[EDRM Editor’s Note: This article was first published here on April 4, 2026. The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]

“The topical worry that artificial intelligence will lure attorneys with the false siren song of easy shortcuts to legal authority is part of a much larger concern that attorneys will fail to cite their sources properly and—either intentionally or unintentionally—mislead the Court.” Quandel Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Hunt Constr. Grp., Inc., 2026 WL 878986 (S.D. Oh. Mar. 31, 2026).

The court permitted counsel to file a corrective memorandum. However, it also ordered them to explain how the error occurred.

Quandel is a business dispute. Quandel asserted that Hunt’s reference to a case, Aerpio, “was not a simple typographical error in the citation, but what appears to be a typical artificial intelligence (‘AI’) hallucination’ and thus a possible violation of Ohio’s Rules of Professional Conduct and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at *4.

In view of the error, Hunt filed a Motion for Leave to File a Corrected Opposition Brief. Quandel “does not find Hunt’s fix to be sufficient, arguing that Hunt must fully explain the source of the error before the Court rules on the Motion for Leave.” It asserted that Hunt must “disclose the entire history of this issue and provide an explanation as to what happened that led to a… filing with a case and quotations that do not exist.” In reply:

For its part, Hunt invites the Court to end “this tempest in a teapot” and permit it to file the corrected brief, pointing out that a Westlaw search of federal cases in the Southern District of Ohio for “Aerpio” returns two cases, including the correct Aerpio case.

The court agreed that a fuller explanation was needed. Id. at *4. However, it first permitted a corrected filing. It wrote:

To Quandel’s credit, it promptly discovered this improper citation and brought it to Hunt’s attention. To Hunt’s credit, it promptly sought to correct its filing. Allowing Hunt to correct its briefing will ensure that this Court’s decision on Quandel’s Motion for Relief from Stay properly addresses the merits of the parties’ dispute.

The Quandel court then turned to the hallucination issue. Id. at *7. Hunt denied the use of AI, asserting that “accusation that Hunt used AI to do legal research is false,” and “that the substance of its erroneous Aerpio citation is the same as the substance of the real case, and points out that its revisions merely correct the case name, citation, and alter the quotations.” Id.

The Quandel court found no need to decide whether AI created the erroneous citation:

It does not appear that artificial intelligence was the culprit for Hunt’s erroneous citations to legal authority, at least based on the representations of Hunt’s counsel…. At the same time, Hunt’s briefing has thus far failed to clarify how or why it provided the Court with two incorrect case names, two incorrect case citations, and improper direct quotations from one of those incorrect case citations. With each filing, attorneys represent to the Court that their “legal contentions” are, “to the best of [their] knowledge, information, and belief,” “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). This is true regardless of whether an attorney utilizes artificial intelligence in crafting legal contentions.

Id. (emphasis added).

The U.S. Court of Appeals has reached the same conclusion. Fourth Circuit Technology Agnostic Hallucination Decision Results in Admonishment (Mar. 13, 2026). So have others. The Quandel court reasoned:

Our legal system only functions when attorneys adhere to their professional and ethical obligations. These obligations go beyond their responsibilities to their clients, and include their duties to the Court. The judiciary must be able to rely on the representations and submissions of attorneys who appear before it, because courts “rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision.” Whiting v. City of Athens, _ F.4th __, 2026 WL 710568, at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026) (citation omitted). Hunt’s briefing provided this Court with nonexistent case citations and purported to quote nonexistent case language; Hunt’s representation that artificial intelligence was not the cause of these errors is not an explanation sufficient to address how these errors actually happened. Though the Court takes counsel for Hunt at their word if they say that artificial intelligence was not involved in their legal research, that does not end the inquiry. The topical worry that artificial intelligence will lure attorneys with the false siren song of easy shortcuts to legal authority is part of a much larger concern that attorneys will fail to cite their sources properly and—either intentionally or unintentionally—mislead the Court.

Id.

It added that false citations damage legal proceedings and waste resources.

The court ordered that counsel:

To submit individual sworn submissions explaining to the Court their role in researching, drafting, or otherwise cite-checking or preparing Hunt’s initial opposition memorandum…. Each individual’s sworn submission SHALL address: (1) the names of all attorneys at the law firms of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP who were responsible for the legal research, drafting, and/or cite-checking of that opposition memorandum; (2) the swearing individual’s knowledge regarding the cause or causes of the errors in the Aerpio and Vaughn citations; and (3) whether the individual has used any artificial intelligence tool in connection with that opposition memorandum or this matter.

Read the original article here.

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.