Court Criticizes Lawyers for AI Misuse in Legal Filing
In a recent ruling, Judge Nina Wang of the District of Colorado expressed strong criticism of defense counsel in the case Coomer v. Lindell for their handling of a legal filing that contained numerous errors. The court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, including misquotes, misrepresentations of legal principles, and citations to non-existent cases.
During a hearing, defense counsel, Mr. Kachouroff, initially struggled to explain the source of these errors. He attributed some mistakes to misparaphrasing and acknowledged giving cite checking tasks to another person, Ms. DeMaster. It wasn’t until directly questioned by the court that Mr. Kachouroff admitted to using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in preparing the Opposition.
Key Findings and Court’s Reaction
The court was particularly concerned that Mr. Kachouroff failed to verify the accuracy of the AI-generated content despite understanding his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judge treated with skepticism Mr. Kachouroff’s claim that he had personally outlined and written a draft before using AI.
The court subsequently ordered defense counsel to explain why they shouldn’t be sanctioned and referred for disciplinary proceedings. The order required them to address, under oath, the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the Opposition, including their use of generative AI.
Defense Counsel’s Response
In their response to the court’s order, defense counsel attributed the errors to the inadvertent filing of a draft document instead of the final, carefully cite-checked version. They claimed to have worked together to refine the document and remove problematic citations. The response included a comparison of the incorrect and correct versions of the Opposition, highlighting numerous substantive changes.
Court’s Further Action
The court remained unconvinced and ordered defense counsel to submit electronic copies in Word format of every version of the Opposition, along with associated metadata and original email correspondence. This order aimed to investigate the matter further and understand the circumstances surrounding the erroneous filing.
Implications for Legal Practice
This case highlights the potential risks associated with the use of generative AI in legal practice. While AI can be a powerful tool, it is clear that human oversight and verification remain essential to maintaining the integrity of legal filings. The court’s scrutiny underscores the need for lawyers to be diligent in their use of technology and to ensure that they comply with their professional obligations when leveraging AI-assisted tools.
