John R. Walker of Jones Fussell LLP said in a declaration filed in Louisiana federal court on Thursday that he was responsible for preparing a brief opposing a motion to dismiss in the case with the assistance of AI products, but he didn't know the technology's limitations or the risk of hallucinations.
"I was new to using these tools and did not appreciate the limitations of and potential pitfalls in using such tools, including the risk that ChatGPT would 'hallucinate' and generate fabricated case citations, provide inaccurate or misleading holdings, or would generate quotations where none existed in reported cases," Walker said.
Walker, alongside fellow Jones Fussell attorney Thomas H. Huval, serves as counsel for LSU Health Foundation New Orleans. The other plaintiff, Woodward Harbor LLC, is represented by Michael R.C. Riess and Johanna E. Lambert of Riess LeMieux LLC.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long threatened sanctions against the firms. Among the many reasons behind his decision to dismiss the suit challenging the city of Mandeville, Louisiana's decision to vote against a mixed-use development was the law firms' brief containing numerous AI-hallucinated citations to nonexistent case law, he said.
Judge Long said that the decision to completely ignore a number of arguments in the opposition brief stemmed from the findings that both firms signed off on a document that included citations to made-up Second and Fifth Circuit case law to back their equal protection claims. Despite being made aware of the errors, they declined to make an attempt at correcting the brief, he added.
In his declaration, Walker said he used Westlaw Precision AI and ChatGPT to write the filing.
Walker noted that, while he shared the draft with Huval, he was on a trip without cellphone service and didn't have time to review the document. In his own declaration, Huval verified this statement and said that he also did no research and didn't write any of the document.
Walker said he copied Riess and Lambert on the drafts, but he knew the responsibility of verifying the accuracy of the citations fell on him. He added that he only sought input as to the filing's format and structure.
In their response to the order to show cause, Riess and Lambert said that attorneys at Riess LeMieux have worked with Jones Fussell and its attorneys for decades.
Riess and Lambert also said that Jones Fussell took the lead on the filing and, given their relationship and experience, had no concern about the filing's quality. There was also no discussion that AI would be used to draft pleadings, and Riess LeMieux said it did not use AI at any time as part of its work on the suit.
Lambert reviewed the joint opposition for form and argument structure and told Walker that she could not find some of the cases in the Rule 12 motion. Walker acknowledged her email and, after Lambert reviewed the draft for form and argument structure and revisions to correct what she thought was a copy and pasting error from another brief, Riess conducted a review of the final draft before filing.
Walker said in his declaration that on the day the defendant filed its reply, he underwent lumbar fusion surgery and failed to note defendant counsel's comments regarding the errors his filing contained.
Walker took sole responsibility for the AI issues in the joint opposition and said that his good faith belief that his filing accurately set forth the law applicable to the case does not excuse his failure to check all case citations, holdings and quotations before filing.
Walker apologized to the court and said that if he uses AI in the future, he will review and verify its accuracy and pledged that this issue won't happen again.
In his declaration, Huval said he found out about the AI usage and issues when Judge Long issued the order to show cause earlier this month. He said that if he had known about it, he would've done whatever was necessary to alert the court and all counsel of the mistakes.
Huval also apologized, and like Walker, said he read the American Bar Association's formal opinion regarding an attorney's use of generative AI tools. He added that the firm is in the process of instituting guidelines for using such tools.
Riess LeMieux apologized as well, and said in its declaration that the firm is taking remedial measures, including plans to conduct mandatory training for its attorneys on the use of AI in research and drafting briefs. The firm added that it will not rely on its experience with co-counsel without verifying the substance of the briefs in the future.
Steven F. Griffith Jr. of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, who serves as counsel for Riess and Lambert, told Law360 on Friday that they stand by their submission to the court, as well as Walker's submission.
The Jones Fussell attorneys and attorneys for Mandeville did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Woodward Harbor LLC is represented by Michael R.C. Riess, Hannah M. Marler and Johanna E. Lambert of Riess LeMieux LLC.
Riess and Lambert are represented by Steven F. Griffith Jr., Brian M. Ballay, Matthew S. Chester and Myles H. Sonnier of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC.
LSU Health Foundation New Orleans is represented by John R. Walker and Thomas H. Huval of Jones Fussell LLP.
Walker and Huval represent themselves.
The city of Mandeville is represented by Paul M. Adkins and Clare M. Bienvenu of Liskow & Lewis APLC and James Lee Breaux of Breaux Law LLC.
The case is Woodward Harbor LLC et al. v. City of Mandeville et al., case number 2:23-cv-05824, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
--Additional reporting by Adrian Cruz. Editing by Nicole Bleier.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.