When AI Takes the Wheel
- Office of DGL
- Aug 1
- 2 min read
When the wheels need to plow through a pro se pleading replete with AI-generated filings, it can feel like driving a bus on a sandy beach, where progress is a struggle, momentum stalls, and every movement requires extra effort.
In U.S. Bank v. Richmond, Judge Woodcock of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, responding to post-trial briefing, placed the responsibility on the defendant to show cause for any misuse of authorities. Chief Judge Walker of the U.S. District Court of Maine further clarified in Taitt v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. that the that the District of Maine will not tolerate erroneous statements of law:
“I strongly suspect Plaintiffs’ frivolous and incorrect filings are borne of a misuse of generative artificial intelligence. While the use of such a tool is not forbidden, filing erroneous statements of law ‘is an abuse of a litigant’s access to the judicial system and the Court treats it seriously.’ U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Richmond, No. 2:21-cv-00208-JAW, ECF No. 22, at 16.” Taitt v. SPS et al., No. 2:25-cv-00008-LEW, ECF No. 100, at 7, Aug. 20, 2025.
The growing trend of AI misuse is an issue we are witnessing in real time. As Judge Walker reminds us:
“Under Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil procedure, Plaintiffs must certify upon the filing of any motion that it is ‘not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the costs of litigation,’ and that their ‘claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).” Taitt v. SPS et al., No. 2:25-cv-00008-LEW, ECF No. 100, at 7, Aug. 20, 2025.
Judge Walker also warned:
Failure to follow Rule 11 “can result in sanctions designed to ‘deter repetition of the conduct,’ including ‘nonmonetary directives,’ payment of penalties to the Court, or an order to pay the opposing party’s attorney fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).” Taitt v. SPS et al., No. 2:25-cv-00008-LEW, ECF No. 100, at 7, Aug. 20, 2025.
These decisions provide a clear path for holding even pro se defendants accountable for inaccurate or deceptive court filings. Under Rule 11, every filing requires a certification of truth. Court pleadings should be accurate, not a maze for judges and opposing counsel to untangle.
Judges Woodcock's and Walker’s rulings underscore the importance of accuracy, diligence, and accountability in legal practice. Whether filings are drafted by attorneys or with the assistance of technology, the responsibility rests squarely with the filer to ensure that every authority cited is valid and correct.
At Doonan, Graves & Longoria, LLC, we remain committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in all filings before the Court. At the wheel, DGL steers clients through complexity, including AI challenges, and delivers results.
Comments