So I was just quoted in the Wall Street Journal on an article related to rising lawyer fees. Received a ton of feedback on it. People really responding to it.
Another lawyer– who I actually deeply respect– who made the “list” of highest priced lawyers with me is David Boies of Boies Shiller. He recently stepped down as firm leader and he can’t be happy to see his partner John Kucera about to face sanctions in California for submitting a GenAI brief containing at least 10 errant citations:
Respondents’ counsel, Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP and John Kucera, Esq., have conceded as follows: counsel prepared the Brief of Respondents, filed on July 30, 2025, with the aid of artificial intelligence tools; controls and policies to protect against the risk of improper use of those tools failed; and the filed brief included material citation errors that were correctly identified by appellants in their reply brief. Appellants’ Reply Brief, filed on September 8, 2025, specifically identifies (in Attachment A at pages 41-48) at least ten purported case authorities that have been miscited or mischaracterized in more than fifteen places in respondents’ brief.
Accordingly, counsel for respondents is hereby given notice pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.276, subd. (c), that the court is considering the imposition of monetary sanctions on respondents’ counsel for the foregoing conduct. (See Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 441-448; Schlichter v. Kennedy (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 24; Shayan v. Shakib (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 619; and Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.276(a)(4) [sanctions for unreasonable violations of rules of court], 8.204(a)(1)(B) [failure to support contentions with citations to legal authority], and 8.1115(a) [prohibition on citing unpublished authority].)
Respondents and their counsel may file an opposition to the imposition of sanctions within 10 days from the date of this notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(c)-(d).) The issue of sanctions and their amount will be argued at the time of oral argument on the merits of the appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(e).)
From Bixler v. Church of Scientology Case No. b339009, 2nd Appellate District California, order dated February 19, 2026.
Eesh.
How does a firm as reputable as Boies allow its reputation to get destroyed so badly by such a basic error?
TEN erroneous citations?
My goodness.
But it gets worse.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just sanctioned a lawyer who UNEBELIVABLY used GenAI to respond to an OSC re: sanctions related to her use of GenAI.
That is just insane.
In Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Case no. 25-20086 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) counsel Heather Hersh submitted a brief to the appellate court that had 16– sixteen –suspiciously inaccurate citations likely cause by GenAI usage.
Eesh.
The court issued a show cause order regarding sanctions and Counsel Hersh apparently responded to a potential sanction for using GenAI WITH A RESPONSE BRIEF WRITTEN BY GENAI.
Insane.
This is like evading arrest while being arrested for previously evading arrest. Not smart (although, perhaps, predictable.)
The Court noted it wouldn’t have issued such a large sanction if the lawyer had just came clean but… she did precisely the opposite.
Still she suffered a relatively modest sanction of $2,500.00. Given the incredible disregard she showed for the Court here there should be at least another zero on this in my view–and a suspension from the practice of law. But that’s just my opinion.
But it is my opinion.
In the Fletcher court’s words “if it were ever an excuse to plead ignorance of the risks of using generative AI to draft a brief without verifying its output, it is certainly no longer so.”
You have all been warned. Govern yourselves accordingly.
Meanwhile Troutman Amin, LLP has pledged to NEVER use GenAI in the practice of law– and we’re doing great. 🙂
While other firms are melting down and laying off tons of people we are HIRING!
Chat soon.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sad, but true – who was it that said ‘there’s a sucker born every minute’ more than a century ago? Still true to this day. At least the reputational harm will have to do for now…thanks for posting these!
Time for the courts to to put some bite into the ramifications – a few hours pay!?!? Oh gee that’ll certainly deter ’em eh? WTH?!?!?
That’s like all the serial VIOLATORS that gladly pay the minuscule amount of TCPA claims before litigation, as it’s merely a cost of doing (illegal) business. Cuz the calls just keep a coming…
Just a matter of time before they show up on this list (you can always send them links too!):
“This database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of AI-generated arguments. It does not track the (necessarily wider) universe of all fake citations or use of AI in court filings.”
https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
This is Claude’s reply: “If you want to push back, you could argue that limiting the database this way understates the actual problem, since many AI hallucination incidents likely go undetected or unreported before reaching a decision stage.”
And of course, thank you for the most interesting link. I am keeping this one bookmarked.