The Appellate Division imposed sanctions on an attorney and on the attorney's law firm for submitting a brief prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence [GenAI] to the court containing citations to nonexistent cases, fictitious purported Court of Appeals quotations wholly contrary to actual law, and misrepresentations about what certain true cases actually held or decided.
Considering all of the circumstances presented, the Appellate Division deem it appropriate to impose a monetary sanction, in the sum of $8,000, on the attorney involved.
With respect to the law firm, the Appellate Division credited the firm's statements that the attorney's actions were contrary to the law firm's policy and that the law firm had no reason to believe that the attorney was using GenAI in a manner that exceeded the scope of technology approved for such use by the law firm.
However, as Appellate Division found that the law firm's name had appeared on a brief containing significant misrepresentations, and, in consideration of the deterrent purpose of sanctions, the Appellate Division deemed it appropriate to impose a monetary sanction on the law firm in the amount of $2,500.
As neither of the Defendant's attorneys requested the imposition of costs, and as neither of the Defendants had submitted billing statements, the Appellate Division declined to award costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a).
The Appellate Division also opined that as the issue before it was limited to whether the conduct of the attorney and the law firm warrant sanctions, "Whether disciplinary action is also warranted may be a matter for the Attorney Grievance Committee".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.