The integration of AI in legal research presents efficiency benefits but raises significant ethical concerns, highlighted in the case of Viola Russell v. Linda Burnell Mells. Inaccurate citations from AI led to sanctions for the attorney involved, emphasizing the need for legal professionals to thoroughly verify AI-generated outputs and uphold ethical standards.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of legal technology, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into legal research and documentation has become increasingly prevalent. While these advancements offer significant benefits such as increased efficiency and accessibility to legal resources, they also introduce a range of ethical challenges that legal professionals must navigate with caution. A recent case from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, underscores the critical importance of maintaining rigorous standards of accuracy and integrity when utilizing AI tools in legal practice.
The Case Overview
In the case of Viola Russell v. Linda Burnell Mells, an appeal was filed against the dismissal of a complaint which involved complex issues surrounding the care and estate of an aged individual. The appellant, Ms. Russell, challenged the procedural and substantive aspects of the trial court’s decision, which dismissed her complaint with prejudice and granted entitlement to attorney’s fees to the appellee, Ms. Mells.
Ethical Breach Highlighted
During the appellate process, a significant ethical concern was raised regarding the conduct of Ms. Mells’ counsel, specifically related to the use of AI in legal research. The appellate court discovered that the answer brief filed by Ms. Mells’ attorney contained inaccurate citations and misquotations of case law. Most notably, one of the cited cases, “Cade v. Roberts,” was found to be nonexistent—a clear fabrication likely generated by an AI tool used during the legal research process.
Court’s Response and Ruling
The appellate court treated this matter with the seriousness it warranted, emphasizing the duty of legal professionals to ensure the accuracy and validity of their citations. The court expressed its concern that reliance on AI without sufficient oversight could lead to the erosion of trust and integrity in legal proceedings. As a result, the attorney was referred to the Florida Bar for potential sanctions, highlighting the consequences of failing to meet the ethical standards expected in legal practice.
Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals
1. **Verify AI-Generated Outputs**: While AI can streamline the research process, it is imperative that all outputs generated by AI tools are thoroughly checked for accuracy and reliability. Legal professionals must verify each case citation and quotation to ensure they are correct and applicable.
2. **Understand the Tools**: Legal professionals should strive to understand the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools they use. This includes being aware of how these tools generate data and the potential for errors or “hallucinations” where the AI fabricates information.
3. **Ethical Obligations Remain Paramount**: The use of AI does not alter the fundamental ethical obligations of lawyers. Diligence, honesty, and accuracy are non-negotiable aspects of legal practice, irrespective of the tools employed.
4. **Continuing Education**: As AI becomes more integrated into legal practices, ongoing education and training on the ethical use of technology in law will be crucial. Legal professionals must stay informed about the latest developments and best practices related to AI.
5. **Institutional Guidelines**: Law firms and legal institutions should develop clear guidelines and training programs on the appropriate use of AI in legal research. This can help prevent misuse and ensure that all staff adhere to ethical standards.
Conclusion
The case of Viola Russell v. Linda Burnell Mells serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical challenges posed by the integration of AI in legal practices. As we continue to embrace technological advancements, it is essential that we maintain the integrity of legal processes and uphold the highest standards of professional conduct. The legal community must be proactive in managing these technologies to harness their benefits while mitigating risks and ensuring justice is served with the utmost reliability and accuracy.
In the legal case between Pursuit Credit Special Opportunity Fund and KrunchCash LLC, reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) for drafting legal documents has raised significant concerns. Errors found in Defendants’ submissions, such as misquotes and incoherent arguments, highlight the risks of using AI without proper oversight. This situation emphasizes the ethical duties of attorneys to ensure accuracy and suggests a need for stricter guidelines regarding AI in legal processes.
In a recent legal dispute between Pursuit Credit Special Opportunity Fund, L.P. (“Pursuit”) and KrunchCash LLC, along with its associated entities and Jeffrey Hackman (collectively, “Defendants”), an unusual yet increasingly pertinent issue has surfaced: the reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in preparing legal documents. This scenario provides a stark illustration of the potential pitfalls of integrating AI technology into legal practices without sufficient oversight and rigor.
1. **Mismatched Responses and Statements**: The Defendants responded to paragraphs that did not exist in Pursuit’s original statement of material facts and misquoted or hallucinated statements purportedly from Pursuit’s submissions.
2. **Incoherent Argumentation**: There were instances where the roles of the plaintiff and defendants were confused, and the responses were often not aligned with the corresponding statements from Pursuit.
3. **Non-existent Evidence**: The Defendants cited evidence that simply did not exist, undermining the credibility of their legal arguments.
These errors not only compromise the integrity of the legal process but also potentially damage the Defendants’ position in the litigation. Such inaccuracies and hallucinations in legal documents can mislead the court and opposing parties, leading to unjust outcomes.
Pamela B. Ader, as executor of the estate of Richard H. Ader, Plaintiff, against Jason Ader, JS Property Holdings LLC, Defendants. Decided on October 1, 2025, Supreme Court, New York County
Justice Cohen’s October 1, 2025 Order for Sanctions Against Counsel
“The Court may award sanctions for frivolous conduct against a party and/or an attorney in its discretion where appropriate (22 NYCRR § 130-1.1). Moreover, Rule 3.3 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (“Conduct Before a Tribunal”) provides that a lawyer “shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal[.]” (NY ST RPC Rule 3.3). Finally, 22 NYCRR § 100.3(D)(2) provides that “[a] judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) shall take appropriate action.”
“Use of AI is not the problem per se. The problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate. “The court relies on attorneys to do their jobs: advocate for their clients using law and facts—real law and real facts” (Enterprise v Shvo, NYSCEF 154 in Index No. 653221/2024 [Sup Ct, NY County, Dec. 24, 2024] [Masley, J.]). When attorneys fail to check their work—whether AI-generated or not—they prejudice their clients and do a disservice to the Court and the profession. In sum, counsel’s duty of candor to the Court cannot be delegated to a software program.”
“By now the risks and consequences of AI-hallucinated citations should be familiar (see e.g. Park v Kim, 91 F 4th 610, 615-16 [2d Cir 2024] [attorney referred to court’s grievance panel for disciplinary proceedings for submitting brief containing non-existent case citations generated by ChatGPT and case was dismissed]; Mata v Avianca, Inc., 678 F Supp 3d 443, 466 [SD NY 2023] [attorneys ordered to pay a penalty and to send copies of sanctions petition to client and each judge falsely identified as authors of fake opinions]; Enterprise v Shvo, supra [ordering attorney to reimburse movants for fees incurred in communications regarding improper AI use]; Matter of Samuel, 82 Misc 3d 616, 620 [Surr Ct, Kings County 2024] [affirmation brief struck from the record]). Moreover, courts have made clear that reliance on the research of others is not a valid excuse for presenting false citations (Johnson, 2025 WL 2086116, at *20 (citing cases)).”
“Here, Plaintiff seeks her attorney’s fees and costs and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the delay in adjudicating her summary judgment motion as a sanction against Defendants for frivolous conduct. The Court finds that awarding Plaintiff her reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the sanctions motion, together with such fees attributable to addressing Defendants’ unvetted AI citations and quotations in the summary judgment motion, is an appropriate monetary sanction against both Defendants and their counsel, jointly and severally.”
“In addition, in view of the reporting mandate of 22 NYCRR § 100.3(D)(2) and to deter such conduct going forward (see Johnson, 2025 WL 2086116, at *20), the Court directs Plaintiff’s counsel to submit a copy of this decision and order to the Grievance Committee for the Appellate Division, First Department and the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics, copying Defendants’ counsel and this Court on its transmittal letters. The Court will provide a copy of this decision and order to Judge Katz, who is presiding over a matrimonial matter in this Court in which Defendants’ counsel is representing Jason Ader (NYSCEF 169 at 23).”
“Therefore, it is”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 is GRANTED, such that Defendants and their counsel are jointly and severally liable to compensate Plaintiff for her reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this [*4]motion, together with fees and costs attributable to addressing Defendants’ unvetted AI citations and quotations in the summary judgment motion; it is further”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit an application with supporting documentation for the fees awarded above within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order; Defendants and their counsel may submit opposition thereto within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff shall notify the Court via letter filing on NYSCEF and by email when the application is complete and whether it is opposed or unopposed; and it is further”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel promptly submit a copy of this decision and order to the Grievance Committee for the Appellate Division, First Department and the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics, copying defense counsel and this Court on its transmittal letters.”
“This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.” DATE 10/1/2025 JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.
AI in Legal Work: A Double-Edged Sword
The integration of AI into legal work offers promising benefits, such as increased efficiency and the ability to analyze large volumes of data quickly. However, the case at hand underscores the technology’s current limitations and risks. AI, particularly in its current form, lacks the nuanced understanding of legal principles and the strategic thinking required for legal argumentation. It can process and generate text based on patterns in data, but it does not comprehend context or the subtleties of legal reasoning.
Moreover, the use of AI can lead to a detachment of lawyers from their work. Relying on AI without thorough verification and oversight can result in errors going unnoticed until they potentially cause significant legal repercussions. This detachment not only diminishes the quality of legal practice but could also erode trust in legal proceedings.
Ethical and Procedural Implications
The situation also highlights the ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI in legal contexts. Lawyers are traditionally held to high standards of accuracy and diligence under legal and ethical frameworks. Delegating critical tasks to AI without adequate checks does not absolve lawyers from their responsibility to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of their filings.
From a procedural standpoint, this case may prompt legal institutions to establish clearer guidelines and standards for AI use in legal processes. Ensuring that AI tools are used responsibly and do not undermine the fairness of legal proceedings is paramount.
Moving Forward: Caution and Regulation
As AI continues to evolve and integrate into various sectors, including law, it is crucial that this integration is approached with caution and guided by stringent standards. Legal professionals should be trained not only to use AI tools effectively but also to understand their limitations and risks. Regular audits and checks should be a mandatory part of using AI-generated content in legal filings to prevent errors and maintain the integrity of legal documents.
Ultimately, while AI represents a revolutionary tool in many fields, its use in law must be carefully managed to avoid compromising the quality and fairness of legal proceedings. The case of Pursuit vs. KrunchCash serves as a critical reminder of the need for balance between innovation and the traditional diligence required in the legal profession.
