[EDRM Editor’s Note: This article was first published here on April 7, 2026. The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]
“Hallucinations” are “old news.”1 However, U.S. v. Farris, __ F. 4th __, 2026 WL 915082 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2026), involved a major A.I. program. The court wrote:
Upon our initial review of the case, we began to suspect that Howe’s briefs were generated, at least in part, by artificial-intelligence software. The first tell was the file name of the principal brief: “CoCounsel Skill Results.” CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw’s internal artificial-intelligence platform. See Thomson Reuters Launches CoCounsel Legal: Transforming Legal Work with Agentic AI and Deep Research, Thomson Reuters (Aug. 5, 2025), https://perma.cc/ZU4ASWK6.
Further review disclosed “three problematic citations.” The court explained:
Each of these citations references genuine legal authorities. But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources. And upon deeper review, we were unable to locate any relevant legal authority that contained the same or substantially similar language as the above quotations. So, it did not appear that the misattributions involved mere citation mix-ups or transcription errors.
The court issued a show cause order and the attorney responded:
According to Howe, he directed an unnamed “staff” member to upload district court documents to Westlaw’s CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the principal brief…. He then worked in that same file for six hours to supplement the draft produced by artificial intelligence. Howe notes that he repeated that same process for the reply brief.
By way of attempted explanation, Howe claims that this appeal was his first time utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel “in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.” … And he says that he was otherwise unfamiliar with the program.
The Sixth Circuit wrote: “New technologies present significant promise for the legal field. But all in the legal profession must be clear eyed about technology’s potential pitfalls. That mandate is especially critical in today’s rapidly evolving artificial-intelligence landscape.”
New technologies present significant promise for the legal field. But all in the legal profession must be clear eyed about technology’s potential pitfalls.
U.S. v. Farris, __ F. 4th __, 2026 WL 915082 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2026).
We do not purport to exhaust the full scope of ethical considerations here. But relevant steps may include reviewing and validating content produced by artificial intelligence; considering whether to disclose the use of artificial intelligence to clients or obtain informed consent; safeguarding confidential client information and preserving attorney-client privilege; implementing firm-wide policies governing the use of artificial intelligence; adhering to ethical billing practices when using artificial-intelligence tools; and keeping current with jurisdiction-specific guidelines.
New technologies, moreover, are no substitute for tried-and-true safeguards managed by practicing attorneys. Attorneys have an ethical obligation to verify the citations and propositions they submit to courts; that obligation reflects duties of competence and candor that apply no matter the tools attorneys use.
Sanctions were imposed, including denial of compensation for time spent on the appeal, referral for possible disciplinary action, and, removal from this case.
Read the original article here.
Note
- Hallucinations Are “Old News,” But a Recent Maryland Decision Addresses Ethical Contours (Jan. 17, 2026). ↩︎
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
