Back
in
May,
Butler
Snow
received
a
particularly
irate
order
to
show
cause.
The
firm
represented
the
Alabama
Department
of
Corrections
in
case
where
an
inmate
was stabbed
20
times
—
not
20
times
in
one
sitting,
20
different
times —
and
the
inmate
objected
to
the
timing
of
a
proposed
deposition
noting
that
the
Corrections
filing
“appears
to
have
fabricated
citations
to
legal
authority
in
his
motion
for
leave,
‘possibly
through
the
use
of
generative
artificial
intelligence,’”
as
the
order
explained.
Judge
Anna
Manasco
just
issued
her
decision
on
this
one
and
it’s
51
pages
of
hot
fire.
When
the
dust
settled,
three
attorneys
—
two
partners
and
an
of
counsel
—
earned
a
public
reprimand,
got
disqualified
from
the
case,
and
referred
to
the
state
bar.
The
court
also
went
out
of
its
way
to
release
without
sanction
the
associates
on
the
case
and
the
firm
itself.
In
a
profession
where
accolades
accumulate
at
the
top
and
responsibility
gets
pushed
downhill,
it’s
refreshing
that
the
associates
who
declared
that
they
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
fake
citations
inserted
by
a
partner
avoided
punishment
for
being
dragged
along
for
the
ride.
A
new
trend
in
AI
hallucination
cases
is
the
“wrong
case,
right
law”
phenomenon.
While
some
cases
involve
entirely
false
statements
of
law,
more
and
more
we’re
seeing
the
algorithms
inventing
fake
captions
to
support
otherwise
correct
statements
of
law.
ChatGPT’s
basically
trying
out
for
Law
Review
and
refuses
to
cite
one
case
when
it
could
throw
in
20.
When
caught
in
a
hallucination,
lawyers
in
this
situation
have
clung
to
the
“no
one
was
really
misled”
argument.
Judge
Manasco
is
unpersuaded:
At
the
threshold,
the
court
rejects
the
invitation
to
consider
that
actual
authorities
stand
for
the
proposition
that
the
bogus
authorities
were
offered
to
support.
That
is
a
stroke
of
pure
luck
for
these
lawyers,
and
one
that
did
not
remediate
the
waste
and
harm
their
misconduct
wrought.
Further,
any
sanctions
discount
on
this
basis
would
amplify
the
siren
call
of
unverified
AI
for
lawyers
who
are
already
confident
in
their
legal
conclusion.
This
court
will
have
no
part
of
that.
Nor
did
the
judge
appreciate
the
“we’ve
suffered
enough”
argument:
Likewise,
the
court
rejects
the
invitation
to
consider
that
the
involved
lawyers
and
firm
have
been
deeply
embarrassed
in
media
reports.
For
many
very
good
reasons,
courts
traditionally
have
not
relied
on
the
media
to
do
the
difficult
work
of
professional
discipline,
and
this
court
is
not
about
to
start.
As
a
representative
of
the
media
who
often
finds
himself
meting
out
professional
ridicule,
this
is
a
good
standard.
Recently,
I’ve
been
making
the
argument
that
slap-on-the-wrist
punishments
made
sense
in
the
infancy
of
ChatGPT,
but
in
2025,
there’s
no
excuse
for
anyone
continuing
to
make
the
same
old
mistakes.
At
least
find
new
and
interesting
ways
to
make
mistakes.
Like,
say
you
put
the
right
cases
in
but
then
an
“Agentic
tool”
overrode
them.
There
are
so
many
ways
to
be
negligent
without
being
reckless!
To
that
point,
Judge
Manasco
feels
we’ve
very
much
crossed
into
reckless
territory:
The
court
has
no
difficulty
finding
that
Mr.
Reeves’s
misconduct
was
more
than
mere
recklessness.
In
the
light
of
repeated
general
warnings
from
federal
courts
about
the
risks
of
bogus
citations
generated
by
AI,
as
well
as
the
persistent
specific
warnings,
policies,
and
expectations
of
his
colleagues
and
law
firm
with
respect
to
AI,
Mr.
Reeves’s
misconduct
was
particularly
egregious.
Having
been
so
extensively
alerted
of
the
risk
that
AI
will
make
things
up,
and
having
blown
through
all
of
his
firm’s
internal
controls
designed
to
protect
court
filings
from
counterfeit
citations,
Mr.
Reeves’s
repeated
decisions
to
parrot
citations
generated
by
AI
without
verifying
even
one
of
them
reflect
complete
and
utter
disregard
for
his
professional
duty
of
candor.
This
is
recklessness
in
the
extreme,
and
it
is
tantamount
to
bad
faith.
Accordingly,
the
court
will
impose
an
appropriate
sanction
under
its
inherent
authority.
While
Reeves
inserted
the
cases,
the
judge
had
more
issues
with
the
rest
of
the
senior
team.
Breaking
down
the
order
on
social
media,
Kathryn
Tewson
wrote,
“I
would
describe
the
court’s
commentary
about
how
little
effort
Mr.
Cransford
would
have
needed
to
expend
to
prevent
this
disaster
as
‘withering,’”
and
that’s
an
apt
description.
This
misconduct
was
more
than
simple
recklessness
and
is
particularly
egregious,
especially
in
the
light
of
how
little
effort
would
have
been
required
of
Mr.
Cranford
to
uncover
any
of
the
falsehoods.
The
unacceptable
result
of
Mr.
Cranford’s
decisions
is
that
motions
were
filed
with
the
court
that
no
attorney
ensured
were
free
from
false
statements.
Attorneys
who
sign
motions
must
know
—
as
Mr.
Cranford
acknowledges
—
that
they
risk
serious
sanctions
when
they
make
no
effort
to
ensure
that
those
motions
tell
the
truth.
Accordingly,
the
court
finds
that
Mr.
Cranford’s
misconduct
was
tantamount
to
bad
faith
and
will
sanction
him
under
its
inherent
power.
The
court
refers
to
“its
inherent
power”
because,
apparently,
Rule
11
doesn’t
actually
apply
to
discovery
motions.
Which
seems…
like
a
weird
oversight.
Arguably
the
harshest
criticism
fell
upon
the
final
attorney,
William
Lunsford,
who
both
works
at
Butler
Snow
and
“holds
the
designation
of
deputy
attorney
general”
for
the
state
of
Alabama.
Lunsford
first
“troubled
the
court”
by
immediately
asking
to
be
excused
from
the
order
to
show
cause
—
that
was
denied
—
and
then
explained
that
his
“name
and
signature
appear
on
all
of
the
current
public
contracts
for
professional
services
provided
by
outside
legal
counsel
to
the
State
of
Alabama
(the
“State”)
on
a
limited
number
of
matters
for
which
the
State
elects
to
hire
outside
counsel.”
Seemingly
making
the
argument
that,
as
part
of
the
deputy
attorney
general
role,
he’s
just
the
figurehead
on
these
filings.
Guess
who
was
not
amused…
Both
before
and
at
the
show
cause
hearing,
Mr.
Lunsford
deepened
rather
than
allayed
the
court’s
concerns
about
his
understanding
of
his
professional
responsibility
with
respect
to
court
filings
that
bear
his
name
in
the
signature
block.
Oof.
The
order
explains
that
Lunsford
told
the
court
that
he
didn’t
know
about
the
use
of
AI
because
these
cases
“often
involve
similar
facts
and
law,
when
the
team
he
leads
has
a
need
for
legal
research
in
a
case,
it
is
their
ordinary
practice
to
re-use
(apparently
without
verification)
material
from
filings
in
other
cases.”
Which…
yeah,
that
happens
in
well-tread
areas
of
law,
but
you
still
at
least
take
a
look.
Also,
the
fact
that
the
caselaw
supporting
“the
state
doesn’t
care
if
inmates
get
stabbed
20
times”
is
so
established
that
it
earns
such
blasé
treatment
should
be
a
deeper
red
flag
about
how
we
treat
our
prisons.
After
describing
Lunsford’s
actions
as
“particularly
egregious,
more
than
mere
recklessness
and
tantamount
to
bad
faith,”
Judge
Manasco
went
nuclear:
To
be
clear,
the
court’s
finding
in
this
regard
is
not
simply
a
harsh
inference:
when
it
became
apparent
that
multiple
motions
with
his
name
in
the
signature
block
contained
fabricated
citations,
Mr.
Lunsford’s
nearly
immediate
response
was
to
try
to
skip
the
show
cause
hearing
and
leave
the
mess
for
someone
else.
And
when
the
court
compelled
him
to
appear
at
the
hearing,
he
paired
his
apology
with
an
explanation
in
greater
fullness
of
how
very
little
work
he
personally
puts
in
to
be
sure
that
his
team’s
motions
tell
the
truth.
This
cannot
be
how
litigators,
particularly
seasoned
ones,
practice
in
federal
court
or
run
their
teams.
I
would
simply
curl
up
and
poof
out
of
existence
if
this
were
written
about
me.
I’ve
been
bemoaning
the
unwillingness
of
courts
to
pull
out
sanctions
with
teeth
—
Judge
Manasco
heard
that
call.
In
any
event,
she
reminds
us
all
that
the
thing
about
a
disincentive
is
that
it
actually
has
to
disincentivize
something:
Having
considered
these
cases
carefully,
the
court
finds
that
a
fine
and
public
reprimand
are
insufficient
here.
If
fines
and
public
embarrassment
were
effective
deterrents,
there
would
not
be
so
many
cases
to
cite.
And
in
any
event,
fines
do
not
account
for
the
extreme
dereliction
of
professional
responsibility
that
fabricating
citations
reflects,
nor
for
the
many
harms
it
causes.
In
any
event,
a
fine
would
not
rectify
the
egregious
misconduct
in
this
case.
Emphasis
added
because
it
cannot
be
emphasized
enough.
(Order
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier:
Am
Law
200
Firm
Slapped
With
Order
To
Show
Cause
Over
Fake
Citations…
You
Know
Where
This
Is
Going
Law
Firm
Tagged
Over
Fake
Citations
Quietly
Deletes
Blog
Post
Encouraging
Lawyers
To
Use
AI
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.