Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Smith v. Farwell, No. 2282CV01197 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cnty.)

·Massachusetts Superior Court, Norfolk County (Davis, J.)·US-STATESanctions

In the Massachusetts Superior Court for Norfolk County, Judge Brian A. Davis ordered plaintiff's counsel to pay $2,000 under Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 and 7 after an associate used an unidentified AI system to produce four fictitious case citations that counsel filed without checking. The court named no attorney and made no referral.

Court
Massachusetts Superior Court, Norfolk County (Davis, J.)
Date
2024-02-12
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Plaintiff's counsel filed four memoranda opposing motions to dismiss that relied on four wholly fictitious cases — Bartlett v. Gray, Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, Buckley v. Park Ward Motors and Korff v. Greater Lowell Mental Health Association. An associate had used an unidentified AI system; counsel reviewed the filings for style but never checked the citations.
Outcome
Sanctions
Penalty
US$2,000
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-04

What was fabricated or misused

  • Bartlett v. Gray, 170 F. Supp. 3d 53, 57 (D. Mass. 2016) — wholly fictitious case citation
  • Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, 448 Mass. 20, 25 (2006) — wholly fictitious case citation; the older Maine case with that title did not involve wrongful death
  • Buckley v. Park Ward Motors, Inc., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 268, 272 (185)[sic] — wholly fictitious case citation
  • Korff v. The Greater Lowell Mental Health Association, Inc., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 1001, 1003 (2002) — nonexistent case cited in three oppositions
  • Other case citations in the oppositions — typographical errors, inaccurate quotations or unsupported propositions; the court did not attribute those mistakes to AI or human error

What the court said

“Unfortunately, both tendencies have surfaced in this case.”
Massachusetts Superior Court, Norfolk County (Davis, J.), p. 1
“The Court spent several hours investigating the case law cited by Plaintiff’s Counsel, but ultimately was unable to locate Bartlett v. Gray, 170 F. Supp. 3d 53, 57 (D. Mass. 2016)”
Massachusetts Superior Court, Norfolk County (Davis, J.), p. 4
“He attributed the bogus citations to an unidentified “AI system” that someone in his law office had used to “locat[e] relevant legal authorities to support our argument[s].””
Massachusetts Superior Court, Norfolk County (Davis, J.), p. 5
“Simply stated, no inquiry is not a reasonable inquiry.”
Massachusetts Superior Court, Norfolk County (Davis, J.), p. 14

Timeline

  1. Court raised three fictitious citations at argument on the motions to dismiss.
  2. Counsel acknowledged nonexistent cases, blamed an unidentified AI system and filed amended oppositions.
  3. Court held a sanctions hearing on the origin of the fictitious citations.
  4. Court denied most dismissal motions but allowed Heal's motion in full.
  5. Court imposed a $2,000 sanction and no further sanction.

Why this case matters

Smith is the Massachusetts state-trial analogue to Mata v Avianca: court papers contained fake authorities generated inside a law office, but the court credited counsel's admission and lack of intent. Its distinct contribution is supervision. The order traces the error to an associate and two unadmitted graduates, then holds the signing lawyer liable for filing memoranda reviewed only for style, grammar and flow. The $2,000 sanction was mild by the judge's account, but it set a local Rule 11 duty to know whether AI was used before filing.

Practice note

Before filing work drafted by associates, graduates or interns, the signing lawyer should know what research tools were used and assign a person to verify every case citation and quotation. Review for style alone is not enough. A firm should keep the source opinions used in motion papers so the court can audit them if challenged.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Smith v. Farwell, No. 2282CV01197 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cnty.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/smith-v-farwell (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →