Judge fines lawyers $12,000 over AI-generated submissions in patent case

By Sara Merken

Feb 3 (Reuters) - A Kansas federal judge has fined lawyers representing a patent holding company a combined $12,000 for filing documents with non-existent quotations and case citations that were generated by artificial intelligence, in the latest instance of lawyers facing sanctions for submitting “hallucinated” material in court.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson in Kansas City in a Monday order said that although only one lawyer used AI and included the inaccurate information in court filings, the others who signed the documents were also responsible for failing to vet them. The sanctioned attorneys represent Lexos Media IP in a patent infringement case against internet retailer Overstock.com.

“A reasonably competent attorney filing documents in court should be aware of the pronounced, well-publicized risks of using unverified generative AI for legal research and the ethical obligations associated with signing a court filing without checking it for accuracy,” Robinson wrote.

Judges across the country have issued warnings, fines and other sanctions against lawyers and self-represented litigants in a growing number of cases for not vetting AI-generated case citations and other material in court filings. The technology can generate fictional details known as hallucinations.

“The sheer amount of case law that has erupted over the last few years due to attorneys’ reliance on unverified generative AI research, often generating hallucinated legal authority, is staggering,” Robinson said in her decision.

The judge in December ordered five lawyers representing Lexos to explain why they should not be sanctioned for “defects” in several documents, including nonexistent quotations and citations and misrepresented information.

Robinson imposed a $5,000 fine on lawyer Sandeep Seth, who told the court he had used ChatGPT without verifying its output while under personal pressures. The judge also directed Seth to provide state disciplinary authorities a copy of the ruling and certify what his firm will do to prevent a similar situation.

“This has been an embarrassing lesson,” Seth said in an email. “Firms should not use AI as a tool in any capacity without strict policies in place in order to avoid errors.”

Kenneth Kula and Christopher Joe of Buether Joe & Counselors were each fined $3,000 for failing to review the documents that they signed, and local counsel David Cooper of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith was fined $1,000 for not checking the citations. They did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A lawyer at Fish & Richardson who represents Overstock.com in the case did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

The case is Lexos Media IP LLC v. Overstock.Com Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, No. 2:22-CV-02324

(Reporting by Sara Merken in New York)