We’ve all heard the hype about artificial intelligence’s capabilities to do the heavy lifting in the legal world, but a recent faceplant by a Biglaw firm shows how far we still have to go.
In yet another case of an attorney failing to check the work performed by AI, Gordon Rees — a firm that brought in $759,869,000 gross revenue in 2024, putting it at No. 71 on the Am Law 100 — found itself apologizing profusely to a judge and all parties affected, saying its attorneys were “profoundly embarrassed” after submitting a bankruptcy filing that was riddled with “inaccurate and non-existent citations.”
Reuters has additional details on this benchslap brought on by an AI-handicapped court filing:
Gordon Rees and some of its lawyers submitted the filings ahead of a hearing scheduled for Tuesday before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Hawkins in Montgomery[, Alabama].
Hawkins in August had asked the firm and Cassie Preston, the lawyer representing creditor Progressive Perfusion, to explain why they should not be sanctioned after submitting a filing with what the judge called “pervasive inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated citations, quotations, and representations of legal authority.”
Gordon Rees — a firm with 1,800 lawyers that has an office in every state in the country — is now one of the largest law firms (joining K&L Gates on this front) to face potential sanctions over the misuse of AI.
In response to the court’s order to show cause, Preston said that while she “did not personally use generative AI to prepare the filing, she was aware that generative AI was used.” She went on to ask that the court “show mercy,” further stating that “[t]here can be little doubt that [she would] lose her job and source of income for her family because of her actions in this matter.” At this time, Preston’s profile is still available on the Gordon Rees site.
For its part, Gordon Rees said it had updated its AI policies to include a “cite checking policy,” and would accept any sanctions the court imposed.
This should be a cautionary tale for all lawyers and law firms — artificial intelligence can certainly speed things up, but it can in no way replace the fundamentals of law practice. Robust human oversight is still needed when it comes to AI usage, because as Gordon Rees just learned, when you submit something to a judge, it needs to be based in fact, not hallucination.
Large US law firm apologizes for AI errors in bankruptcy court filing [Reuters]
Staci Zaretsky is the managing editor of Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Bluesky, X/Twitter, and Threads, or connect with her on LinkedIn.