Key Takeaways
- A U.S. District Court has referred an attorney to the state Board of Bar Overseers for potential discipline due to the submission of AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority.
- The attorney, Roger A. Peace, claimed that the errors arose from a "version control mistake" and a "clerical error," but did not address the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of the responses.
- The court found that the submission of false authority potentially implicates several rules of professional conduct, including an attorney’s duty of candor.
- The matter has been referred to the Board of Bar Overseers to impose discipline, if any, that the board deems appropriate under the circumstances.
Introduction to the Case
The U.S. District Court has taken a significant step in addressing the issue of artificial intelligence-generated citations in legal submissions. In the case of Kaufman v. Upton, et al., the court issued a show-cause order to attorney Roger A. Peace, requiring him to explain why he should not be sanctioned or referred to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. This order was issued after the court found what appeared to be AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority in the plaintiff’s submissions opposing the defendants’ motions to dismiss. As the court stated, "The Court issued that order after it found what appeared to be AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority in plaintiff’s submissions opposing defendants’ motions to dismiss."
The Attorney’s Response
Attorney Peace responded to the court’s show-cause order, but his response was deemed "somewhat less than forthcoming" by the court. He claimed that the errors arose from a "version control mistake" and that a "first draft with placeholder and unverified citations" was inadvertently filed as the result of a "clerical error." However, his response did not address the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of the responses, nor the precise nature of the "clerical error" that led to their inclusion in the relevant submissions. As the court noted, "His response did not, however, address whether and to what extent artificial intelligence was used in the preparation of the responses, nor the precise nature of the ‘clerical error’ that led to their inclusion in the relevant submissions."
The Court’s Decision
The court ultimately decided to refer the matter to the Board of Bar Overseers, stating that "The submission of false authority to a court, whether generated by artificial intelligence or not, potentially implicates several rules of professional conduct, including an attorney’s duty of candor." The court also noted that, since the action had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it would refer the matter to the Board of Bar Overseers to impose such discipline, if any, that the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances. As the court stated, "Therefore, because the Court has now dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it will refer the matter to the Board of Bar Overseers to impose such discipline, if any, that the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances."
Implications of the Decision
The decision in this case highlights the importance of attorneys being transparent and honest in their submissions to the court. The use of artificial intelligence in legal research and writing is becoming increasingly common, but it is still the attorney’s responsibility to ensure that the information submitted to the court is accurate and reliable. As the court noted, the submission of false authority, whether generated by artificial intelligence or not, can potentially implicate several rules of professional conduct, including an attorney’s duty of candor. This decision serves as a reminder to attorneys to exercise caution and diligence when using artificial intelligence in their practice, and to always verify the accuracy of the information they submit to the court.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the U.S. District Court’s decision in Kaufman v. Upton, et al. serves as a warning to attorneys to be mindful of the potential risks and consequences of using artificial intelligence in their practice. The submission of AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority can have serious implications, including potential discipline from the state Board of Bar Overseers. As the court stated, "The submission of false authority to a court, whether generated by artificial intelligence or not, potentially implicates several rules of professional conduct, including an attorney’s duty of candor." Attorneys must ensure that they are transparent and honest in their submissions to the court, and that they verify the accuracy of the information they submit. By doing so, they can avoid potential discipline and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
