In the competitive world of legal advocacy, precision and accuracy in court filings are non-negotiable. Yet, Gordon Rees, an Am Law 100 firm, finds itself embroiled in controversy once more as it faces accusations of submitting a court brief littered with what are termed “AI hallucinations” — erroneous or fabricated legal citations.

The firm previously faced judicial reprimands and monetary penalties exceeding $50,000 after submitting a flawed brief in a bankruptcy case last summer. The incident was so severe that it prompted the firm to overhaul its AI usage policies, including the implementation of a stricter cite-checking protocol. However, recent events suggest these measures may have been insufficient.

In the ongoing case of Huynh v. Redis Labs, Bach Mili LLP, representing the plaintiff, has pointed out multiple discrepancies in Gordon Rees’s latest court filing. According to Bach Mili, the opposition’s brief misinterprets and even invents legal precedents. For instance, the case Doppes v. Bentley Motors is cited incorrectly to suggest leniency in imposing sanctions, whereas the actual case outcome was the exact opposite, advocating for strict repercussions due to repeated discovery violations.

Furthermore, the brief misquotes several other cases, such as Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian and Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp., either distorting their rulings or fabricating legal definitions altogether. These errors have raised severe concerns about the diligence and ethical compliance of the legal work presented by Gordon Rees.

The situation is exacerbated by an order issued last December in Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Pol, where the same firm was reprimanded for similar issues. The repeat of such mistakes, especially by the same partner involved in the earlier incident, casts a long shadow over the firm’s reliability and commitment to ethical legal practice.

Local judicial standards clearly state that attorneys have a nondelegable duty to verify every cited case personally. Relying on incorrect or hallucinated legal authority could deem the filing frivolous and sanctionable. This principle was emphasized by U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney, who noted that the presentation of AI-generated or fictitious citations could lead to sanctions.

This recurrent problem not only undermines Gordon Rees’s credibility but also impairs the overall trust in legal advocacy when emerging technologies like AI are employed. The misuse or over-reliance on AI tools without proper verification and oversight can lead to significant legal mishaps, as seen in this case.

The legal community and clients alike will likely watch closely how Gordon Rees navigates this crisis. The firm’s ability to restore trust and ensure compliance with legal standards will be crucial, as the implications of such AI-related errors resonate beyond individual cases, potentially affecting the firm’s future engagements and reputation in the legal sector.