Attorney and law firm sanctioned for AI mistakes in court filing

Listen to this article

A New York state appeals court has ordered monetary sanctions totaling $10,500 for an attorney and his law firm after the attorney submitted a brief in a civil lawsuit that contained fake citations apparently generated by an artificial intelligence tool.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Second Department, ordered attorney Michael Sanders to pay $8,000 and his firm to pay $2,500 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York.

“We note that the issue before this Court now is limited to whether the conduct of the attorney and the law firm warrants sanctions. Whether disciplinary action is also warranted may be a matter for the Attorney Grievance Committee,” Presiding Justice Hector D. LaSalle wrote in the recent decision.

Sanders submitted a brief “prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence, containing citations to nonexistent cases, fictitious purported Court of Appeals quotations wholly contrary to actual law, and misrepresentations about what certain real cases actually held or decided,” LaSalle wrote.

Sanders represented the plaintiff who allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell on a sidewalk abutting private property. The plaintiff was seeking damages from the private property owner and the city of New York.

In December 2024, a state Supreme Court justice granted separate motions by the property owner and the city for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Sanders’ client appealed, and the Second Department affirmed that ruling in early June.

The brief submitted to the Second Department by Sanders, on behalf of Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC, “cited to several nonexistent cases, misstated the law, and misrepresented the holdings of real cases,” LaSalle wrote.

On May 20, Sanders appeared before a Second Department panel and argued on behalf of the plaintiff. During the argument, members of the panel raised concerns about fictitious and erroneous citations and quotations, and misrepresentations of law contained in the plaintiff’s brief, according to the decision.

Sanders told the court he was not prepared to speak on the cases at issue and was offered the opportunity to take a 15-minute recess, which he declined.

The Second Department panel instructed attorneys for all sides to submit arguments regarding potential sanctions.

Sanders submitted an affirmation in which he stated that he took “full responsibility for the deficiencies identified by the Court.”

He did not identify or acknowledge the brief’s misstatements of the law or misrepresentations about real cases cited. He acknowledged using traditional legal research resources as well as artificial intelligence-assisted research tools, but he did not recall which exact tool he used.

He told the court that he believed the non-existent citations identified by the Court originated during the AI-assisted portion of his research, which he negligently failed to verify, according to the Second Department decision.

Sanders said he violated his law firm’s policy that requires personal review and confirmation by the lawyers using artificial intelligence tools.

Sanders stated in his affirmation that when he appeared for oral argument and the Court asked him where the fabricated cases came from, he should have stated that they were hallucinated by artificial intelligence, according to the decision.

The law firm also submitted an affirmation from its general counsel, Stacey Haskel, who stated that Sanders, who had been employed at the law firm since 2024, maintained an unblemished record.

Finally, Haskel stated that the law firm “has made it unequivocally clear that any future deviation from these standards will be met with immediate disciplinary action.”

“Neither of the defendant’s attorneys requests the imposition of costs, and neither of the defendants has submitted billing statements. Accordingly, this Court will not award costs,” LaSalle wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035