Cassata v Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.

Holding The court sanctioned defendant’s counsel and their law firm for filing opposition papers containing nonexistent case law, quotations, and unsupported legal propositions, finding violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct including competence, diligence, and supervision. The court struck the offending opposition and imposed monetary fines and attorney’s fees, rejecting the argument that the use of AI or copying from another brief excused the failure to verify citations.

The court’s words

Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court. It does not matter if [generative AI] told you so.

89 Misc 3d 865, at the official text

Use of AI is not the problem per se. The problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate.

89 Misc 3d 865, at the official text

The court cannot turn its back on what occurred here by simply allowing the motion to be withdrawn without prejudice. Such a response would leave opposing counsel without a remedy for their wasted time and leave clients, courts, and other practitioners that much more exposed to similar conduct in the future.

89 Misc 3d 865, at the official text

regret and apologies are not necessarily enough to avoid the imposition of sanctions for the submission of non-existent legal authority

89 Misc 3d 865, at the official text

supervision is a duty, not a courtesy and firm leaders remain guardians of their name and their firm’s reputation on every pleading

89 Misc 3d 865, at the official text