Loading...
A federal judge in Oregon has declined to impose sanctions on the law firm Buchalter after one of its lawyers submitted a legal filing containing citations to non-existent cases generated by artificial intelligence. The court concluded that the firm’s swift and responsible actions following the incident were sufficient to remedy the situation — but the case serves as another stark warning to lawyers about the dangers of unverified AI use in legal practice.
AI Misstep Leads to Fabricated Citations
The controversy arose when Buchalter, representing the nonprofit Green Building Initiative (GBI), filed a legal brief in a trademark dispute with Green Globe Limited. The filing included two citations that were later discovered to be inaccurate — one was a completely fabricated case, while the other misrepresented existing precedent.
The issue came to light when opposing counsel questioned the authenticity of the cited authorities. Upon review, it was revealed that the citations had been inserted into the brief by a generative artificial intelligence tool used during document editing.
The attorney responsible, David Bernstein, a senior associate at Buchalter, acknowledged that he had employed an AI tool to assist in reviewing and polishing the filing after conducting his own research. However, the tool had generated what are known as “hallucinated” case citations — a common problem with generative AI systems that can produce text that appears plausible but is entirely false or unsupported by real data.
Bernstein admitted he failed to cross-check the AI-generated content before submission. He expressed remorse to the court and his client, and Buchalter swiftly reported the issue, took corrective action, and implemented stricter internal measures governing AI use.
Judge Declines Sanctions, Citing Firm’s Prompt Response
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon of the District of Oregon issued an order on November 13, 2025, acknowledging that while the firm’s conduct was careless, its proactive response warranted leniency. The court noted that Buchalter had:
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
- Voluntarily donated $5,000 to a local legal aid organization;
- Updated its internal policies to explicitly regulate the use of AI tools in drafting and research;
- Offered to reimburse both its client and opposing counsel for the additional time and expenses incurred due to the false citations.
Judge Simon found that these steps demonstrated genuine accountability and a commitment to ethical practice. Consequently, he determined that formal sanctions were unnecessary.
An Emerging Ethical Challenge for the Legal Profession
The Oregon case highlights a growing concern across the legal community about the integration of artificial intelligence into law practice. Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT and others, are increasingly used for drafting, editing, and research assistance. While they can improve efficiency, they also carry significant risks when lawyers rely on them without verification.
Courts have begun to take notice. In a widely publicized incident last year, two New York attorneys were sanctioned after submitting a legal brief containing fake citations generated by ChatGPT. That case, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., became a cautionary tale, leading many courts to require certification that attorneys have personally reviewed all filings for accuracy.
Following that precedent, several federal judges — including those in the Fifth and Ninth Circuits — have issued standing orders reminding attorneys that AI-generated material must be verified by human review. The Buchalter matter adds to the growing body of examples showing that even experienced law firms are not immune from AI-related errors.
Buchalter’s Transparency and Policy Reform Praised
Legal ethics experts have noted that Buchalter’s handling of the situation sets an example for other firms confronting similar mistakes. Instead of deflecting blame or minimizing the issue, the firm promptly informed the court and opposing counsel, conducted an internal review, and made the results public.
The firm also introduced a comprehensive policy governing AI use, requiring attorneys to disclose when generative AI tools are utilized in legal drafting and to verify all content through traditional research databases like Westlaw or LexisNexis before submission.
Cautionary Lessons for Lawyers Nationwide
The incident serves as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners navigating the intersection of technology and professional responsibility. As AI tools become more accessible, their potential misuse — intentional or accidental — poses new ethical and procedural challenges.
The Oregon court’s ruling reflects a balanced approach: acknowledging that human error can occur in the context of emerging technology, but emphasizing that diligence and transparency remain paramount. It also reinforces the message that while AI can be a valuable asset, it cannot replace the lawyer’s duty of competence and supervision.
Legal analysts predict that more courts and bar associations will issue guidelines and training requirements related to AI use in the near future. Already, several jurisdictions are exploring rules mandating disclosure when AI-generated text is included in legal filings.
A Wake-Up Call for the Legal Industry
Ultimately, the Buchalter case underscores the growing need for the legal profession to adapt to the realities of AI. Lawyers must understand not only how to use such tools but also their limitations and risks.
For now, Judge Simon’s decision spares the firm from formal punishment — but it serves as an unmistakable warning: the convenience of AI should never come at the cost of professional integrity.
Stay informed about how technology is transforming the legal industry. Visit LawCrossing.com to explore AI compliance jobs, legal ethics positions, and opportunities at forward-thinking firms.
