Federal judge rips 'lazy' lawyers for filing motions with 'blatant AI slop'

Courts across the US have increasingly come down on lawyers' use of AI-generated material in filings.

Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images

• A Texas federal judge blasted three defense attorneys for filing motions with "blatant AI slop."
• He called it "lazy lawyering and a prime example of the inherent dangers of lawyers relying on" AI.
• The attorneys filed a motion that disclosed the use of a generative AI tool.

A Texas federal judge eviscerated a defendant's lawyers for filing what he called "frivolous" court briefs filled with "blatant AI slop," saying that most law students could craft better motions.

In an order denying Khalwinder Singh Bhengura's request to be released from custody ahead of his sentencing in a voting-related criminal case, US District Judge Mark Pittman blasted his arguments as "mostly generated by artificial intelligence" and legally flawed.

Pittman wrote that he was "disturbed" by Bhengura's attorneys' "repeated filings which subtly bend the law by proffering superficially persuasive but fundamentally meritless arguments so clearly generated by artificial intelligence."

"Defendant is not a pro se litigant; he has three counsel of record with decades of practice between them," the judge wrote in the Wednesday order. "It is distressing to see how quickly the advent of artificial intelligence has undermined counsels' ability to properly advocate for their client."

Bhengura, who according to court papers is a 70-year-old Indian native and lawful permanent resident of the US, was convicted last month of a felony count of false statements of citizenship in order to register to vote and a misdemeanor count of voting by an alien in a federal election.

His attorneys — Mario Herrera, Nicole Knox, and Vincent Rene Carrizales — filed a motion asking for his immediate release pending sentencing.

In the motion, which disclosed that portions were prepared "with the assistance of a generative artificial intelligence tool," the lawyers argued that because sentencing guidelines recommend zero to six months in prison, Bhengura should be exempt from pre-sentence detention.

The judge called the arguments made in the motion "an abysmal reading of the statute" and said its "tortured statutory analysis" was "so tone-deaf that only artificial intelligence could advance it."

"Defendant's citation is lazy lawyering and a prime example of the inherent dangers of lawyers relying on artificial intelligence to draft their briefs," Pittman wrote.

The judge said the filings "raise serious questions" about the three defense lawyers' ability to practice law and said that he would sanction them, but lacked time on his docket to schedule a hearing before Thanksgiving.

Pittman also said that he sympathized with prosecutors in the case who he said have had to contend with "defense by ChatGPT."

"The Court is exhausted by these antics," the judge wrote, warning that any further "waste of the Court and Government's limited resources" could lead to sanctions, including a ban on practicing law in the Northern District of Texas.

Business Insider reached out to the three attorneys for comment on Thursday. Knox, the lead attorney on the case, told Business Insider in an email that she and her co-counsel strove to follow every rule set forth by the judge — "from the United States Constitution and Code to his specific court rules" — including a local rule requiring the disclosure of the use of AI in briefs.

"We have nothing to hide. AI could never create our novel approach to the argument presented," Knox said, adding that the lawyers "will not stand for disrespect, arbitrary application of local rules and federal law, or name-calling."

Herrera said in an email that he stood by the arguments made in the motions and explained each brief was written, reviewed, and finalized by him.

He said the local rule pertaining to AI "does not prohibit the use of such tools, nor does it classify the use of such tools as misconduct."

"For decades lawyers have used templates, forms, and other types of drafting software," said Herrera, who also pushed back on the judge's characterization that the briefs were "frivolous."

"None of those issues were frivolous. The fact that the court disagreed with my argument on any of those issues is not misconduct, it is what courts do every day and why there is a court of appeals," Herrera said.

Meanwhile, courts across the US have increasingly come down on lawyers' use of AI-generated material in filings, with some cases resulting in sanctions.