A New York federal judge has set a new standard for lawyers using artificial intelligence (AI) to draft court filings, ruling that the repeated misuse of AI by one attorney constitutes an abuse of power. Steven Feldman, who used multiple AI programs to review and cross-check citations in his filings, had attempted to justify his actions as an effort to improve the efficiency of legal research.
However, judge Katherine Polk Failla was not convinced, labeling Feldman's methods "redolent of Rube Goldberg" and stating that verifying case citations should never be a job left to AI. She found Feldman to have failed to fully accept responsibility for his mistakes, despite repeated warnings from the court.
In her ruling, Failla terminated the case and entered default judgment for the plaintiffs, ordering Feldman's client to disgorge profits and return any stolen goods in their remaining inventory. The judge also imposed sanctions on Feldman, including an injunction preventing additional sales of stolen goods and refunding every customer who bought them.
Feldman had claimed that AI did not write his filings, but Failla accused him of dodging the truth and failing to provide accurate information about his research methods. She noted that he had failed to make eye contact with her during the hearing and left without clear answers.
The ruling highlights the growing concern among judges about lawyers using AI to draft court filings, which can lead to fake citations, misrepresentations, and other forms of misconduct. Failla's decision is seen as a stern warning to attorneys who attempt to abuse this technology to evade their professional obligations.
Failla emphasized that "most lawyers simply call conducting legal research an ordinary part of the job," and that Feldman was not excused from his professional obligation by relying on emerging technology. She concluded that Feldman had repeatedly and brazenly violated Rule 11, which requires attorneys to verify the cases they cite, despite multiple warnings.
The ruling has sparked a wider debate about the role of AI in legal research and the need for greater transparency and accountability among lawyers who use this technology.
However, judge Katherine Polk Failla was not convinced, labeling Feldman's methods "redolent of Rube Goldberg" and stating that verifying case citations should never be a job left to AI. She found Feldman to have failed to fully accept responsibility for his mistakes, despite repeated warnings from the court.
In her ruling, Failla terminated the case and entered default judgment for the plaintiffs, ordering Feldman's client to disgorge profits and return any stolen goods in their remaining inventory. The judge also imposed sanctions on Feldman, including an injunction preventing additional sales of stolen goods and refunding every customer who bought them.
Feldman had claimed that AI did not write his filings, but Failla accused him of dodging the truth and failing to provide accurate information about his research methods. She noted that he had failed to make eye contact with her during the hearing and left without clear answers.
The ruling highlights the growing concern among judges about lawyers using AI to draft court filings, which can lead to fake citations, misrepresentations, and other forms of misconduct. Failla's decision is seen as a stern warning to attorneys who attempt to abuse this technology to evade their professional obligations.
Failla emphasized that "most lawyers simply call conducting legal research an ordinary part of the job," and that Feldman was not excused from his professional obligation by relying on emerging technology. She concluded that Feldman had repeatedly and brazenly violated Rule 11, which requires attorneys to verify the cases they cite, despite multiple warnings.
The ruling has sparked a wider debate about the role of AI in legal research and the need for greater transparency and accountability among lawyers who use this technology.
I gotta say, it's wild how Feldman tried to spin his over-reliance on AI as a way to improve efficiency, when really he was just finding ways to skate around his responsibilities 
. The judge's ruling is like a big ol' warning sign for all the other lawyers out there: if you're not willing to put in the work and verify your citations yourself, then maybe you shouldn't be using AI at all 
.
. The fact that he didn't even make eye contact with the judge during the hearing is just another red flag 
. This whole thing has got me thinking: what's next? Are we gonna let lawyers just start using AI to draft entire contracts or something? 
. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. So, the guy Feldman is basically saying that AI does all the work for him when it comes to citation research? That's wild. I get that he wanted to be more efficient, but shouldn't that just mean doing the research himself instead of relying on a machine? It's not like AI is gonna write a whole essay or something 
.
.
.
, but lawyers still need to put in the effort to understand what they're doing, you know? It's not just about slapping some AI-generated text together and hoping for the best 
.
. I mean, he had multiple warnings from the court and still kept trying to weasel out of it 
. So, yeah, lawyers might want to think twice before relying too heavily on AI in their research 
.
... Feldman was like trying to pass off someone else's homework as his own, no biggie 
. Judges are right to step in - we need to keep our word on citations and references or the whole justice system falls apart 
. More transparency is a must, so everyone knows when AI is being used and why 
. Can't let lawyers try to game the system with fancy tools 
... 10/10 agree with Judge Failla 
)
. And then he had the nerve to claim he wasn't using AI to write his filings? That's just not adding up 
. Judge Failla was totally right to call him out on it and shut down the whole thing 
. It's like she said, most lawyers are just trying to do their job to the best of their ability, but Feldman was being super reckless 
. Now he's gonna have to face the music and deal with some serious sanctions 
.
- if Feldman can't be bothered to put in the real legwork, he shouldn't be able to pass off someone else's AI-generated work as his own. And another thing, if he wasn't being upfront about how he was using the technology, that's just dishonest and unprofessional.
We need to make sure our lawyers are still doing their due diligence, even if it means getting a little messy with some old-fashioned research.
. I don't know about you guys but this whole thing just feels like a giant red flag waving in the air... we need some serious accountability here 
.
. I can see why the judge was all over him, labeling his methods as "Rube Goldberg" style 
. It's not even about being efficient, it's about actually doing your job right 
.
. Like, if you're gonna use AI to help with research, own up to it! Don't try to pass it off as just "good old-fashioned hard work" 
. It's time to get real about transparency and accountability in the legal world 
! Like, who needs fake citations and misrepresentations in court filings? Not me, that's for sure 
.
), I know how frustrating it can be to deal with someone who thinks they're above the law because of some fancy tech. Newsflash: using AI to draft court filings is NOT an excuse for laziness or dishonesty 
. Feldman's failure to do so is just basic lawyer etiquette fail 
.
.
It's not about being more efficient, it's about doing things right. Judges are right to crack down on this kind of thing - we need to make sure our lawyers are using AI in a way that complements their skills, not replaces them. The whole Rube Goldberg machine idea just doesn't cut it... 
what were you even thinking?! Using AI to draft court filings without properly verifying case citations? That's just a recipe for disaster 
.
.
i mean its kinda cool that she's standin up for what shes right about though transparency and accountability are def the way to go 
. It's about time we have some clarity on this topic, so I'm all for it