Robert Ambrogi gets the scoop that the judge in a Norfolk County lawsuit has sanctioned a lawyer because at least four briefs his office submitted in one particular case were based in part on citations made up by an AI program about cases that never actually happened.
Court records show that the lawyer, Steven Marullo of Danvers, paid the $2,000 sanction yesterday.
Marullo represents the family of a woman who committed suicide after, her family alleges, three Stoughton Police officers and the town animal control officer "groomed" her and shared her for sex starting when she was still a teenager.
In his ruling, Norfolk Superior Court Judge Brian Davis wrote that he began to realize something was amiss with a group of responses Marullo had submitted in opposition to filings by the police officers because the documents contained citations to cases he couldn't find. In fact, Davis wrote, he "spent several hours investigating the case law cited by Plaintiff's Counsel" but was unable to find the rulings in alleged federal and Massachusetts cases.
In a formal apology to the judge and in two hearings, Marullo, who got his law degree in 1975, explained that an associate in his firm and two recent law-school graduates working for him had used an AI program - he said he did not know which one - and without his knowledge. He agreed that, yes, he had failed to "exercise due diligence" in checking the citations on filings with his name on them. He said he did not realize that AI systems could screw up like that.
The attorney submitted replacement briefs that did not include the bogus citations and told the judge he has directed people in his office to shut down the AI and return to that old legal warhorse, Lexis, which does not make up citations.
Davis wrote that he accepts Marullo's apology as sincere and credible - although he added that other citations include additional typos or fail to support the argument the lawyer was making with them, which undercuts that to some extent. But he added he does not know if those are the result of sloppy lawyering or more AI hallucinations.
Still, a judge just can't let something like this slide.
Plaintiff's Counsel's knowing failure to review the case citations in the [filings] for accuracy, or at least ensure that someone else in his office did, before the [documents] were filed with this Court violated his duty under Rule 11 to undertake a "reasonable inquiry." Simply stated, no inquiry is not a reasonable inquiry.
He added he was letting the lawyer off easy with just a $2,000 sanction, compared to the $5,000 a federal judge in New York ordered against a law firm for a similar offense - which Davis said it compounded by continuing to make arguments based on AI drivel even after the judge alerted lawyers he was onto them:
Making false statements to a court can, in appropriate circumstances, be grounds for disbarment or worse. ... The restrained sanction imposed here reflects the Court's acceptance, as previously noted, of Plaintiff's Counsel's representations that he generally is unfamiliar with AI technology, that he had no knowledge that an AI system had been used in the preparation of the [filings], and that the Fictitious Case Citations were included in the [filings] in error and not with the intention of deceiving the court.
Davis ended his 16-page ruling, which has extensive citations of articles on the perils of generative AI in general and in the legal arena in particular, with a warning for all Massachusetts lawyers:
The blind acceptance of AI-generated content by attorneys undoubtedly will lead to other sanction hearings in the future, but a defense based on ignorance will be less credible, and likely less successful, as the dangers associated with the use of Generative AI systems become more widely known.
As for the lawsuit itself, Davis last week dismissed all the charges against one of the police officers, but allowed the lawsuit to continue against the others and the town, although he dismissed charges of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the remaining men and negligent hiring against the town.
Complete AI ruling (1.23M PDF).
Ruling on dismissing the complaint (1.2M PDF).