Krista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

However, the undersigned finds that while the scope of the violation here may be distinguishable from Tercero, the existence of an intent to gain an unfair advantage through a misrepresentation of legal citation is the same in both cases, and here warrants both a monetary sanction and reporting to the bar. Although its use is not conclusive here, this Court expresses its grave concern about the use of generative artificial intelligence without the appropriate due diligence and verificationbytheattorneysigningthefiling. Theappearance of hallucinated cases, improper citations, and distortions of opinions create consequences that fall on the attorney, as filing documents with this Court certifies that any assertions made are supported by law and signatures on the documents filed mean the attorney has performed the appropriate due diligence. If Plaintiff elects to go down the treacherous path of employing generative artificial intelligence in drafting her filings to this Court, she must realize she bears the responsibility for that election and all related consequences, and nothing about that election constitutes a substitute for attorney diligence.