Mike Lindell lawyers threatened by judge over briefs loaded with AI-generated fake cases

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Raw Story

April 25, 2025 6:52AM ET


A federal judge put My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell's lawyers "on notice" this week over nearly 30 citations in a legal brief submitted in a defamation lawsuit involving Eric Coomer, the former director of product security and strategy for voting technology supplier Dominion.

According to a report from KUSA's Kyle Clark, U.S. District Judge Nina Wang accused the attorneys for Lindell, who maintains the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump, of using generative AI to supplement the brief.

In her ruling, Wang wrote, "...the Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition. These defects include but are not limited to misquotes of cited cases; misrepresentations of principles of law associated with cited cases, including discussions of legal principles that simply do not appear within such decisions; misstatements regarding whether case law originated from a binding authority such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; misattributions of case law to this District; and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist."

As KUSA's Clark explained, Wang has threatened attorney Christopher Kachouroff and associated attorneys with the loss of their licenses and is demanding an explanation. Wang wrote in her show cause ruling, "Not until this Court asked Mr. Kachouroff directly whether the Opposition was the product of generative artificial intelligence did Mr. Kachouroff admit that he did, in fact, use generative artificial intelligence. After further questioning, Mr. Kachouroff admitted that he failed to cite check the authority in the Opposition after such use before filing it with the Court—despite understanding his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/lindell-dominion-2671843170/

---

More Absolute Idiocy (AI) use. It's NOT "ready for primetime".

[El Supremo]

1. Can't wait to see Jimmy Kimmel tonight!

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Some are just being pure lazy and using these AI tools, even through the use of them aren't 100% perfect yet, and the

tech is still (the bugs) are still being worked out, if ever. It takes time to work out these bugs yet some are racing ahead to use them.

[Attilatheblond]

8. Reckon hunting us some AI fairy tails is cheaper than hiring actual legal aides?

And, I thought Pillow Mike was so broke he couldn't afford bus fare. He has a legal team? Sounds sorta un-broke to moi.

[SWBTATTReg]

14. Really!

[BootinUp]

3. Couldn't happen to a better litigant and counsel. Nt

[erronis]

4. Once the sleaze starts its ooze everyone is coated in it.

Of course Lindell's lawyers are probably just high-cost ambulance chasers.

[nwduke]

5. Looks like Lindell

Has reached the bottom of the barrel for quality attorneys! I’m surprised anyone would represent him!

[Grins]

6. Why would a lawyer do this, esp. when his client admitted HE'S BROKE?

Risk your law license for Mike Lindell? Who’s broke?

What’s the ‘gain’ here?

[moniss]

9. The hope of some of the kinds of clowns is

that they will become darlings of the conservative talk circuit, get other cases, get hired by "foundations" etc. It's all about future gigs.

[Ms. Toad]

7. It will never be ready for prime time.

An attorney is always responsible for the legal and factual accuracy of anything they sign their name to and submit to court. That was true when they farmed it out to junior associates, or legal assistants, and it is true even if AI becomes competent enough to write briefs. It is still on the attorney if there are legal or factual lies.

[Turbineguy]

10. When your law practice hits rock bottom

you finish yourself off by getting Mike Lindell as a client.

[El Mimbreno]

11. But I thought trump...

was the one whose briefs are loaded...

But seriously, they thought they could get away with it?

[Eugene]

12. Perfectly plausible. Lawyer: write a brief supporting my client.

The AI can't do that without making stuff up.

[patphil]

13. There is no intelligence in AI.

It's just a program that harvests information from the internet, and puts it together in a way consistent with it's programing. It's fine for use in situations where the answer is easily deduced, and not very complex, like who did what, where and when.
Using it to put together a legal document for submission to a court is the height of laziness and stupidity. The AI program doesn't know how accurate, pertinent, or lawful these legal citations are, since it doesn't have an inherent understanding of the law, or the case at hand.
Using AI in this manner, amounts to legal malpractice; a failure to provide adequate defense for their client.
Please note, this is my opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a Masters Degree in Computer Science.
I see AI as helpful, but it's nowhere near far along in it's development to be used in the way it was in a courtroom.