Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Green Globe International, Inc.

Docket entry 92, 12 November 2025 · source · PDF · 1 pages

Docket text. ORDER RESOLVING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - On October 27, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff and its counsel to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions against them for using fake, or "hallucinated," case citations in Plaintiff's reply brief filed in support of Plaintiff's motion for interim attorney fees. ECF 87 . The Court has closely read Plaintiff's response (ECF 88 ) and the accompanying declarations of Daniel P. Larsen (ECF 89), David J. Elkanich (ECF 90 ), and David A. Bernstein (ECF 91 ). The Court is satisfied with the remedial actions already taken and those proposed to be taken by Plaintiff's counsel and thus will not be imposing any formal sanctions. Signed on 11/12/2025 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 11/12/2025)

Simon, District Judge. On October 27, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff and its counsel to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions against them for using fake, or “hallucinated,” case citations in Plaintiff’s reply brief filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion for interim attorney fees. ECF 87.

Docket entry 88, 10 November 2025 · source · PDF · 12 pages

Docket text. Brief Response to Order to Show Cause by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Opinion and Order,,, Order to Show Cause,, 87 .) (Larsen, Daniel) (Entered: 11/10/2025)

Mr. Bernstein admits that he alone, and not GBI or GBI’s other attorneys, is responsible for the two hallucinated citations contained in the Fee Rep ly. Unlike other cases in which attorneys were san ctioned for misusing generative artificial inte lligence (“AI”), Mr.

Mr. Bernstein fully acknowledges that he failed to carefully review the Fee Reply and that, by su bmitting a filing containi ng fictitious cases, he vio lated Rule 11(b)(2). Mr.

24, 202 5), the attorney used gen erative AI to draft her re ply brief and did not review it prior to filing. (The attorney in Benjamin was ordered to pay $1, 000 in monetary sanctions.) In those circumstances, t he attorneys should have reviewed the cases cited because Generative AI’s tendency to hallucinate is well kno wn. Here, Mr.

Id. at ECF 30. Although the citation s are hallucinated, the argument is not frivolous It is worth pointing out that although the citations were fake, federal courts have awarded attorney fees immediatel y following the granting of the anti-SLAPP moti on instead of waiting until the conclusion of th e case. For example, in Englert v.

Docket entry 90, 10 November 2025 · source · PDF · 4 pages

Docket text. Declaration of David J. Elkanich . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Declaration 89 .) (Larsen, Daniel) (Entered: 11/10/2025)

I am thus aware that Mr. Bernstein utilized a generative artificial intelligence product, Microsoft Copilot, to help revise a portion of Plaintiff’s Reply brief in support of its Motion for Attorney’s Fees, which generated two hallucinated case citations that were included in the final Reply brief filed with the Court. 3.

Furthermore, wh ether or not using gene rative AI, Buchalter attorneys (as with all att orneys) should review b riefs and other court fili ngs, and confirm the accuracy of case citation s, before filing them with the court. Following ju st one of these steps could prevent the inadvertent inclusion of hallucinated cases in a brief. 6.

Docket entry 87, 27 October 2025 · source · PDF · 6 pages

Docket text. OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INTERIM ATTORNEY'S FEES AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Court DENIES without prejudice GBI's Fees Motion. ECF 75. The Court also ORDERS GBI to show cause not later than November 10, 2025, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11(b) for GBI's citation of hallucinated cases. In that filing, GBI also shall propose appropriate sanctions for GBI and its counsel, if the Court concludes that sanctions should be imposed. Signed on 10/27/2025 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (jp) (Entered: 10/27/2025)

2017). Stell, however, is totally fake; it is an “hallucinated” case. There is no case at 2022 WL 1696093.

GBI’s fake case citations appear to be hallmarks of a generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool, such as ChatGPT. For some time, it has been well known—and well-publicized— that generative AI tools “hallucinate” fake cases. See Kruse v.

2024) (noting, in February 2024, that the issue of fictitious cases being submitted to courts had gained “national attention”); see also Isabel Gottlieb & Isaiah Poritz, Legal Errors by Top AI Models “Alarmingly Prevalent,” Study Says, BLOOMBERG LAW (Jan 12, 2024) (explaining that, in a test examining more than 200,000 legal questions, AI researchers at Stanford University found that general-purpose large language models hallucinate at least 75% of the time when answering questions about a court’s rulings).

PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER Just as well-known are the ethical obligations of attorneys who choose to use generative AI when drafting court filings.1 This year, the Oregon State Bar explicitly warned attorneys that: The most obvious way in which a lawyer could run afoul of Oregon RPCs [Rules of Professional Conduct] 3.3 [Candor] and 4.1 [Truthfulness] is through the submission of and reliance on unverified and fictitious cases, citations, quotes, or conclusions generated by AI.

ECF 75. The Court also ORDERS GBI to show cause not later than November 10, 2025, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11(b) for GBI’s citation of hallucinated cases. In that filing, GBI also shall propose appropriate sanctions for GBI and its counsel, if the Court concludes that sanctions should be imposed.