Barteca Holdings LLC v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC

What the court wrote

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

This Order addresses the Court’s previously issued Order to Show Cause concerning defense counsel Hilary Miller’s use of unverified generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in this matter. Having considered counsel’s written response to the Order to Show Cause and his representations made at the show-cause hearing, the Court concludes that sanctions are warranted and imposes the sanctions set forth below. ... Upon review of the Motions, the Court discovered numerous case quotes that do not exist, erroneous citations, and misrepresentations of the law. ... On June 25, 2026, the Court held a show-cause hearing, at which Attorney Miller reiterated those representations and further explained the circumstances under which the AI-generated material was incorporated into his briefing. Attorney Miller clarified that this matter is the first and only matter in which he utilized artificial intelligence. As for his writing process, Attorney Miller explained that he first wrote the brief himself conventionally. Then, in an attempt to improve it, he used a tool called Open Law, which he paid for, for suggestions on arguments and additional cases. He also used Claude and Chat GPT for additional suggestions. Concerned about the risk of AI hallucinations, Attorney Miller then cross-checked the citations in the brief to determine whether they existed and were cited correctly ... Balancing these considerations, the Court concludes that a monetary sanction of $3,500, together with a referral of this matter to the Grievance Committee pursuant to Local Rule 83(c)(2), is appropriate. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Attorney Miller’s submission of unverified AI-generated legal authorities warrants sanctions under Rule 11 and, accordingly, imposes a $3,500 monetary sanction and refers this matter to the Grievance Committee pursuant to Local Rule 83(c)(2).

Authorities cited in the passage: Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) · Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 1998) · Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 113 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1997) · Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001) · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) · Friedl v. City of New York, 210 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2000) · Fonte v. Board of Managers of Continental Towers Condominium, 848 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1988) · Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1991) · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 83(c)(2)