In what can only be described fairly as a unique set of facts, an opinion (here) issued last week from Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York is just the latest in a growing list of cases admonishing lawyers for their improper reliance on AI tools in connection with their court submissions. In a well-reasoned, scathing opinion Judge Failla took the extraordinary step of defaulting defendant Affable Avenue LLC in the wake of its lawyer’s repeated failure to verify the cases he was citing in multiple filings with the court.
Among other things, the opinion’s recitation of facts illustrates the diligence of Mandelbaum Barrett attorney Joel MacMull who, before contacting Judge Failla to report the attorney’s misconduct, encouraged him repeadedly – without success – to self-report. Joel’s insistence in raising these abuses with the court aligns with recent decisions such as Billups v. Louisville Municipal School District, wherein it was held that opposing counsel was also duty bound to assist the court “in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.” The court in Billups wrote:
The Court also observes that the Defendant . . . could have flagged the fictious citation and misrepresentation of case law in a reply brief or supplemental filing. . . . The Court takes this opportunity to issue a charge. Going forward, the Court expects all parties to assist in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and to be diligent in flagging AI misuse. “[O]therwise, the risk is too great that such errors will persist undetected, potentially leading to an outcome unsupported by law.” Elizondo, 2025 WL 2071072 at *3.
In agreeing with Mandelbaum Barrett that Affable’s counsel’s conduct was problematic, the firm has been awarded its attorneys’ fees and a fee application will follow.
Others too are reporting on Judge Failla’s opinion:
Lawyer sets new standard for abuse of AI; judge tosses case – Ars Technica
Lawyer’s Repeated Filings with AI Hallucinations Lead to Default Judgment Against Client