In early 2025, two attorneys—Rafael Ramirez (Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. Hoosiervac LLC) and Norman Pattis (Erica Lafferty et. al. v. Alex Emeric Jones)—were sanctioned stemming from technology-related mistakes they made while representing clients in cases. 

In 2024, Ramirez filed three briefs citing non-existent caselaw obtained through generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). He then failed to properly verify the citations, partially because he was unaware that GenAI is prone to “hallucinate”—generating fictitious cases and citations. In its February 2025 opinion on sanctions, the court opined that, no matter the source, “the duty to ensure that any case cited is ‘good law’ is nearly as old as the practice of law.” The court recommended that Ramirez be personally sanctioned in the amount of $15,000 pursuant to FRCP 11. He was also referred to the Chief Judge for further disciplinary measures. 

Similarly, Pattis was found to have breached several rules of professional conduct related to the violation of a protective order after his client’s protected records, including privileged content, were inadvertently produced to opposing counsel without his client’s consent in 2022. The records were on a hard drive that was passed to several unauthorized users and ultimately an emailed link was sent to opposing counsel. The records were subsequently used at trial, to his client’s detriment. Even after he was notified about the inadvertent production, he failed to take required steps to “claw back” privileged records. The court determined that Pattis’ conduct was negligent because, as noted in the March 2025 Connecticut Superior Court decision, he failed to act “prudently.” Pattis received a two-week suspension from the practice of law. The previous trial court disciplinary order, which would have suspended Pattis from the practice of law for a period of six months, was vacated.

It is true that AI technology and electronic storage and transfer are invaluable resources for attorneys and can greatly expedite obtaining and transferring data. However, as these cases demonstrate, these benefits come with risks, and do not eliminate the need for attorneys to take the time necessary to perform proper due diligence—whether in verifying caselaw, or ensuring that data is properly secured, stored, and transmitted. Failure to do so may result in financial sanctions, reputational damage, and more.