Lawyers Duties
← Back to Blog
Search
Authors
It is Improper and a “Perilous Shortcut” to “Outsource” Discovery Positions to A.I.
In White v. Walmart, the court held that relying exclusively on AI for discovery disputes is improper, emphasizing attorneys’ duty to exercise independent judgment and confer in good faith.
Court Suggests That Opposing Counsel Also Failed to Check Citations
A Seventh Circuit decision raises a critical question for modern litigation: do lawyers have a duty to identify hallucinated or false citations in opposing counsel’s filings? While stopping short of imposing sanctions, the court signaled...
“Hallucinations” by West’s CoCounsel?
In U.S. v. Farris, the Sixth Circuit sanctioned appointed counsel after AI-assisted briefs generated through Westlaw CoCounsel included false quotations and misstatements of precedent. The opinion underscores that even when AI cites real authorities, lawyers...
The AI Sanction Wave: $145K in Q1 Penalties Signals Courts Have Lost Patience with GenAI Filing Failures
Courts are escalating enforcement against AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings, with $145,000 in Q1 2026 sanctions. Key rulings, a growing judicial AI paradox, and emerging liability risks for developers signal a major shift for legal...
Hallucination or Old-Fashioned Error? It Doesn’t Matter
In Quandel v. Hunt, the court made clear that lawyers cannot excuse nonexistent case citations and quotations by blaming AI, or anything else. The real issue, the court said, is the duty to verify authorities...
Suggested A.I. Rule – Suggested Amendment to Maryland’s Computer-Generated Evidence Rule
This article proposes revising Maryland Rule 2-504.3 to expressly cover generative AI evidence. The amendment would add notice, disclosure, discovery, pretrial hearing, and expert-related procedures for computer-generated evidence in civil cases.
Well-Reasoned “Hallucination” Analysis
A federal court decision in Brownfield v. Cherokee Co. School Dist. clarifies that failing to verify AI-generated citations can trigger Rule 11 sanctions, even for pro se litigants.
EEOC to Get a Fee Award for Defendants’ Discovery Failures
A federal court awarded the EEOC attorneys’ fees after repeated discovery failures by defendants, emphasizing Rule 26(g) certification duties, Rule 37 sanctions, and the importance of diligent ESI searches and timely production.
HaystackID® in the EDRM Illumination Zone: Jeffrey Fleming and Aleida Gonzalez
In this EDRM Illumination Zone podcast, HaystackID’s Jeffrey Fleming and Aleida Gonzalez explain why AI governance must move beyond policy documents to defensible testing, documentation, and operational compliance. From EU AI Act mandates to U.S....
A.I. Privilege, Heppner, and How Did the Court Learn About the Absence of Certain Attorney-Client Communications Between Mr. Heppner and His Attorneys?
In U.S. v. Heppner, Judge Rakoff held that AI-generated documents were neither privileged nor work product. This article examines the court’s reliance on ECF 23-5 and the absence of attorney direction in shaping that outcome.
Detecting Deep Fakes
Craig Ball introduces his new paper, “Forensic Tells: A Practitioner’s Guide to Detecting Deep Fakes and Authenticating Digital Evidence,” outlining how litigators can confront synthetic media, analyze metadata, and challenge fabricated digital evidence in court.
Non-Party Waited Too Long to Request to Use A.I., and Did Not Provide Sufficient Details
In Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, the court rejected a non-party’s belated and vague proposal to use artificial intelligence to comply with a subpoena. The decision underscores that timely disclosure and detailed AI protocols are...