PA Judge Sanctions Litigant for Misuse of AI
By James K. Jones, Esq
On August 28, 2025, Judge Karoline Mehalchick sanctioned a pro se plaintiff for citing a non-existent case hallucinated by an artificial intelligence (AI) source.[1] Upon notice by the defendant that a Third Circuit opinion cited in plaintiff’s brief could not be found, Judge Mehalchick issued a rule to show cause relating to the suspect citation. Plaintiff admitted that it was generated by AI in an apparent mix-up between a plaintiff in one case and a defendant in another case. Plaintiff’s claim that the cited authority was from another similarly titled case was debunked by the Court as the cited language in the “proper” case did not exist.
The Court found two violations in this unmonitored use of AI. First, the litigant violated Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires all legal contentions to be warranted. Second, the undisclosed use of AI violated the judge’s Standing Order which sets forth procedures when AI is used to draft a submission to the Court. A third consideration for practitioners would be Pennsylvania’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) [Candor Toward the Tribunal] which prohibits the making of a false statement of law to a tribunal.
Judge Mehalchick’s Standing Order regarding the use of generative AI observes the following:
Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Generative AI (including, but not limited to, OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Bard), in the practice of law raises a number of practical concerns for the Court, including the risk that the generative AI tool might generate legally or factually incorrect information, or that it might create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations.[2]
The Standing Order further references Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association entitled Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence.[3]Despite these safeguards, Judge Mehalchick opined that “Rule 11 does not prohibit the use of generative AI, however, it does require parties to verify that they are not submitting briefs to the Court which rely on fictitious cases.” She therefore concluded that Courts may impose financial sanctions on litigants who fail to conduct reasonable diligence to ensure that cases cited by generative AI searches exist and stand for the position they are cited for.
There are several takeaways from this opinion. It is said that AI will not replace lawyers, but lawyers using AI will replace lawyers who do not.[4] In fact, Comment 8 to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 [Competence] requires lawyers to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill by keeping abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. However, we have been down this road before. Most attorneys have migrated from written letters to email, but we check the email before sending it (right?). Few attorneys would sign and submit a document prepared by an associate or paralegal without reviewing it first. And how many of us have found opposing counsel citing a headnote without reading the entire decision? This is just a horse of a different color. The use of assistants, human or not human, is not new and the same safeguards applied previously will get us through these challenges if consistently applied. Used with the appropriate guiderails, generative AI can free an attorney from repetitive, often unbillable, work to concentrate on more productive and billable work for clients that AI cannot perform. It will require supervision of the human kind, and a check on the judge’s website that you are before, but otherwise the choice is yours. Remember though, opposing counsel and judges are aware of generative AI and looking out to ensure that it is used properly. Otherwise, sanctions (financial and professional) may follow.
[1] Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton, 2025 WL 2484188, No. 3:24-CV-2237 (M.D. Pa., 2025)
[2] J. Karoline Mehalchick, Judges Information—Use of Generative AI, https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-karoline-
[3] https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf
[4] https://www.thelawyermag.com/nz/news/general/ai-wont-replace-lawyers-rather-lawyers-using-ai-will/484837
