Docket entry 67, 13 August 2025 · source · PDF · 7 pages
Docket text. ORDER AND REASONS. ORDERED that Laci N. Hamilton is sanctioned personally for her conduct in this case in the amount of $1,000. This amount must be paid by Ms. Hamilton personally, and may not be paid for by her law firm or the Plaintiff. FUR THER ORDERED that the sanction is to be paid by 09/30/2025 at 5:00 p.m. as set forth herein. FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Hamilton attend 1 hour of Continuing Legal Education on the topic of Generative A.I. by 12/31/2025. Ms. Hamilton must file proof th at she attended this 1 hour of Continuing Legal Education with the Court by 12/31/2025. FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Hamilton is referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in accordance with the Eastern District's Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 08/13/2025.(ko) (Copy to EDLA Disciplinary Committee) Modified text on 8/13/2025 (ko).
Hamilton further wrote that she “now understands that Westlaw Precision incorporates AI-assisted research, which can generate fictitious legal authority if not independently verified.”19 On July 21, 2025, the Court ordered Plaint iff’s counsel to “provide the Court with the AI-assisted research history that resulted in the three citations at issue in the Motion to Transfer.”20 On July 22, 2025, Ms.
Hamilton under oath and question ed her regarding her usage of AI-assisted research.27 The Court asked Ms. Hamilton to explain the basis for her representation that Westlaw generated the fabricated citations. 28 Ms.
28 Ms. Hamilton stated that she “assumed” Westlaw was the origin of the fabricated citations because she does all of her research on Westlaw. Ms.
Ms. Hamilton agreed that Westlaw did not generate the fabricated citations. Ms.
9. 5 Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue, she di d not review her Westlaw research history to verify that Westlaw generated the fabricated citations. On July 28, 2025, the Court ordered that Ms.
Hamilton, who signed and filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue,37 did not verify that several of the legal contentions in the Motion to Transfer Venue were warranted by existing law.38 Ms. Hamilton violated Rule 11(b)(2) by citing to fabricated, AI-generated cases without verifying the accu racy, or even the existence, of the cases. 39 Furthermore, Ms.