Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (federal)

Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024)

·US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·US-FEDRegulatory referral

In the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, attorney Jae S. Lee cited a non-existent decision in her reply brief that she obtained from ChatGPT without reading or verifying it. While affirming the dismissal, the court referred Lee to its Grievance Panel under Local Rule 46.2 for failing the reasonable-inquiry duty.

Court
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date
2024-01-30
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Conduct
Attorney Jae S. Lee cited a non-existent state-court decision in her reply brief. She admitted using ChatGPT to find supporting precedent and did not read or confirm the fabricated decision before citing it. The court found this fell below the reasonable-inquiry duty under Rule 11.
Outcome
Regulatory referral
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — Grievance Panel: While affirming the dismissal on the merits, the court referred Attorney Jae S. Lee to its Grievance Panel under Local Rule 46.2 for investigation and possible referral to the Committee on Admissions and Grievances. (2024-01-30)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-03

What was fabricated or misused

  • Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep’t 2014) — the Second Circuit was unable to locate the decision, and counsel acknowledged she could not furnish it

What the court said

“The reply brief cited only two court decisions. We were unable to locate the one cited as “Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep’t 2014).””
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, p. 7
“At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely.”
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, p. 9
“Attorney Lee’s submission of a brief relying on non-existent authority reveals that she failed to determine that the argument she made was “legally tenable.””
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, slip op. at 10–11
“We therefore REFER Attorney Lee to the Court’s Grievance Panel pursuant to Local Rule 46.2 for further investigation, and for consideration of a referral to the Committee on Admissions and Grievances.”
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, slip op. at 11–12

Timeline

  1. Reply brief originally due in the Second Circuit appeal.
  2. Counsel filed a defective reply brief after two extensions.
  3. Court ordered the defective reply brief stricken.
  4. Counsel filed the reply brief citing the non-existent Bourguignon decision.
  5. Second Circuit ordered Park to submit a copy of Bourguignon by 27 November.
  6. Counsel responded that she was unable to furnish the decision.
  7. Second Circuit affirmed dismissal and referred counsel to its Grievance Panel.

Why this case matters

Park is one of the first federal appellate entries in the tracker, after district-court sanctions in Mata v Avianca. The Second Circuit did not impose a money sanction in the opinion; it used the merits decision to mark Rule 11’s baseline: an appellate lawyer must read and confirm cited authority before relying on it. The record also shows a court treating a single fabricated citation as enough for a grievance referral, even when the underlying appeal failed on independent grounds.

Practice note

Before filing an appellate brief, open each cited authority in an official reporter, court database, Westlaw or Lexis, and read the passage being used. If a generative tool suggests a case, treat it as an unverified lead until the decision is found and the cited proposition is checked.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

Similar incidents on the record

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/park-v-kim (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →