One attorney drafted brief at center of sanctions hearing; others cite limited review, involvement
Lawyer says he did not appreciate ‘pitfalls’ of using ChatGPT
NEW ORLEANS — In a case that underscores the growing risks tied to the use of generative artificial intelligence in the legal profession, attorneys representing the developers behind the failed Sucette Harbor project filed sworn responses this week in federal court, addressing a judge’s order requiring them to explain why they should not be sanctioned for submitting a brief containing fabricated case citations.
In separate filings, attorney John R. Walker acknowledged using AI tools — including ChatGPT — to help draft the opposition brief at issue.
Two co-counsel, Michael R. C. Riess and Johanna Elizabeth Lambert, who also signed the filing said they were unaware AI had been used and argued they reasonably relied on the attorney who prepared the document.
A fourth attorney, Thomas H. Huval, filed a separate declaration stating he did not draft, sign or submit the opposition brief and was out of the office without internet access during the period it was prepared. Huval said he was unaware that artificial intelligence had been used, expressing regret over the filing.
The responses were submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana after Judge Brandon S. Long directed four attorneys to show cause why they should not face sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
The responses can be downloaded here: Walker, Riess and Lambert, and Huval.
Related: Judge dismisses all Sucette Harbor lawsuits…
Drafter admits using AI tools
In his sworn declaration, Walker, a partner at Jones Fussell LLP and co-counsel for LSU Health Foundation, stated that he used “WESTLAW Precision AI and ChatGPT” in preparing the Joint Opposition to the City of Mandeville’s motion to dismiss.
Walker wrote he was “new to using these tools” and did not appreciate the risk that generative AI systems could produce fabricated case citations, inaccurate holdings, or quotations that did not exist in reported decisions. He said he failed to independently verify all case citations and quotations, required under Rule 11.
“I sincerely apologize to the Court and to counsel for all parties for the problems I created by filing a brief with false AI generated content,” Walker wrote, adding that he accepts responsibility and pledging not to rely on generative AI tools to produce legal authorities without independently confirming their accuracy.
Walker further stated that verification of citations “rested solely with me.”
Co-counsel deny knowledge of AI use
Riess and Lambert, who signed the filing on behalf of Woodward Harbor LLC, submitted a separate response stating they neither used artificial intelligence nor knew it had been used.
They said their role was limited to a “high-level review” of form and argument structure under a division of labor between the two firms, with Jones Fussell taking the lead on drafting the zoning and land-use arguments. They acknowledged receiving a draft the afternoon before it was due and conceded they did not independently verify every case citation.
Riess and Lambert argued that reliance on experienced co-counsel can satisfy Rule 11’s requirement of a reasonable pre-filing inquiry. They also said they retained legal ethics expert Dane Ciolino, who concluded their conduct was objectively reasonable, and stated that their firm has since implemented new internal safeguards governing the use of artificial intelligence in legal drafting.
Sanctions hearing set
Judge Long previously dismissed all claims in the Sucette Harbor lawsuit with prejudice and, in the same order, cited “hallucinated case citations, incorrect quotations, and false summaries of cases and legal rules” in the plaintiffs’ opposition brief.
The court ordered Walker, Riess, Lambert and Huval to file written explanations and to appear in person at a sanctions hearing scheduled for Feb. 24 in New Orleans.
The judge will determine whether the attorneys violated Rule 11, which requires lawyers to ensure that legal arguments are warranted by existing law and supported by a reasonable inquiry before filing.
Possible sanctions can range from public admonishment to monetary penalties or other disciplinary measures.
The Sucette Harbor litigation stemmed from the Mandeville City Council’s 5-0 vote in September 2023 rejecting the proposed mixed-use lakefront development. All federal claims in the case have now been dismissed.
-30-
Mandeville Daily 