- Mississippi judge takes dim view of case as it was clear lawyers on both sides were using AI to make their arguments
- The sanction order included fines, disbarment and disbarment of the present case for the lawyers involved
- Advice from AI remains a somewhat tricky affair given the lack of accountability and the model’s tendency to ‘hallucinate’
In what could be considered a comical incident that could be a sign of things to come, a US federal judge had to manually step in and admonish lawyers on both sides of the aisle after she noticed they were using AI.
Senior U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock, of the Northern District of Mississippi, noted that this was not the first time her court had to deal with the case of being “burdened with dealing with AI hallucinations in litigation.”
The judge ordered a break in the case, scrapping the lawsuit while disqualifying all four involved attorneys from the current case and barring two of them from appearing in the local Northern District of Mississippi for two years.
An “inadequate and incredulous” justification
While the case might have been a routine matter on the judge’s docket involving a breach of contract claim over unpaid attorney fees between the city of Aberdeen and a Louisiana attorney, Tom Withers III, some of the precedents cited in the argument never occurred, prompting the judge to investigate and possibly
His attorney, Kathleen M. Wilson, used AI-hallucinated citations to argue their case, a situation that was exposed when a court order required both sides to produce copies of the cases they had cited.
The city of Aberdeen, represented by Kathryn Y. Williams, was also found guilty of a similar offense: citing a non-existent 1971 Mississippi Supreme Court decision and references to three other federal decisions that could not be reproduced.
Both lawyers admitted to using artificial intelligence while claiming ignorance of the sometimes hallucinatory potential of the LLMs they employed. However, the judge took a dim view of the whole affair, noting that one of the lawyers had been practicing for at least six months using generative AI to prepare his cases without supervision, and that they had previously been warned against the practice in an unrelated case.
Noting that she “finds the explanation inadequate and unreliable,” the judge fined the four attorneys a total of $8,000, setting aside the two attorneys who used AI.
However, the case marks an important ruling that, ironically, could serve as a real precedent against the AI-generated ones that got lawyers into trouble: ignorance of AI’s hallucinations is not a tenable legal defense.
Via 404 media
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews and opinions in your feeds.



