Last
week,
we
wrote
about
yet
another
lawyer
filing
a
brief
riddled
with
AI
hallucinations.
But
to
spice
up
the
story,
the
attorney,
Steven
Feldman,
responded
to
the
Order
to
Show
Cause
with
a
bunch
of
overwrought
meditations
on
the
nature
of
lawyering.
“Each
citation,
each
argument,
each
procedural
decision
is
a
mark
upon
the
clay,
an
indelible
impression,”
he
wrote,
triggering
painful
fits
of
snickering.
“[I]n
the
ancient
libraries
of
Ashurbanipal,
scribes
carried
their
stylus
as
both
tool
and
sacred
trust—understanding
that
every
mark
upon
clay
would
endure
long
beyond
their
mortal
span,”
he
added.
Judge
Failla
was
not
impressed
by
the
lost
treasures
of
Ashurbanipal.
The
Court
wants
to
hear
directly
from
Mr.
Feldman,
so
that
it
can
give
him
the
opportunity
to
—
as
he
puts
it
—
“prove
[himself]
worthy
to
carry
the
stylus
once
more
in
service
of
justice
and
truth.”
Stone.
Cold.
Other
than
the
unnecessarily
pretentious
profession
fluffing,
the
attorney’s
letter
struck
me
as
pretty
decent.
Obviously
the
best
course
of
action
is
not
to
file
briefs
with
fake
cites
at
all,
but
if
a
lawyer
has
found
themselves
in
a
grave
professional
mistake
—
especially
this
one
which
we’ve
talked
about
for
years
now
—
this
response
provided
a
nice
template
of
explaining
how
it
happened,
expressing
contrition,
and
proactively
giving
the
judge
a
gameplan
to
avoid
future
mistakes.
Though
all
the
sanctimonious
filler
did
seem
like
it
could
undermine
the
sincerity.
Apparently
Judge
Failla
thought
it
did:
The
Court
looked
askance
at
Mr.
Feldman’s
Response
because
the
writing
style
in
it
differed
markedly
from
the
writing
style
in
the
letter
he
submitted
to
the
Court
three
days
later.
(Compare
Response
with
Dkt.
#166).
Mr.
Feldman’s
Response
contains
an
extended
quote
from
Ray
Bradbury’s
Fahrenheit
451
and
a
metaphor
about
an
ancient
stylus.
(Response
3,
7).
By
contrast,
his
July
14,
2025
letter
contains
typographical
errors
in
the
very
first
paragraph,
and,
indeed,
throughout.
On
last
week’s
Legaltech
Week
Journalists’
Roundtable
show,
panelists
hypothesized
that
all
the
sappy
professional
talk
might
have
been
AI
generated.
Judge
Failla
appears
to
have
the
same
suspicion,
though
it
might
well
be
that
a
lawyer
pulls
out
more
flowery
stops
when
fighting
for
their
professional
reputation
than
when
asking
to
submit
more
documents
on
behalf
of
a
client.
Though
it
doesn’t
bode
well
for
the
pledge
to
practice
more
carefully
if
the
letter
he
wrote
on
behalf
of
the
client
three
days
later
is
filled
with
typos.
The
judge
also
noted
that
in
his
response,
Feldman
cited
the
infamous
Mata
v.
Avianca,
Inc.
case,
providing
a
choice
quote.
Except…
This
quote
appears
nowhere
in
Mata.
A
search
revealed
it
to
be
a
direct
quote
from
an
October
24,
2023
article
that
recaps
an
analysis
of
Mata
done
by
an
attorney
named
Christopher
F.
Lyon.
Christopher
F.
Lyon
Delves
into
Risks
of
ChatGPT
in
Legal
Field
for
NYLitigator,
GoldbergSegalla
(Oct.
24,
2023),
www.goldbergsegalla.com/news-and-knowledge/news/christopher-f-lyon-delves-into-risks-of-chatgpt-in-legal-field-for-nylitigator
(last
visited
July
18,
2025).
Mr.
Feldman
did
not
attribute
the
quote
to
this
article.
That
is
especially
concerning
considering
that
he
was
responding
to
an
Order
to
Show
Cause
why
he
should
not
be
sanctioned
for
his
erroneous
citations.
And
it
would
be
especially
concerning,
and
indeed
unacceptable,
if
Mr.
Feldman
used
a
large
language
model
to
draft
his
Response
without
verifying
whether
the
quotations
in
it
were
accurately
attributed.
Oh
no,
buddy,
no.
Nor
did
the
judge
accept
his
claim
that
losing
access
to
Casetext
caused
his
woes
and
managed
to
throw
in
another
barb
while
doing
so:
To
take
a
page
out
of
Mr.
Feldman’s
book,
this
is
so
much
“sound
and
fury,
[s]ignifying
nothing.”
William
Shakespeare,
Macbeth,
Act
V,
Scene
V,
Lines
30-31.
Mr.
Feldman
must
know
how
to
verify
that
a
case
exists
on
Westlaw
without
the
added
benefit
of
AI
tools.
He
claims
that,
going
forward,
he
will
undertake
certain
“remedial
efforts,”
including,
inter
alia,
“establish[ing]
…
database
reconciliation
procedures
involving
resolution
of
discrepancies
through
direct
consultation
of
archival
legal
resources
and
substitution
of
alternative,
verifiable
authorities
where
necessary.”
(Response
5).
Most
lawyers
simply
call
this
“conducting
legal
research.”
All
lawyers
must
know
how
to
do
it.
Mr.
Feldman
is
not
excused
from
this
professional
obligation
by
dint
of
using
emerging
technology.
Harsh
but
fair.
I
was
more
sympathetic
to
this
excuse
than
the
judge
because
there
is
a
population
of
mostly
small
firms
out
there
who
put
a
lot
of
eggs
in
a
basket
that
moved
beyond
a
paywall
that
they
might
not
be
able
to
afford.
In
the
movie
Grosse
Pointe
Blank,
John
Cusack’s
main
character
at
one
point
says
“that’s
not
an
excuse,
it’s
a
reason”
which
seems
apropos
here.
Of
course
the
lawyer
needed
to
check
the
work
again,
but
it’s
also
entirely
possible
that
he
thought
he
had
before
this
switch.
The
right
answer
would’ve
been
to
do
it
all
again,
but
at
least
you
can
see
how
it
happened
and
it’s
worth
getting
out
there
on
the
public
record
to
avoid
more
fallout
from
lawyers
impacted
by
that
change.
Hopefully
this
story
alerts
some
other
lawyer
to
this
risk
before
they
casually
hit
the
send
button.
Maybe
that
can
be
the
mark
upon
the
clay,
leaving
an
indelible
impression.
Meanwhile,
the
judge
reserved
the
issue
of
sanctions
pending
a
hearing,
but
based
on
this
order
one
suspects
Feldman
is
going
to
be
receiving
an
indelible
impression
from
the
judge
soon
enough.
(Order
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier:
Lawyer
Cites
AI
Hallucinations,
Responds
With
Pretentious
Meditation
On
Nature
Of
Being
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.