Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.

What the court wrote

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

conduct was reasonable under the circumstances." Brown 175 F.R.D. 508, 510 n.1 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Confirming that v. Fed'n of State Med. Boards of the U.S., 830 F.2d 1429, a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something 1435 (7th Cir. 1987) (collecting cases), overruled on other that is expected from a practicing attorney. As noted in the grounds by Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont'l Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928 case of an expert witness, an individual's "citation to fake, (7th Cir. 1989). One specific inquiry for determining whether AI-generated sources...shatters his credibility." See Kohls v. sanctions are appropriate is "whether the party or attorney Ellison, 2025 WL 66514, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025). made a reasonable inquiry into the law." Brown, 830 F.2d at The same is true even if the fake citations were somehow 1435, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Indeed: generated without the knowing use of AI. Mr. Policchio admits that he did not make the requisite Rule 11 requires counsel to study the reasonable inquiry into the law before filing his brief. law before representing its contents to Whether or not AI was the genesis of the non-existent a federal court. An empty head but citations, Mr. Policchio's failure to review them before a pure heart is no defense. The Rule submitting them to the court was a clear violation of Rule 11. requires counsel to read and consider See United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1066-67 before litigating. Counsel who puts the (E.D. Cal. 2025), reconsideration denied, No. 2:24-cr-0280- burden of study and illumination on DJC, 2025 WL 1067323 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2025) ("The the defendants or the court must expect Court need not make any finding as to whether Mr. Francisco to pay attorneys' fees under the Rule. actually used generative AI to draft any portion of his motion and reply, including the fictitious case and quotation....Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court. It does not matter if Thornton v. Wahl, 787 F.2d 1151, 1154 (7th Cir. 1986) generative AI told you so.") (citations and quotations marks (citations omitted). omitted). As the court in Johnson v. Dunn, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1256-57 (N.D. Ala. 2025), aptly put it: Courts have consistently held for decades that failing to check the treatment and soundness—let alone the existence Every lawyer knows that citing fake cases in a court filing is —of a cited case warrants sanctions. See, e.g., Salahuddin a terrible decision. No one here is attempting to defend it. In v. Coughlin, 999 F. Supp. 526, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (noting the few years that generative AI has affected court filings, that Shepardizing would have led defense counsel to a key it has become well established that "[m]any harms flow case); Brown v. Lincoln Towing Serv., No. 88C0831, 1988 from the submission of fake opinions." Mata v. Avianca, WL 93950 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (imposing sanctions where the Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); see, e.g., attorney filed a claim based on an expired federal statute); Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:25-cv-00052-MIS-DLM, 782 Pravic v. U.S. Indus.-Clearing, 109 F.R.D. 620, 623 (E.D. F.Supp.3d 1051 (D.N.M. May 9, 2025); Bevins v. Colgate- Mich. 1986) (holding that the act of relying on another Palmolive Co., No. 25-576, 2025 WL 1085695 (E.D. Pa. attorney's memorandum without Shepardizing the cases cited Apr. 10, 2025); Ferris v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. warranted sanctions); Blake v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 607 F. Supp. 3:24-cv-304-MPM-JMV, 778 F.Supp.3d 879 (N.D. Miss. 189, 191 (C.D. Ca. 1984) (in imposing sanctions, noting Apr. 16, 2025); United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp.

Authorities cited in the passage: Counsel cited Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270 · Counsel cited Schuh v. American Express Bank · Counsel cited Merriman v. Equifax Info. Servs · Counsel cited Treece v. Perrillo, No. 1:17-cv-00406, 2018 WL 3815004 · Counsel cited Armstrong v. Kroger Co · Counsel cited Hinkle v. CBE Grp · Counsel cited Wigington v. Hill-Soberg Co · Counsel cited Jenkins v. Equifax Info. Servs · Counsel cited Rodriguez v. Pasquarella, 2019 WL 2411480 · Counsel cited Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods · Counsel cited Wright v. Experian Info. Sols · Counsel cited King v. Gen. Info. Servs