AI-generated ‘Hallucinations’ in Patent Case: US Lawyers Fined $12,000

A US federal judge in Kansas has fined lawyers representing a patent-holding company a combined $12,000 for filing court documents containing non-existent quotations and case citations generated by artificial intelligence, marking the latest instance of sanctions over so-called AI “hallucinations”.

US District Judge Julie Robinson said in an order issued on Monday that, although only one lawyer had directly used AI and included the inaccurate material, the other attorneys who signed the filings were also responsible for failing to properly vet them. The sanctioned lawyers represent Lexos Media IP in a patent infringement lawsuit against online retailer Overstock.com.

“A reasonably competent attorney filing documents in court should be aware of the pronounced, well-publicised risks of using unverified generative AI for legal research, and the ethical obligations associated with signing a court filing without checking it for accuracy,” Robinson wrote.

Courts across the United States have increasingly issued warnings, fines and other sanctions against lawyers and self-represented litigants for relying on AI-generated case citations and legal material without verification. Such systems are known to produce fictional details, commonly referred to as hallucinations.

“The sheer amount of case law that has erupted over the last few years due to attorneys’ reliance on unverified generative AI research, often generating hallucinated legal authority, is staggering,” Robinson said.

In December, the judge ordered five lawyers acting for Lexos to explain why they should not be sanctioned over defects in several filings, including non-existent quotations, false citations and misrepresented information.

Robinson imposed a $5,000 fine on lawyer Sandeep Seth, who told the court he had used ChatGPT without verifying its output while dealing with personal pressures. She also directed Seth to provide state disciplinary authorities with a copy of the ruling and to certify the steps his firm would take to prevent a recurrence.

“This has been an embarrassing lesson,” Seth said in an email. “Firms should not use AI as a tool in any capacity without strict policies in place to avoid errors.”

Kenneth Kula and Christopher Joe of Buether Joe & Counselors were each fined $3,000 for failing to review the documents they signed, while local counsel David Cooper of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith was fined $1,000 for not checking the citations. None immediately responded to requests for comment.

A lawyer at Fish & Richardson, which represents Overstock.com in the case, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.