A Colorado district judge has rebuked lawyers representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a court filing, accusing them of submitting a document riddled with errors that was generated using artificial intelligence. Lindell is being sued by Dr. Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Services employee, over allegedly false statements made about him on a conservative Colorado podcast.
The lawsuit, which has been ongoing since 2022, took a contentious turn in February when Lindell’s lawyers filed an opposition brief containing ‘nearly thirty defective citations,’ according to Judge Nina Y. Wang’s court order filed on Wednesday. The judge noted multiple ‘fundamental errors’ in the brief, including references to non-existent cases. Christopher I. Kachouroff, one of Lindell’s attorneys, admitted during a Monday hearing that he had used generative AI in preparing the flawed document.
Judge Wang has ordered Lindell’s attorneys to ‘show cause’ as to why the court should not impose sanctions on Lindell and his companies. She has also instructed them to justify why they should not be referred to disciplinary proceedings. In response to Wang’s order, Kachouroff filed a motion on Friday arguing that ‘there is nothing wrong with using AI when used properly.’ He claimed that the brief filed was not the final version but a preliminary draft that was submitted ‘mistakenly.’
Kachouroff explained that he had been abroad with poor internet connectivity when he reviewed the brief with co-counsel Jennifer T. DeMaster over the phone. DeMaster had utilized a legal research AI tool to analyze the brief and add other cases to strengthen their argument. Kachouroff stated that he ‘routinely’ uses AI tools to analyze arguments but does not rely solely on them. He maintained that he always verifies citations before filing, regardless of whether AI is used in the process.
The lawyer expressed surprise and embarrassment at being questioned in court about the document, stating that he was unaware the court had a different copy. Kachouroff argued that he should have been given advance notice to properly explain the filing, saying, ‘I cannot adequately convey my shock and extreme embarrassment by trying to review an unfamiliar 17-page document while trying to answer the Court’s rapid examination.’
