This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
Attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell were sanctioned by a federal judge in Colorado for filing a legal brief containing nearly 30 AI-generated errors, including citations to non-existent cases. The attorneys admitted to using various generative AI tools to draft the document without verifying the citations. The judge rejected their claims that the filing was an inadvertent error and imposed $6,000 in total sanctions for violating professional conduct rules.
In February 2025, lawyers Christopher I. Kachouroff and Jennifer T. DeMaster, representing Mike Lindell, reportedly used generative AI to draft a court brief that contained nearly 30 defective or fabricated citations. The error-filled filing violated federal court rules requiring factual and legal accuracy. The judge fined both lawyers $3,000 each, citing either the improper use of AI or gross carelessness as the cause of the misleading legal content.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
AI systems that fail to perform reliably or effectively under varying conditions, exposing them to errors and failures that can have significant consequences, especially in critical applications or areas that require moral reasoning.
Also classified as
The AI system generated discrete false information in the form of fabricated legal citations and misquoted case law.
The attorneys exhibited overreliance by submitting AI-generated legal content to a federal court without conducting independent verification of the citations.
The AI system failed to perform reliably by hallucinating non-existent court cases and misquoting legal precedents in a critical professional application.
AI system
Due to a decision or action made by an AI system
Unintentional
Due to an unexpected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The incident was caused by the AI system generating hallucinated, non-existent legal citations, which was an unexpected and unintentional outcome of the attorneys using the tool to draft their brief.
Added categories peak at 2: Minor (Epistemic Harm, Direct)
Attorneys representing Mike Lindell were sanctioned 6,000 dollars for filing a federal court brief containing nearly 30 AI-generated errors and fake citations. This incident represents a professional ethics and verification failure with negligible national security implications.
The attorneys used generative AI tools as writing and analysis assistants to draft a legal motion, which required human verification and oversight that the attorneys failed to adequately provide.
Limited Risk: The generative AI tools used (such as Copilot, Gemini, and Grok) are general-purpose AI systems used for text generation, which fall under transparency obligations for AI-generated content but do not constitute high-risk or unacceptable risk applications under the EU AI Act.
The AI was used by the attorneys to draft and analyze a legal brief, acting as a writing assistant to generate legal text.
The reports provide consistent, detailed accounts of the court proceedings, the judge's ruling, the specific errors in the brief, and the admissions of the attorneys regarding their use of AI. Multiple independent news sources corroborate the key facts of the incident.
None. The facts of the AI-generated hallucinations and subsequent court sanctions are clear and undisputed.
Technology
AI Hallucinations
Generative AI fabricated nonexistent legal cases and misquoted real precedents.
Lack of AI Verification Tools
The AI systems lacked built-in mechanisms to flag hallucinated citations.
Data Inputs
Unverified AI Drafts
Attorneys inputted drafts into AI without validating the resulting outputs.
Human Factors
Blind Reliance on AI
Attorneys trusted AI output without conducting independent verification.
Failure to Fact-Check Citations
Lead counsel failed to personally double-check the AI-generated citations.
Filing of Wrong Draft
Co-counsel mistakenly uploaded an uncorrected draft instead of a final copy.
Process and Methods
Deficient Quality Control
The firm lacked a systematic process to verify AI-generated legal briefs.
Improper Delegation of Duties
Citation checking was delegated without verifying that it was actually done.
Management
Lack of AI Competency Standards
The firm did not establish clear protocols or training for AI integration.
Failure of Leadership Oversight
Lead partner failed to supervise co-counsel's verification of the brief.
Regulatory Environment
Violation of Federal Rule 11
Lawyers failed to certify that claims were warranted by existing law.
Lack of Standardized AI Rules
Courts and bar associations lack uniform regulations on AI use in practice.
AI system involved
An AI system was involved, but the reports do not identify it.
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
