New Haven, Conn. - A Connecticut federal judge on Tuesday warned a multistate solo practitioner that an "eye-catching sanction" may be necessary to stop attorneys from filing briefs rife with fake case law generated by artificial intelligence systems, while the lawyer bemoaned the fact that he'd "trusted a tool."
U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall declined to issue an immediate punishment after an afternoon show-cause hearing in New Haven, but she told attorney David P. Stich that the judiciary was increasingly wary of case law cited by attorneys who use generative AI tools to prepare court filings.
"This is a new problem, and it's going to become a huge problem if the courts don't get a hold of it," she said.
Jurists expect attorneys to research, vet, analyze and argue case law, the judge said. In turn, the courts are supposed to trust attorneys to present accurate and relevant case law to help judges make decisions, she indicated. Judges increasingly carry the burden of verifying whether arguments are based on accurate and valid legal authorities, she lamented.
"It's my problem ... if we don't stop you by some eye-catching sanction," Judge Hall told Stich.
"It's behavior that's got to stop," she added.
Stich said he used the website Descrybe.ai to draft an opposition to a pizzeria owner's motion to vacate an employment lawsuit judgment. Descrybe characterizes itself as a "fast, powerful and free" legal research tool "with advanced features built for professionals," according to its website.
Stich said his daughter, who is also an attorney, recommended the tool. He said he used it for the very first time to generate a motion for Judge Hall and a document for another Connecticut federal judge in a case against the same defendant.
Judge Hall granted Stich's opposition request, but said in an order to show cause that it contained three cases "that do not exist."
On July 23, she asked Stich to "explain whether the nonexistent citations result from the use of artificial intelligence ... or some other failure of diligence or candor."
Stich filed an Aug. 1 response expressing a "sincere and unreserved apology ... for the inclusion of non-existent legal citations" in the filing.
He said he was lulled into a false sense of security when the AI tool cited several cases he recognized based on his 35 years as a lawyer licensed in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Stich's initial assessment was that the tool "worked great," he said. Judge Hall grimaced.
"Maybe it works great for other things," Stich added.
Stich said he had only one disciplinary issue on his record in the early 1990s, when he handled an Essex County, New Jersey, state court matter.
"This is the most stupid thing I've done in 35 years of practice," he told Judge Hall. "I trusted a tool."
Stich said he would not use any AI system moving forward because they require attorneys to spend significant time correcting its output. He said it's easier to generate accurate content on his own.
Judge Hall said Stich appreciated the seriousness of the matter and had "expressed appropriate respect to the court."
Though she warned that a big sanction may be necessary to send a clear message about AI's pitfalls to Stich and other lawyers, Judge Hall said she would likely struggle to ascertain what the appropriate punishment might be.
"Your response was appropriate," she said. "On the other hand, it is a huge problem."
She specifically cited
Johnson v. Dunn 
, an Alabama case where a federal judge
reprimanded and removed lawyers representing a state department of corrections official from a civil rights case because of hallucinated material.
The lawsuit that led to Tuesday's hearings was filed in December 2023 by Milton Robinson Teletor Cojom, an employee who accused a New Canaan, Connecticut, pizza parlor of failing to pay the correct wages, including overtime, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut's Minimum Wage Act.
The defendants were Roblen LLC, which conducted business under the name Vicolo Pizza Restaurant, and its owner Viktor Berisha. The defendants did not appear until after Judge Hall issued a default judgment in Cojom's favor, awarding more than $214,000 in damages, $12,600 in attorney fees and $758 in costs.
The defendants have moved to set aside the judgment, but Judge Hall declined that request. She said Stich's misuse of AI was all the more troubling because Roblen was not represented by counsel and its owner was representing himself.
Both Stich and his daughter face show-cause orders from U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill in the other matter against the pizzeria and its owner. Both represent a plaintiff who filed similar federal and state wage law claims.
Stich declined to comment Tuesday.
Cojom is represented by Richard Rapice of the Law Office of Richard J. Rapice LLC, and David P. Stich.
Berisha is representing himself.
The case is Cojom v. Roblen LLC et al., case number
3:23-cv-01669, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
--Editing by Adam LoBelia.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.