In the case of Gardner v. Combs, No. 2:24-CV-07729, 2025 WL 3632704 (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2025), the plaintiff’s attorney was sanctioned due to the attorney’s use of a nonexistent case and fabricated legal propositions that were derived from generative, artificial intelligence (“AI”) and used in support of brief submitted to the Court. A nonexistent case that is created by AI is considered to be, and called, “hallucinated”.
What Happened in Gardner v. Combs: AI-Generated Case Law and Rule 11 Sanctions
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) requires that an attorney “certif[y] to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances … (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” The Court uses a “reasonableness under the circumstances” standard to determine whether a Rule 11 violation has occurred. Sanctions under Rule 11 requires only negligence, not bad faith, as it is an important tool to deter litigation misconduct. Lawyers can be sanctioned for what they should have known, not just what they knew. Intent is not required, but it is relevant to determining the severity of sanctions. The purpose of Rule 11 is to deter repetitive conduct or similar conduct by others rather than penalize. Courts have imposed monetary fines ranging from $1,000 to $6,000, among other sanctions, for attorneys who have violated Rule 11.
How the Court Found a Rule 11 Violation
The Court found that the plaintiff’s attorney plainly violated Rule 11 by using a hallucinated case; the attorney admitted same. The Court highlighted that the attorney was notified by opposing counsel in its submission that the citation was questionable. The plaintiff’s attorney was directed to provide opposing counsel and the Court with a copy of the hallucinated case along with an explanation for the erroneous citation, and when counsel failed to do so, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned. Counsel previously failed to respond to opposing counsel’s inquiries as to the citation. Plaintiff’s attorney raised some personal hardships, which are not detailed in the opinion.
Certifying a submission without conducting an adequate citation check is the negligent conduct that Rule 11 was intended to prevent. The attorney was noted to have reviewed his brief again in preparing for oral argument on the underlying issue, yet still failed to correct the hallucinated case. The attorney violated Rule 11 by using the hallucinated case and due to his subsequent failure to communicate with respect to the Court’s follow up inquiry.
Sanctions Imposed for Using Hallucinated AI Case Law
A sanction on the higher end was warranted due to a pattern of behavior by the attorney. The attorney was previously admonished by several courts for his lack of diligence and misstatements of law in asserting claims as well as failing to comply with governing rules and practice norms. The attorney was fined $6,000 and was required to self-report the Court’s opinion and order along with the underlying order to show cause to the appropriate licensing entities in New Jersey and New York. The attorney also was required to serve copies of everything on his client and discuss the implications with her.
What This Decision Means for Attorneys Using Generative AI
As AI becomes ubiquitous in our society, it is critical to ensure, especially at these early stages of use, that what you rely upon is accurate. There are many examples of attorneys using hallucinated AI case law in papers submitted to the Court. There is no excuse for relying on what generative AI provides to you without first verifying the veracity of what was supplied. Not only will it cost you monetarily, it will also cost you professionally, not to mention the embarrassment of explaining to your client what you did. Attorneys should ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place for their firms when it comes to the use of AI. AI can be a tremendous tool for attorneys, as long as it is used properly.