Docket entry 24, 9 July 2025 · source · PDF · 10 pages
Docket text. ORDER. The Court hereby ORDERS that a penalty of $1,000 is imposed on Mr. Desmarais, and that payment shall be made within fourteen (14) days of this Order to the Clerk of the Court. The Court further ORDERS that that Mr. Desmarais shall file proof of 1) completion a CLE-credited program related to the use of artificial intelligence in legal writing; and 2) service of this Order on Petitioner by September 1, 2025. The Court further ORDERS that the Motion to Strike, Dkt. 23 , is DENIED as moot. The Court further ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci on 7/9/2025. (mab)
INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s counsel Dennis Desmarais (“Mr. Desmarais”) used artificial intelligence to draft a submission before this Court, and that sub mission contained fabricated quotations from cited legal authorities. See Dkt.
No. 15, contains several fabricated quotations. For example, in arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in DHS v.
Again, though Landon v. Plasencia is indeed a Supreme Court decision, the cited quotation does not exist. 459 U.S.
During that hearing, the Court asked Mr. Desmarais to explain the presence of the fabricated quotations. Mr.
Mr. Desmarais admits that he “was aware at the time that AI tools are known to ‘hallucinate’ or fabricate legal citations and quotations[.]” Id. Finally, Mr.
15 at 6. But again, the quoted language does not exist in Wong Wing. 5 sources and phraseology[,]” and has enrolled in a CLE course specifically addressing the ethical use of AI in legal practice.
2024). Indeed, courts in this Circuit have not hesitated to find that the submission of fabricated legal authority resulting from the use of artificial intelligence is sanctionable conduct. See id.; see also Benjamin v.
No. 22 at 1 (“Counsel respectfully and apologetically acknowledges that he used artificial intelligence software in drafting por tions of a submission to this Court, and that said su bmission contained machine fabricated legal quotations.”); id. at 3 (“counsel acted in this instance without safeguarding against such ‘hallu cinations’ as he rushed to ma ke the filing deadline”). Mr.