In a recent legal skirmish that sounds more like a dramatized court TV show, Judge Failla delivered a scathing critique of attorney Steven Feldman’s flowery language and dubious AI-generated citations. Feldman’s legal brief, stuffed with what the court described as "AI hallucinations," was met with a sharp judicial response highlighting the contrast between his poetic justifications and the serious nature of citation errors.

Last week, Feldman filed a response to a Court Order, which demanded explanations for the AI-generated errors in his submissions. Rather than a straightforward apology, Feldman’s response was a philosophical treatise on the nature of lawyering, invoking imagery of ancient scribes and timeless marks upon clay—eliciting, as reports suggest, less reverence and more ridicule.

Judge Failla’s unamused reaction was evident as she pointed out the stark differences in Feldman’s writing style between his response and a subsequent letter filled with typographical errors, suggesting a potential reliance on AI that compromised the quality and accuracy of his legal documents.

Further complicating Feldman's position, the judge noted an instance where he cited a quote supposedly from the case "Mata v. Avianca, Inc.," which turned out to be a snippet from a 2023 article about the risks of using AI in legal research. This misattribution did not sit well with the court, given the context of an Order to Show Cause why Feldman should not be sanctioned for his erroneous citations.

Adding insult to injury, Judge Failla dismissed Feldman’s claim that losing access to AI tool Casetext spurred his citation woes. She sarcastically echoed Shakespeare in her rebuke, suggesting that such excuses were full of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Feldman’s promise to establish rigorous database reconciliation procedures was met with a blunt reminder that this is simply what is expected in legal research—AI or no AI.

As the legal community watches closely, this case not only highlights the pitfalls of over-relying on AI in legal practices but also serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of meticulous research and verification. The judge has reserved the issue of sanctions pending a hearing, potentially setting the stage for further developments in how the legal field adapts to and regulates the use of emerging technologies.

The unfolding drama serves as a stark reminder: in the quest to integrate AI into legal work, accuracy and human oversight remain paramount. Perhaps, this episode will indeed leave an indelible mark on the clay of legal practices, reminding lawyers that technology should enhance, not undermine, their work.