ANOTHER ATTORNEY ADMONISHED FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MISUSE.

As Posted By

Mary Matuszak-Director of Library Services at New York County District Attorney’s 

On Linked In

Before concluding, we must raise an additional issue, given our serious concerns about the integrity of the record in this matter.

Plaintiff’s brief cites only two Panel decisions, but these two citations are inaccurate and misrepresent the holdings in the underlying cases.

The nature of the misrepresentations suggests that counsel may have used generative artificial intelligence to draft plaintiff’s brief without checking the accuracy of the information produced,2 though it is possible counsel used some other unreliable source. Regardless, plaintiff improperly submitted a brief with false legal representations. We admonish plaintiff and his counsel for fabricating and misrepresenting legal authorities. This [*4] is an abuse of the judicial process, and one which we do not take lightly. Parties have a duty to ensure that citations are, in fact, real. See In re Snowflake, Inc., Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 3126,     F. Supp. 3d    , 2025 WL 4007421, at *2 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 7, 2025). Any further non-compliant submissions from plaintiff may be stricken or result in additional appropriate corrective action.

(In re Cpap, 2026 US Dist LEXIS 75070, at *3-4 [JPML Apr. 6, 2026, No. MDL No. 3014])

Google AI

In an April 6, 2026, transfer order (MDL No. 3014), the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) noted that a plaintiff’s counsel likely used generative AI to draft a brief, resulting in the fabrication and misrepresentation of legal authorities. The panel criticized the reliance on AI for creating fake case citations. 

Mealey’s

• Context: The incident occurred in a case (Gravelyn action) seeking to avoid transfer to the massive Philips CPAP machine recall litigation.
• The Misuse: The brief contained fabricated or misrepresented legal authorities, a common issue with generative AI tools that “hallucinate” information.
• Outcome: The JPML, led by Judge Karen K. Caldwell, rejected the arguments against transfer as not persuasive and emphasized that such AI-driven errors undermine the legal process.
• Case Reference: This occurred within the context of MDL 3014 (In re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level Pap, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Litigation). 
  
• United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (.gov) +4