Holding / Framework
Court held that respondents acted with subjective bad faith sufficient for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Use of generative AI tools does not relieve attorneys of the independent duty to verify the authenticity of cited authority before submission.
Triggering Conduct
Submission of a brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss containing six fabricated case opinions generated by ChatGPT, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, Shaboon v. EgyptAir, Petersen v. Iran Air, Martinez v. Delta Air Lines, Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and Miller v. United Airlines, none of which exist. After defense counsel and the court flagged the citations as undiscoverable, plaintiff's counsel produced ChatGPT-generated 'copies' of the opinions to substantiate them, doubling down on the fabrications.
Sanctions / Disposition
$5,000 jointly and severally on respondents Steven A. Schwartz, Peter LoDuca, and Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, P.C., paid into Registry of the Court within 14 days; ordered to send letters to each judge falsely identified as author of fake opinions, attaching the Order, June 8, 2023 hearing transcript, and the April 25 Affirmation containing the fabricated opinion attributed to that judge.
Primary Source
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2022cv01461/575368/54/ · published_reporter
Tags
first_major_sanction, hallucinated_citations, rule_11, attorney, civil