Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation

What the court wrote

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

Introduction This matter concerns an issue that has unfortunately become all too common: an attorney’s violation of her ethical and professional responsibilities via the inclusion of fake or misleading case citations in a legal brief. The proliferation of this issue is the result of some attorneys misusing new technological tools – specifically generative AI – to prepare legal briefs.1 In this Court’s opinion, the legal profession’s growing reliance on the use of generative AI to prepare legal briefs is profoundly troubling for two reasons. The primary reason is that there is a willingness by some attorneys (too many) to use generative AI to draft briefs without verifying the accuracy of the content, leading to the inclusion of fake cases and misleading arguments. This conduct is a patent violation of an attorney’s ethical and professional responsibilities. The second reason is that the preparation of a persuasive legal brief requires more than just citation to accurate cases – it requires the exercise of sound judgment. ... The response brief was signed and filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Rachel Bussett.2 The response was stricken because the document that was filed included comments and editing notions indicating that it was a draft brief. The response was re-filed [Doc. No. 116] without the notations. Although the response was untimely, Ms. Bussett did not seek leave to file the response or provide any explanation for the delay. Defendants filed separate reply briefs [Doc. Nos. 121, 122] pointing out that Plaintiffs’ response was late, included reference to legal authorities that were either nonexistent or misleading, made inflammatory and inappropriate attacks on defense counsel, and referenced material that was subject to a Protective Order.