a $3,000 sanction); Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-CV-00326-JPH-MJD, 2025 WL 574234 (S.D. Ind. 2025) (recommending a $15,000 sanction).
But monetary sanctions aren’t the only sanctions attorneys face. In February of this year, a Wyoming federal judge revoked an attorney’s pro hac vice admission after the attorney filed a motion in which eight of nine cases cited were AI hallucinations. Wadsworth, 348 F.R.D. 493. Some judges have ordered attorneys to provide written notice of their misconduct and apologize to their clients and the judges wrongly attributed to the AI-generated cases. Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443. Other judges turn to social media to deter the improper use of AI. For example, Texas Judge Roy Ferguson posted an appellate court’s order on X, warning: “Always check your cites! This is why I have a standing order on the use of AI. The underlying appellate brief contains fabricated and nonexistent citations.” (Lauren Berg, “Texas Appeals Court Calls Out Seemingly AI-Generated Cites,” Law360, July 27, 2023). And at least one judge has suggested that professional discipline might be the appropriate sanction. See Mid Cent., 2025 WL 574234.
[Update: This article was accepted for publication in Communique’ on May 1. On May 15, Law360 reported a retired California federal judge serving as special master in an insurance coverage suit ordered litigation sanctions after finding counsel submitted “bogus AI-generated research.” “Directly put, Plaintiff’s use of AI affirmatively misled me,” wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. Judge Wilner struck supplemental briefs that contained AI hallucinations, declined requested discovery relief, and ordered counsel to pay $26,100 that had been expended in reviewing briefs, conducting a hearing and issuing the sanctions order, plus an additional $5,000 to reimburse opposing counsel. (“Ex-LA DA’s Atty’s AI Use ‘Affirmatively Misled’ Special Master,” Law360, 5/15/2025, citing Jacquelyn Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. 2:24-CV-05205, C.D. Cal.)]
Remedial Steps
Now that we know what’s at stake, what can we do to avoid sanctions? First and foremost, always check and verify the sources generated by AI for accuracy. Attorneys have a professional duty and ethical obligation to ensure that all legal authority they present to the court is good law. As one judge aptly summarized, “[w]hile technology continues to evolve, one thing remains the same—checking and verifying the source.” Wadsworth, 348 F.R.D. 493. We should also be aware of AI’s shortcomings and limitations. The most well-known shortcoming is AI’s capacity to “hallucinate” or make up legal authority. But there are others, like AI’s inability to apply true legal reasoning and judgment. If you plan on adopting AI into your practice, consider reading up on these shortcomings and attending courses and CLEs on the use of generative AI in the legal profession.
And if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having unknowingly submitted a motion with AI-generated mistakes, try to remedy it as soon as possible. Promptly withdraw the motion or file a supplement providing correct citations and legal authorities. Be honest about your use of AI and apologize to the court and opposing counsel. You may even consider offering to reimburse the opposing party for fees and costs incurred in uncovering the improper use of AI. These remedial efforts can go a long way with the court. See, e.g., Wadsworth, 348 F.R.D. 489 (appreciating counsel’s “remedial steps, transparency, and apologetic sentiments” and recommending that attorneys follow these steps to avoid sanctions); Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (suggesting that had the attorneys “com[e] clean” sooner, they would not have been sanctioned).
The Takeaway?
AI has the potential to transform how we research and write briefs, but it has a long way to go. AI may be a starting point for legal research, but it should not be the endpoint. Always check and verify your sources and stay up to date on AI’s advancements and limitations. As Magistrate Judge Dinsmore advised, “the use of artificial intelligence must be accompanied by the application of actual intelligence in its execution.” Mid Cent., 2025 WL 574234 (emphasis added). This is good advice we can all take to heart.
Disclosure: The author used Perplexity, an AI tool, to find Judge Martínez-Olguín’s standing order on the use of AI-generated content in her courtroom. The author verified the accuracy of the information by visiting the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s website and independently locating the standing order. The author did not use AI to analyze the order or write any portion of this article.
About McDonald Carano
In 2024, McDonald Carano celebrated its 75ᵗʰ Anniversary of serving Nevada’s legal, business, government, and civic communities. More than 60 lawyers and government affairs professionals serve Nevada, national, and international clients from our offices in Reno, Las Vegas, and Carson City. McDonald Carano provides transactional, litigation, regulatory, and government affairs services to startups, corporations, private companies, trade associations, nonprofits, public entities, high-net-worth individuals, and family offices throughout Nevada. We are deeply committed to supporting local communities by volunteering our time, resources, and services, including pro bono legal services, to nonprofit organizations, charitable foundations, and public service entities. We are proud to be your Nevada law firm since 1949.
Media Contact
Mark Buckovich
[email protected]
702.257.4559
You have chosen to send an email to McDonald Carano. The sending or receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create an attorney-client relationship. If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you.
I have read this and want to send an email.