AI Citation Failures Reach Big Law: Injury Firm Attorneys Face Sanctions Over Fake Cases
The legal profession’s ChatGPT reckoning has escalated beyond small-firm missteps. In a striking example of how AI can lead lawyers into a whole lot of mess, attorneys at Morgan & Morgan—the nation’s largest injury law firm with over 1,000 lawyers—now face potential sanctions for citing eight fabricated cases in a Wyoming federal court filing.
The incident, reported by David Lat in his Original Jurisdiction substack blog, echoes the 2023 Levidow, Levidow & Oberman sanctions but strips away the excuse of limited resources, highlighting systemic risks in AI reliance.
The Case: Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc.
On January 22, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel filed motions in limine citing nine cases, eight of which were unlocatable in court records or legal databases. Only United States v. Caraway (10th Cir. 2008) proved valid. Defense counsel alleged ChatGPT generated the phantom citations, including fictitious rulings like Meyer v. City of Cheyenne with fabricated Westlaw identifiers.
Judge Kelly Rankin’s February 7 order demands attorneys Rudwin Ayala (Morgan & Morgan), Taly Goody (Goody Law Group), and Timothy Michael Morgan (Morgan & Morgan) produce valid copies of the cases by February 10 or face sanctions under Rule 11, § 1927, and the court’s inherent authority.
Why This Matters
- Scale vs. Scrutiny: Morgan & Morgan’s vast resources—unlike the Levidow firm’s Westlaw access struggles—make this lapse harder to justify. The firm ranks #42 in the Am Law 100 by headcount, yet oversight gaps enabled unflagged errors.
- AI’s Double-Edged Sword: While tools like ChatGPT aid efficiency, the Wyoming case underscores the non-negotiable need for verification. As former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget McCormack noted on the AAAI Podcast, unchecked AI use risks “setting the profession back” by eroding judicial trust.
- Broader Precedent: Judge Rankin cited Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023)—where ChatGPT hallucinations led to sanctions—as a template for accountability. Courts are increasingly mandating sworn declarations explaining AI use in filings.
Lessons for Lawyers
What lessons can lawyers learn from this – other than to check, double-check and check citations again, when using AI for their case submissions?
- Verify, Then Trust: Cross-check AI-generated citations against authoritative platforms like Westlaw or LexisNexis. Even the Tenth Circuit’s Caraway citation here was valid—but buried among fabrications.
- Supervision Protocols: With three attorneys named in the order, firms must clarify roles in drafting and review. The court requires each lawyer to detail their involvement by February 13.
- Ethical Guardrails: The ABA’s Model Rule 1.1 (competence) and Opinion 498 (technology ethics) mandate understanding AI limitations.
The Road Ahead
For firms, this case is a wake-up call: no practice size insulates against citation negligence.
Big law firms are continuing to explore new applications of AI and new legal tech developments are being announced with regularity.
- Firms are using AI for summarization, transcription, contract analysis, and even associate evaluations, with custom AI tools also being tailored for specific needs by law firms.
While AI is transforming legal work at big firms like Morgan & Morgan, there’s a clear emphasis on using it as a tool to enhance human expertise rather than replace it. Morgan & Morgan, for instance, are reportedly users of practice management tool Litify to grow their practice to the pre-eminent size it is today. They also have an “AI Center of Excellence” to ensure the AI outputs are accurate.
But not on this occasion. The case David Lat reported is a more-than-sober reminder of the perils of not having tools to verify AI citations – and any other AI-generated submissions or contract provisions.
LawFuel will monitor filings for the attorneys’ February 10 and 13 responses.
Sources: Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., ECF No. 150 Judge Rankin’s Order to Show Cause The American Lawyer 2024 Rankings AAAI Podcast: AI in Legal Practice Mata v. Avianca, 2023 WL 3696209
