Attorney AI use
McCarthy v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Counsel relied on inaccurate AI summaries supplied by a nonlawyer and minimized the problem after the government flagged it.
Public reprimand01
Case background
Material facts
A lawyer incorporated eight AI-generated case summaries supplied by a nonlawyer into an opening brief. As the Third Circuit stated at the outset, “The attorney failed to verify the legal authority in any way.” (Slip op. at 3.) Seven summaries contained material factual and legal inaccuracies, and one authority did not exist. After the government identified the errors, the lawyer still did not investigate and described the problems in his reply as immaterial. He confirmed the role of AI only after both briefs had been filed and did not correct the record until the court ordered an explanation.
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The court issued a public reprimand and required national and court notice. It declined a monetary penalty in light of mitigation and the lawyer’s lack of an earlier circuit warning.
Why it matters
What the decision means
Delegating research does not delegate the lawyer’s verification duty. The Third Circuit focused on counsel’s repeated failure to verify and correct the authorities after receiving notice, not simply on the fact that AI had been used upstream.
Primary reading