Counsel’s use of inaccurate artificial intelligence (AI) information in defendant’s appellate briefs; An attorney’s “baseline ethical obligations” when using AI; Whether counsel fell short of his obligations under Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.3; Possible discipline under Sixth Circuit Local Rule 46

The court removed defendant-Farris’s appointed appellate attorney and denied him payment for his work on the appeal after he admitted to using AI to draft Farris’s appellate briefs and filing them without properly verifying the citations. The attorney was appointed to represent Farris in the district court and authorized to continue representing him in appealing his sentence. The attorney admitted to having “staff” use Westlaw’s internal artificial-intelligence platform (CoCounsel) to draft Farris’s principal and reply briefs and to filing them without properly verifying the citations. This resulted in “multiple misrepresentations of law” to the court. It noted that it had detected the use of AI when reviewing the briefs, and that the investigation of the citations showed three that were “problematic.” Although the citations referenced genuine legal authorities, the purported direct quotations did not appear in them. The court also was unable to find the “same or substantially similar language” as the quotations in other relevant legal authority. Further, the briefs “misrepresented the holdings in” two of the cases cited. The court directed the Clerk to issue a show-cause order requiring the attorney to provide a copy of his cited authorities and to explain any discrepancies. He admitted to being unfamiliar with CoCounsel and failing to properly review the briefs. The court noted his previously clean record and “his candor in acknowledging his improper use of” AI. But it reiterated an attorney’s “baseline ethical obligations as they relate to the use of” AI. It made clear that “attorneys who rely on artificial intelligence must remain diligent in supervising their work product and carefully examine the accuracy of every citation they present to” the court. The attorney’s “reliance on ‘staff’—rather than himself or another attorney—to supervise the artificial-intelligence-generated work product fell short of his obligations as attorney of record.” It concluded that the misconduct here warranted appointing different appellate counsel for Farris. It also denied the attorney payment for time spent on Farris’s appeal, and referred the matter to the Sixth Circuit’s Chief Judge to consider disciplinary action under Sixth Circuit Local Rule 46. And it ordered the Clerk to serve a copy of its opinion to the Chief Judge and Clerk of the district court and to the Disciplinary Clerk for the relevant bar association.