"The First Tell Was the File Name of the Principal Brief: 'Cocounsel Skill Results'"
Summary
The Sixth Circuit, in U.S. v. Farris, identified significant issues with briefs filed by court-appointed criminal defense lawyer Howe, suspecting AI generation. The initial "tell" was the file name "CoCounsel Skill Results," referencing Westlaw's AI platform. The court discovered three citations containing purported direct quotations that did not exist in their cited sources, and found misrepresentations of holdings in United States v. Washington and United States v. Anthony. Howe admitted using CoCounsel AI, stating he was unfamiliar with its use for appellate briefs and acquired it in August 2025. He conceded the AI-generated errors resulted from his failure to adequately review and verify the draft. The court emphasized attorneys' ethical obligations to verify AI output and understand technology's pitfalls. Consequently, Howe will not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for this appeal, and the court referred him for disciplinary proceedings to the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Kentucky Bar Association.
Key takeaway
For legal professionals integrating AI tools like Westlaw CoCounsel into your practice, you must prioritize rigorous verification of all AI-generated content. Your ethical obligations of competence and candor demand that you personally scrutinize citations, quotations, and case holdings, even from trusted platforms. Failing to adequately review AI output, as seen in U.S. v. Farris, risks severe professional sanctions, wasted judicial resources, and harm to your client's case. Implement firm-wide policies and stay current with jurisdiction-specific AI guidelines to mitigate these risks.
Key insights
AI legal tools can produce fabricated citations and misrepresented case holdings, necessitating attorney verification.
Principles
- Attorneys must verify all AI-generated content submitted to courts.
- Ethical duties of competence and candor are tool-agnostic.
- Unfamiliarity with new technology does not excuse professional negligence.
Method
Attorneys using AI must review/validate content, consider disclosure/consent, safeguard client data, implement firm policies, ensure ethical billing, and stay current with guidelines.
In practice
- AI can generate non-existent quotations and misrepresent legal holdings.
- File metadata can reveal AI tool usage.
Topics
- Artificial Intelligence
- Legal Ethics
- Westlaw CoCounsel
- Citation Verification
- Judicial Sanctions
- Professional Responsibility
Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Legal Professional, AI Ethicist, Consultant
Related on AIssential
See Counsel's argued verdicts on the open AI decisions leaders are weighing →
Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Welcome to the Artificial Intelligence Incident Database.