The recent ruling by the Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals imposed a $10,000 penalty on an O’Fallon man, Jonathan Karlen, who utilized artificial intelligence to fabricate nearly two hundred false quotes in a legal brief, causing unnecessary delays and disruptions to the court proceedings.
Karlen, along with other plaintiffs, was contesting a judgment requiring them to compensate Molly Kruse, an employee involved in his blogging business, over $311,000 for various financial obligations in a St. Charles County case.
Judge Kurt Odenwald highlighted numerous errors in Karlen’s appeal brief, such as omissions and formatting issues that could typically result in the dismissal of an appeal. Odenwald specifically criticized the use of artificial intelligence to generate misleading content, deeming it an unjustifiable waste of resources and grounds for sanctions.
The court expressed serious concerns over the substantial amount of fictitious citations in Karlen’s brief, with only a small fraction being authentic. Furthermore, the judge scrutinized Karlen’s misrepresentation of legal authorities and statutes without legal representation.
Kruse’s attorney, Bridget Halquist, promptly identified the false citations upon reviewing the appeal brief, emphasizing the discrepancies between Karlen’s claims and legal reality. The attorney underscored the importance of accuracy and compliance with the law in legal arguments.
Legal expert Jim Layton highlighted the significance of this case as the first instance in Missouri where a party was penalized for fabricating quotes using artificial intelligence. He noted the growing concern in various states regarding the misuse of AI in legal contexts.
The lawsuit stemmed from Kruse’s unpaid wages and related damages from her tenure at Karlen’s business, Indigo Three Limited. The court’s ruling mandated substantial financial compensation to Kruse, including unpaid wages, damages, and legal fees.
Karlen’s admission of inadvertently using an AI application to generate the misleading content was acknowledged by the court but deemed insufficient to rectify the situation. Despite his apology, the court emphasized the severity of filing a brief containing false information and the breach of candor obligations.
The court’s decision to impose penalties in this case reflects the gravity of misrepresenting legal facts, signaling a need for heightened diligence in legal submissions, especially in the context of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.
Legal experts anticipate potential rule changes mandating thorough verification of citations and disclosure of AI-generated content in legal submissions to uphold accuracy and integrity in the legal system.
