A federal judge in New Jersey fined a Fort Lee lawyer $3,000 for submitting fake case law generated by artificial intelligence, one of several recent examples of misuse of AI in the courtroom.
On Sept. 18, Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte fined attorney Sukjin Henry Cho $3,000 after finding he submitted fake case law in a court filing—material he later admitted came from an AI tool.
“Unfortunately, attorneys’ use of generative AI without proper oversight has become a prevalent issue for courts across the country,’” Almonte wrote.
“AI can generate a legal proposition that appears to come from a judicial opinion and is even properly cited under The Bluebook Uniform System of Citation; but there is just one problem—it’s not real,” the judge added. “AI made it up. And those who rely on AI blindly, do so at their own peril.”
In court, lawyers often support their arguments by pointing to past case decisions made by other judges that help show how the law should apply.
These references need to be real and relevant, because judges rely on them to make fair rulings.
But when attorneys use artificial intelligence tools without checking the results, they run the risk of using made-up cases that look real but don’t actually exist.
These fake citations can mislead the court and violate professional standards.
Cho explained his actions in a written statement to the court saying that he used generative AI tools to help with legal research, along with some searches in the LexisNexis legal database.
He blamed the mistakes on tight deadlines and scheduling issues, and said he has now put in place stricter checks and internal procedures to make sure this doesn’t happen again.
While the court found Cho’s conduct negligent, it acknowledged his “prompt admission and honest disclosure, apologies to the court, and assertion that he will immediately implement safeguards against future AI misuse.”
Almonte pointed to six other incidents where attorneys used AI to create fictitious case law, which resulted in sanctions ranging from $1,000 to $6,000.
“Mr. Cho’s remorse does not completely excuse his lack of diligence,” Almonte wrote, “but the mitigating factors lead the court to conclude that a fine of $3,000.00 is sufficient to deter this conduct in the future.”
The judge ordered Cho to pay the fine within 14 days, serve the order on his client, and self-report the sanctions to the disciplinary authorities of the state bars where he is licensed.
Cho declined to comment on the ruling.
Colleen Murphy may be reached at [email protected].
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.