Attorney AI use
Garner v. Kadince, Inc.
An unlicensed clerk used ChatGPT to invent precedent, the signer failed to verify it, and the firm had no AI policy.
Fees refunded; sanctions01
Case background
Material facts
A clerk prepared an interlocutory petition using fabricated ChatGPT authorities. The signing lawyer did not independently check the cases, and the firm lacked a policy governing generative AI.
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The court found “that the use of AI in the preparation of pleadings is a legal research tool that will continue to evolve with advances in technology.” (Slip op. at 4.) “However,” it emphasized, “every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings.” (Id.) The court awarded the opponent’s fees, ordered a full refund of the client’s fee for the petition, and required a $1,000 charitable payment.
Why it matters
What the decision means
The firm lacked an AI policy and a verification checkpoint. Lawyers must supervise both staff and the tools staff use.
Primary reading