Pro se defendants' improper AI use in Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn
A New York Supreme Court found that pro se defendants in a wage and labor dispute used an unspecified AI system to generate multiple court filings that contained hallucinations, fabricated case citations, and illogical statements, resulting in wasted court time and judicial inefficiency.
What happened
Pro se defendants Barry Itzkowitz and Boris Itzkowitz, defendants in a wage and labor law case, used an AI system to generate numerous motions and memoranda of law filed with the court.
The court identified at least five AI hallucinations or inaccuracies in one of the defendants' memoranda of law supporting their seventh motion, including a fabricated citation to Graziano v. County of Nassau. The memoranda contained nonsensical and illogical statements.
Reported impact
The improper AI use required the court and plaintiffs' counsel to expend significant time and energy reading the defendants' papers, fact-checking case law citations, and responding to the filings.
The court noted that the defendants' use of AI impeded the legal system and hindered efficient judicial processes.
Index analysis
The court observed that the defendants' misuse of AI mirrored similar issues identified in prior case law, specifically referencing Whaley. The defendants' numerous motions, some illogical in nature, demonstrated improper AI use.
Governance controls
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with its rules regarding AI use, which were promulgated to prevent misuse and preserve the integrity and functioning of the legal system.
The court stressed that attorneys and pro se litigants must not improperly use AI and must affirm the accuracy of information provided to the court.
Classification
Sources and evidence
Sources not yet published
This record was researched and written by the Index from original reporting. Its sources are still being verified by an editor, and they are listed here once that check is complete. Until then the record carries no reviewer.