Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—E.D.N.Y.: Court declines to sanction attorney who cited ‘hallucinated’ cases following spouse’s death, (Aug 8, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

“The appearance of hallucinated citations in briefs generated from AI is no longer in its nascent stage.”

A federal magistrate judge in New York has declined to impose monetary sanctions against an attorney who cited three “hallucinated” cases—which had been generated by AI and incorporated by a clerk—in an opposition brief the attorney filed in an employment discrimination case shortly after the unexpected death of her husband. The admitted conduct in the case was “the result of extreme carelessness and negligence, done under tragic personal circumstances,” and the explanation proffered to the court that counsel failed to check the citations generated by her clerk who used Google for research did not evince bad faith or willfulness (Hall v. The Academy Charter School, No. 2:24-cv-08630-JMW (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2025)).

Action under Titles VII and IX. The plaintiff in the underlying case brought the action against The Academy Charter School on December 18, 2024, asserting claims under Title VII, Title IX, and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) for discrimination based on sexual orientation and a hostile and abusive working environment.

Opposition letter at issue. The plaintiff filed her amended complaint following a pre-motion conference held on April 4, 2025, and thereafter, on May 30, the school filed a letter requesting a second pre-motion conference, this time on its anticipated motion to partially dismiss the amended complaint.

The plaintiff then filed the paper at issue, her opposition letter in the form of a brief, on June 6, 2025, arguing, inter alia, that charter schools are not subject to notice of claim requirements because they are not government entities like public schools and school districts.

“Hallucinated” cases. The cases the plaintiff cited to support this proposition, however, did not exist. The letter included three “hallucinated” cases: (1) Laskowski v. Liberty Partners Restaurant Group Inc., 2011 WL 817498, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2011), (2) Lindner v. Forest Hills Montessori School, 2011 WL 1334869, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2011), and (3) Matter of K.M. v. Bronx Charter School for Better Learning, 2011 NY Slip Op 32728(U) (Sup. Ct. Bronx County).

Defendant’s motion to strike. On June 16, 2025, the school requested an additional pre-motion conference before moving for an order striking the plaintiff’s opposition entirely and for an award of attorney fees and costs stemming from the defendant’s application.

The school argued that “Plaintiff’s citations to fabricated, misleading, and irrelevant legal authority [] cannot be explained away as an innocent ‘typo,’ mistake, or misunderstanding of the law,” and such conduct “deprives both Defendant and the Court the opportunity to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s argument on its merits.”

Counsel’s letter. In response, the same day, counsel for plaintiff filed a short letter acknowledging receipt of defendant’s motion, stated that she understood the “grave implications of misreporting case law to the Court,” and assured the court that her firm was internally investigating the issue. In this same letter, she voluntarily discontinued the claims under NYSHRL—later memorialized in a stipulation filed on June 30, 2025.

Show cause. On July 2, 2025, the court issued an Electronic Order “so ordering” the stipulation and further directing that she show cause, in writing on or before July 18, 2025, why the court should not impose sanctions upon her for the conduct indicated in the defendant’s pre-motion letter, which it observed was likely the result of her “misuse of artificial intelligence.”

Explanation of circumstances. In her response, the attorney explained that the opposition letter was drafted by a clerk who used Google for research. The clerk sent the work product to the attorney, who then “reviewed the draft Opposition but did not check the citations.”

Death of spouse. The attorney attributed the “main reason” for her failure to check the citations to the death of her spouse, who recently passed away unexpectedly. She explained that “[t]he shock and grief resulting from my husband’s death has had a profound impact on all aspects of my life,” and said her husband’s death “has affected [her] ability to attend to the practice of law with the same focus and attention as before.”

The attorney has since taken bereavement leave and is “continuously meeting with medical and mental health professionals.”

Rule 11 and Section 1927. The court initially observed that “Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys to certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that any papers filed with the court are well grounded in fact, [and] legally tenable.” This court possesses the inherent power to sanction a party “for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” And “any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. For a court to impose sanctions pursuant to Section 1927, however, “there must have been bad faith motive on the offending party to delay the litigation.”

No longer “nascent” issue. The court also observed that “[t]he appearance of hallucinated citations in briefs generated from AI is no longer in its nascent stage.” Courts addressing filings containing AI-generated hallucinations have fashioned various forms of sanctions imposed upon the offending attorneys after they were found to have used these fabricated citations in “bad faith.”

U.S. v. Cohen. The court noted, however, that there are “circumstances where, in the Court’s discretion, monetary sanctions have not been imposed notwithstanding the violation of Rule 11.” In U.S. v. Cohen, 724 F. Supp. 3d 251, 253, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), for instance, the court declined to impose sanctions upon an attorney who submitted to the court three nonexistent cases in a motion seeking early termination of supervised release. There, the attorney who cited the fake cases reviewed a draft that was written by his client—another lawyer—and also reviewed by another attorney. Although this was “embarrassing and certainly negligent, perhaps even grossly negligent” and evidenced “extreme carelessness,” the court declined to impose sanctions because no showing was made that the attorney’s citations to nonexistent cases were generated or submitted in bad faith.

Extreme carelessness but tragic personal circumstances. Similarly finding no bad faith here, the court said the admitted conduct was the result of “extreme carelessness and negligence” but “done under tragic personal circumstances.” The explanation that the attorney failed to check the citations generated by her clerk who used Google for research did not evince bad faith or willfulness, but rather severe carelessness. The attorney had no reason to believe that the clerk who drafted the opposition was unfamiliar with notice of claim requirements under New York state law, and the attorney’s reason for neglecting to check this work was the sudden, unexpected death of her spouse. Indeed, she explained that “[t]he shock and grief resulting from my husband’s death has had a profound impact on all aspects of my life,” and that her husband’s death “has affected [her] ability to attend to the practice of law with the same focus and attention as before.” As such, she not only repeatedly apologized to the court and opposing counsel, assuring both that “[t]his will not happen again”; she also indicated her intentions on seeking medical and mental health treatment. Finally, she “outright admitted and took ‘full responsibility for failing to check the citations in the Opposition’” and stipulated to the relief sought on the anticipated motion by ultimately withdrawing certain claims.

Admonished. “[A]ware of the serious implications that the misuse of AI-generated nonexistent caselaw presents,” the court said it was “also mindful of the circumstances here which do not support any finding of bad faith, as well as the remorseful explanations proffered by counsel who experienced one of life’s unspeakable tragedies.” Declining to impose monetary sanctions, the court “admonished” the attorney that the “Order should serve as a forewarning.”

The case is No. 2:24-cv-08630-JMW.

Judge: Wicks, J.

Attorneys: Naresh M. Gehi (Gehi and Associates) for Sashane Hall. Adam Granek Guttell (Jackson Lewis) for The Academy Charter School.

Companies: The Academy Charter School

Cases: Procedure SexDiscrimination Discrimination SexualHarassment AttorneysFees AINews NewYorkNews