Wright County brief with fake AI citations flagged by court

In an “unprecedented scenario,” the Minnesota Tax Court determined that a brief submitted by Wright County appeared to be at least partially written by artificial intelligence software that generated false case citations.

The court found that the filing violated Minnesota civil procedure Rule 11, but it declined to order sanctions. However, it did refer the matter to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board for further review.

The underlying case involved Delano Crossings 2016 LLC contesting a retail property valuation. Wright County moved for summary judgment. But before the hearing, the court figured out that the supporting memorandum contained five AI-generated case citations. None of them referred to actual judicial decisions. Additionally, the brief itself appeared to mostly be written by AI.

The court held an en banc motion hearing. At the hearing, Wright County acknowledged that the cases cited do not exist and that most of the brief was generated using AI. The court then ordered Wright County to show cause why Assistant County Attorney Rachel Pence, who filed the brief, should not be reported to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board and why the county should not be sanctioned.

In an affidavit, Pence, who was admitted to the bar in 2017, represented that submitting the brief was a mistake. “I believe I inadvertently filed a draft Motion that was never intended to be the final product. I did not intend to file an AI-generated pleading; however, I have been unable to locate any other documents containing my research,” Pence stated in the affidavit.

Pence also claimed that she did not realize her mistake until 6:48 p.m. the night before the motion hearing. She said she concluded that the best time to address this was at the hearing.

Additionally, Pence attested that she did not submit any other brief with fake case citations to any other court. Pence said that she understood the seriousness of the mistake and that she has taken several remedial measures to prevent something like this from happening again.

Nevertheless, Pence stood by the legal contentions in the brief. Although she agreed that the cases were hallucinated, she said the arguments in the brief were legally sound.

The court found that Pence’s conduct violated Rule 11 because “fake case citations cannot support any legal claim.” The court continued, “Further, using fake case citations is inherently misleading, as the signing attorney induces readers to believe that their legal contentions are supported by existing law.”

“[W]e conclude that using fake case citations, particularly while knowing that AI can generate fictitious citations, is a Rule 11 violation, because the rule imposes an affirmative duty to investigate the ‘legal underpinnings of a pleading,’” the court added.

The court did not appear to agree that filing the brief was a true mistake.

“Calling the inclusion of fake case citations a ‘mistake’ in this matter is not objectively reasonable,” the court wrote.

In a footnote further explaining its reasoning, the court wrote, “We do not find credible the insinuation that another, accurate motion document exists.”

Additionally, the court said that, even if it was a genuine mistake, Pence either did not read the pleading for accuracy before filing it or, if she did, failed to identify the false case citations and replace them.

Ultimately, the court did not sanction Wright County. It did, citing its “responsibility as judges,” refer the matter to the Minnesota Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board. “We believe the submission of an AI-generated brief, apparently unreviewed, as evidenced by inclusion of entirely fake case citations, reasonably raises questions as to a lawyer’s honestly, trustworthiness, and/or fitness as a lawyer,” the court avowed.

In an email to Minnesota Lawyer on Friday, Wright County Attorney Brian Lutes said, “As Wright County Attorney, I am very committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in Wright County.  As the Tax Court Order implicated the professional conduct of an assistant county attorney, I am not going to comment further.”