A recent decision from Suffolk County Justice Linda Kevins in Cassata v Michael Macrina Architect, P.C. serves as yet another warning to practitioners concerning the risks and ethical considerations implicated by the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the legal profession, and the Court’s inclusion of a sanctions chart for AI-related errors offers a practical guide for attorneys on how to responsibly navigate the use of AI in legal submissions.
Background
In Cassata, Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant Michael Macrina Architect, P.C. (“Defendant”) arising out of the collapse of a residence. Plaintiff alleged that the failure was caused by Defendant’s flawed design and failure to adhere to accepted industry standards. Defendant filed an answer with affirmative defenses, and Plaintiff moved to strike the affirmative defenses. In opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, defense counsel submitted papers that Plaintiff alleged were largely plagiarized from a third-party brief and were largely generated using AI, including citations to non-existent or inaccurate case law.
Sanctions Hearing
Plaintiff then filed an Order to Show Cause to decide whether defense counsel should be sanctioned for allegedly submitting motion papers that included inaccurate citations, plagiarized content, and AI-generated material in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”). A sanctions hearing followed.
Duty to Provide Competent Representation (Rule 1.1). The Court found that defense counsel demonstrated a lack of competent representation in violation of Rule 1.1 by submission of opposition papers containing fake case citations and quotations, as well as legal propositions unsupported by the cited authority. The Court cautioned that lawyers may not abdicate these core professional responsibilities to an AI platform and submit its output to the Court without meaningful review.
Duty to Keep Abreast of Technology (Rule 1.1, Comment [8]). The Court similarly found that defense counsel violated Rule 1.1 on the ground that counsel’s supervising attorney failed to keep abreast of the technology employed.
Duty to be Diligent (Rule 1.3) and Duty Regarding Non-Meritorious Claims and Contentions (Rule 3.1). The Court held that defense counsel violated Rules 1.3 and 3.1 as a result of the counsel’s conduct of copying large sections of a third-party brief containing unreviewed citations and filing papers that were not tailored to the facts of the instant case. Specifically, the Court found that plagiarizing a third-party brief prevented defense counsel from crafting good-faith arguments in support of the client’s position.
Duty of Candor to the Tribunal (Rule 3.3). The Court emphasized that attorneys have an ongoing ethical obligation to be candid with the tribunal and to promptly correct any false statements of fact or law. In this instance, defense counsel breached that duty by failing to be forthright when the misconduct was first raised and by not timely correcting the inaccurate legal and factual representations submitted to the Court.
Duty of Supervision (Rule 5.1). Finally, the Court concluded that counsel’s supervising attorney and the law firm failed to exercise reasonable supervisory oversight over counsel’s submission that contained fake caselaw and plagiarized material. The Court stressed that effective supervision requires substantive review—particularly where junior attorneys and emerging technologies are involved.
Ultimately, the Court imposed sanctions in which defense counsel and the supervising attorney were each fined $1,000 payable to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection. Additionally, the law firm was ordered to pay $8,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to Plaintiff’s counsel.
Takeaway
While the use of AI can assist attorneys in conducting legal research and drafting, AI also carries costly risks. As this case demonstrates, reliance on AI without careful review can lead to ethical violations, and harm to client representation. The ruling serves as a stark reminder that in the legal profession, speed and convenience cannot replace a lawyer’s diligence, verification, and professional responsibility.