*

Decisions contained details that did not match court

records

*

Mississippi order misidentified plaintiffs and defendants

*

New Jersey decision contained nonexistent quotes from

other

rulings

By Mike Scarcella

July 29 (Reuters) - Federal judges in Mississippi and

New Jersey have withdrawn written rulings in a pair of unrelated

lawsuits after lawyers in the cases said they contained factual

inaccuracies and other serious errors.

In the Mississippi case, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate

on July 23 replaced an order that he issued in a civil rights

lawsuit after lawyers for the state said in a court filing that

it contained "incorrect plaintiffs and defendants" and included

allegations that were not in the complaint.

On the same day in New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Julien

Neals withdrew a ruling he issued in a securities lawsuit after

defense attorneys told the court that the decision made factual

errors and included quotes that the lawyers said were not in the

cited cases.

A person familiar with the circumstances in the New Jersey

case said research produced using artificial intelligence was

included in a draft decision that was inadvertently placed on

the public docket before a review process.

A temporary assistant had prepared the research, the person

said, adding that the court's chambers has a strict policy

against the unauthorized use of AI to support opinions.

In both cases, the judges did not say in court filings how

the apparent errors were included in their decisions. The

lawyers, when they brought the issues to the judges' attention,

did not mention AI or other possible causes for the alleged

inaccuracies.

Senior officials in the New Jersey and Mississippi courts

and the lawyers in the cases who notified the judges about the

errors did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Other judges in a growing number of cases have sanctioned or

reprimanded lawyers for submitting court documents containing

fictional or erroneous citations and quotes that were produced

by misusing AI programs to research or draft case filings.

Attorneys are ethically bound to ensure the accuracy of

court filings, including by vetting documents prepared with the

help of AI or other technologies.

In the Mississippi case, Wingate on July 20 issued a

temporary restraining order that blocked state officials from

enforcing a ban on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in

state universities and public schools.

Lawyers for the state told the court that the decision

contained a number of inaccuracies. Among them, the attorneys

said the ruling "relies upon the purported declaration testimony

of four individuals whose declarations do not appear in the

record for this case."

Defense lawyers in the New Jersey case wrote to Neals on

July 22 to raise concerns about his decision, which denied their

motion to dismiss a securities lawsuit against pharmaceutical

company CorMedix ( CRMD ).

CorMedix's ( CRMD ) lawyers at law firm Willkie Farr said the

decision in three places misstated the outcomes of other

lawsuits that the ruling cited.

CorMedix ( CRMD ) also said the ruling attributed two quotes to

defendants that they are not alleged to have made.

Neals last week said in a notation on the court docket that

the opinion was issued in error and that he would issue a new

one.

While mistakes do occur in court opinions, legal experts

said the apparent errors in the two cases were unusual.

University of Arizona law school professor Keith Swisher,

who teaches legal ethics, said errors in legal filings are

likely to surface more frequently as courts and law firms

experiment with AI tools.

"These errors are going to come out if you don't pay very

careful attention to the output," Swisher said.

Read more:

Judge disqualifies three Butler Snow attorneys from case

over AI citations

AI 'hallucinations' in court papers spell trouble for

lawyers

Trouble with AI 'hallucinations' spreads to big law firms

US appellate judge calls bans on AI use by lawyers

'misplaced'