A federal judge in Colorado has issued a stern rebuke to two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell after they submitted a court filing that was riddled with errors, including citations to non-existent court cases, generated by artificial intelligence.
The AI-generated filing was part of a defamation lawsuit filed against Lindell by Eric Coomer, the former head of product security for Dominion Voting Systems, over false claims made about him after the 2020 presidential election.
The Defamation Lawsuit and AI-Generated Errors
Lindell, who was found liable for defaming Coomer, was ordered to pay $2.3 million in damages, a ruling he controversially referred to as “awesome.” The filing, which was supposed to be a motion opposing Coomer’s claims, was prepared by attorneys Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster using an AI tool.
This filing contained numerous errors, including fabricated legal citations and false representations of legal principles.
In April, U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang accused the lawyers of “blind reliance on generative artificial intelligence” and warned them that they could face serious sanctions, including disciplinary action from their respective state bars.
Sanctions Issued Against Attorneys
On Monday, Judge Wang followed through with her threat, imposing sanctions on Kachouroff and DeMaster in the amount of $3,000. The judge found that the lawyers were “not reasonable” in certifying and submitting the AI-generated work, especially after they claimed it was simply an “inadvertent error.”
Wang dismissed their explanation, stating that it lacked corroborating evidence and was inconsistent with their previous statements. She also criticized the attorneys for trying to “shift responsibility” and for the “puzzlingly defiant” tone they took in subsequent filings, despite earlier admissions about the use of AI.
Continued Errors and Troubling Conduct
The court’s investigation revealed that the lawyers had sent draft versions of the filing that were filled with the same errors as the final version, including citations to non-existent cases and misstatements of legal principles.
Even after the errors were pointed out in an earlier hearing, the corrected version of the filing still contained many of the same mistakes.
Judge Wang highlighted one example: the citation to Perrin v. Anderson, which was inaccurately used to support a claim about defamation, even though the case had nothing to do with defamation.
Defensive Arguments and Further Criticism
Kachouroff’s defense of the AI-related mishap was deemed insufficient by the judge. He argued that the mistake was a deviation from his usual practice, but Judge Wang dismissed this claim, pointing out that similar errors had been made in a different case just days after the court issued an order to show cause.
The lawyers had filed errata in the Pelishek v. City of Sheboygan case, which also included the same types of errors—citations to non-existent cases.
The sanctions against Kachouroff and DeMaster serve as a stark warning to legal professionals about the risks of relying on generative AI for legal filings without proper review.
The judge’s harsh critique of their conduct, along with the fines and the potential for further disciplinary actions, underscores the importance of ensuring the accuracy and integrity of legal work.
