By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.
Attorneys who “imprudently rely on GAI tools to create legal filings diminish the legal profession.”
Reprimanding an attorney who did not disclose that she had filed, whether inadvertently or otherwise, a brief containing nonexistent cases hallucinated by generative artificial intelligence (GAI), a federal court in Texas explained that her conduct, while sanctionable, did not appear to have been malicious. And although her attempt to fix the brief with an “opaque disclosure” and without leave of court, at least initially, was inconsistent with the degree of candor it expected, the court nonetheless found an admonition to be sufficient here (Shelton v. Parkland Health, No. 3:24-CV-2190-L-BW (N.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2025)).
Amended brief. The attorney filed a lawsuit on behalf of her client alleging the client’s employer had discriminated and retaliated against her client based on her pregnancy. The attorney subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the employer’s affirmative defenses and a brief in support. Two weeks later, she filed an amended brief without first seeking leave from the court. Two days after that, the attorney’s client filed a motion seeking leave to file the amended brief that had already been filed.
Deficiencies. In the motion, the client stated that the amendment was made to “address deficiencies per her counsel’s conferences with Defendant’s counsel.” Also in the motion, the attorney reported that she delegated part of...
Rap star Nicki Minaj made an appearance at the US mission to the United Nations to echo President Donald Trump’s false claim that Christians are being systematically killed in Nigeria. Minaj appea...