Attorney AI use
United States v. Farris
Briefs prepared with Westlaw CoCounsel contained fabricated quotations and misstated holdings that remained unchecked after editing.
Fees denied; counsel removed01
Case background
Material facts
Court-appointed appellate counsel used Westlaw’s CoCounsel to generate a first draft. The principal brief’s file name, “CoCounsel Skill Results,” prompted the court to examine the filing more closely. The cited authorities existed, but three quotations did not appear in the sources and two cases were misrepresented. “Upon deeper review,” the court “was unable to locate any relevant legal authority that contained the same or substantially similar language as the above quotations.” (Slip op. at 2.) It therefore concluded that the misattributions were more than “mere citation mix-ups or transcription errors.” (Id.)
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The court denied all Criminal Justice Act compensation, removed and replaced counsel, and sent notice to disciplinary and bar authorities.
Why it matters
What the decision means
Legal-specific AI from a familiar research provider does not replace source review. Counsel remains responsible for every quotation and proposition in the filing.
Primary reading