A Boston judge pulled a lawyer's pro hac vice status. A New York judge made another lawyer pay the opponent who caught his fakes.
Unchecked AI citations are getting expensive, and the bill is getting personal. On September 25, 2026, Judge Angel Kelley of the District of Massachusetts sanctioned a California lawyer, capped fees at $10,000 and revoked his permission to appear in the case, per the court order. On October 9, 2026, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York ordered a lawyer whose fake citations had already cost his client the case to personally pay $38,877.59 to the opposing lawyer who caught them.
How Did a Rushed Brief End a Lawyer’s Role in the Boston Case?
In Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, plaintiff’s counsel Blake Lindemann filed a 20-page opposition less than five hours after the defendants filed their motion, according to the court’s order. Judge Kelley found that about half the citations in that brief contained an error. It cited one First Circuit case six times for a proposition the case does not support, attributed a quotation to a fictitious Westlaw citation, and quoted cases for language they do not contain. Later briefs repeated the problems, including a case the court could not find on Westlaw, Lexis or Bloomberg.
Lindemann admitted using AI on the first brief and said he believed the enterprise-level version of the tool he used did not hallucinate cases. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports that Lindemann described the tool as the “highest-grade enterprise version of Claude.” He also cited illness and a rush before vacation. Anyone who has filed against a deadline will feel a flicker of sympathy, but the court was not persuaded, noting that errors kept appearing after defense counsel had flagged them by email and moved for sanctions.
The judge was clear about where the line sits:
“There is no rule against the use of AI in researching and drafting legal papers, but it must be utilized responsibly.”
Lindemann’s firm must pay the defendants’ fees and costs for the affected briefing, capped at $10,000, and his pro hac vice status is revoked. The court did not sanction local counsel, because Lindemann took sole responsibility, but it reminded him of his duty to supervise out-of-state counsel.
Why Did the New York Lawyer Have to Pay His Opponent?
In Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue, Judge Failla had already found in February that defense counsel acted in bad faith by filing briefs with fake AI-generated citations. As Greenberg Traurig’s eDiscovery Watch summarizes, 14 of the 60 cases in his motion to dismiss brief did not exist, and the court struck his client’s filings and entered default judgment.
The October 9 fee opinion awarded the plaintiff’s lawyer who uncovered the fake cases $38,877.59, payable by the offending lawyer personally. The court found a $575 hourly rate reasonable, credited the time spent investigating the fake citations, and cut the fees 10% because the offending lawyer, a solo practitioner, had limited ability to pay. Its reasoning: as AI citation problems spread, judges depend on opposing counsel to catch them.
What Are Judges Really Asking Lawyers?
Neither judge banned AI. Both just asked the question every partner should ask: did you read the cases you cited? In Boston, the court wrote that whether AI was used or not, the lawyer did not confirm his citations. In New York, the court relied on the Second Circuit’s rule that lawyers must read the cases they cite.
Two details stand out if you manage litigators. The enterprise version of a tool was no defense, so a business license is no guarantee of accurate output. And the New York court paid the opponent who caught the errors, which gives opposing counsel a financial reason to check your citations.
How Can Your Team Avoid Being the Next Order?
At a large firm, supervision is the exposure. The Boston order put local counsel on notice, and partners who sign or sponsor briefs drafted with AI can expect the same question about what they checked.
In-house litigation teams can ask outside counsel how they verify AI-assisted citations before filing, and who signs off. A good answer names a person and a step.
Small firms and solo practitioners carry the most risk, because there is often no second reader. Build the cite check into the calendar, so a deadline never forces the choice the Boston court described.
We rate this trend Real. Neither order creates a new rule, but the costs are rising and landing on individual lawyers, so budget time to check every citation, whatever tool drafted it.
FAQ
Is it against the rules to use AI to draft briefs?
Not in itself. Judge Kelley wrote that “there is no rule against the use of AI in researching and drafting legal papers, but it must be utilized responsibly,” in her September 25, 2026 order.
What were the Boston sanctions?
Fees and costs for the affected briefing, capped at $10,000, and revocation of the lawyer’s pro hac vice status.
How much was the New York fee award?
$38,877.59, payable by the offending lawyer personally, in the October 9, 2026 opinion, as summarized by Greenberg Traurig.
How many fake cases were in the New York brief?
14 of the 60 cases in the motion to dismiss brief did not exist, per Greenberg Traurig’s October 2026 summary.
*Updated Oct 23 to refresh the story and add an FAQ.*
In this story
See every round in the Funding Tracker