Where counsel for a plaintiff relied on artificial intelligence without adequate verification, counsel’s repeated submission of fabricated and unsupported authority violated MCR 7.216(C)(1) and MCR 1.109(E)(5).
A remand is ordered for a determination of the damages and expenses that the defendant incurred because of the appeal.
“… In the trial court and again on appeal, plaintiff’s counsel relied on artificial intelligence without adequate verification, leading him to cite nonexistent cases and invoke real cases for propositions they do not support, even after defendant identified the defects. Counsel later acknowledged in a ‘Notice of Correction’ that artificial intelligence had generated ‘plausible but fabricated case citations—a known limitation of such tools.’ Yet that notice, also prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence, attributed quotations and legal propositions to cases that did not contain them.
“We affirm the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing. But because counsel’s repeated submission of fabricated and unsupported authority grossly disregarded the requirements of fair presentation and violated the duty of reasonable inquiry, we remand for a determination of the actual damages and expenses that defendant incurred because of this appeal, which shall be payable by plaintiff’s counsel personally. …
“… By the time counsel filed plaintiff’s brief on appeal, he had already been told twice that his trial court filings contained fabricated authority. Yet the appellant’s brief he filed contained another fabricated citation and multiple unsupported citations—and when defendant identified those problems in his responsive brief, plaintiff’s counsel did not so much as acknowledge the problem in the reply brief he subsequently filed, which otherwise responded to defendant’s arguments. Months later, counsel represented that he had adopted verification protocols—in a filing that repeated the same kind of verification failure.
“This sequence demonstrates counsel’s repeated carelessness regarding his independent duty to verify the legal authorities submitted to the courts. Under MCR 1.109(E)(5), an attorney’s signature on a filing certifies that ‘he or she has read the document’ and that, ‘to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.’ …
“Michigan has no specific caselaw regarding the consequences for fabricated or unsupported legal authority generated through the misuse of artificial intelligence, but federal caselaw provides useful guidance. …
“Federal courts, in turn, have consistently held that an attorney who files a signed pleading containing hallucinated or otherwise erroneous citations produced through reliance on artificial intelligence violates FR Civ P 11. …
“We join these other jurisdictions and hold that counsel’s submission of fabricated and unsupported authority violated the duty of reasonable inquiry required by MCR 1.109(E)(5). Counsel cited fabricated authority in a motion for a protective order, cited fabricated authority again in a motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing, and then cited fabricated authority a third time in plaintiff’s brief on appeal. He also cited real cases for propositions they do not support, invoked criminal constitutional protections in a civil medical malpractice action, failed to timely correct a fabricated appellate citation after defendant identified it, and eventually filed a Notice of Correction that itself attributed quotations and propositions to cases that did not contain them.
“Counsel’s explanation does not excuse the violation. Artificial intelligence may be a useful tool for legal research and drafting, but the use of such technology does not alter an attorney’s professional obligations. Lawyers remain responsible for the filings they sign and submit. They must verify that cited authorities exist, read the authorities on which they rely, and ensure that those authorities support the propositions asserted. Counsel’s repeated reliance on artificial intelligence without meaningful verification, despite having been alerted more than once that his filings contained fabricated authority, fell below that standard. …
“Under MCR 7.216(C)(2), defendant may recover ‘actual damages and expenses incurred … because of the vexatious appeal or proceeding, including reasonable attorney fees.’ We remand to the trial court for a determination of those damages. On remand, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the actual damages, including reasonable attorney fees, that were incurred as a direct result of this vexatious appeal. After determining the extent of the damages, the sanction is to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel personally.”