Two US judges withdraw rulings after attorneys question accuracy

CorMedix

29/07/2025 17:54

Decisions contained details that did not match court records

Mississippi order misidentified plaintiffs and defendants

New Jersey decision contained nonexistent quotes from other rulings

By Mike Scarcella

July 29 (Reuters) - Federal judges in Mississippi and New Jersey have withdrawn written rulings in a pair of unrelated lawsuits after lawyers in the cases said they contained factual inaccuracies and other serious errors.

In the Mississippi case, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on July 23 replaced an order that he issued in a civil rights lawsuit after lawyers for the state said in a court filing that it contained "incorrect plaintiffs and defendants" and included allegations that were not in the complaint.

On the same day in New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Julien Neals withdrew a ruling he issued in a securities lawsuit after defense attorneys told the court that the decision made factual errors and included quotes that the lawyers said were not in the cited cases.

A person familiar with the circumstances in the New Jersey case said research produced using artificial intelligence was included in a draft decision that was inadvertently placed on the public docket before a review process.

A temporary assistant had prepared the research, the person said, adding that the court's chambers has a strict policy against the unauthorized use of AI to support opinions.

In both cases, the judges did not say in court filings how the apparent errors were included in their decisions. The lawyers, when they brought the issues to the judges' attention, did not mention AI or other possible causes for the alleged inaccuracies.

Senior officials in the New Jersey and Mississippi courts and the lawyers in the cases who notified the judges about the errors did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Other judges in a growing number of cases have sanctioned or reprimanded lawyers for submitting court documents containing fictional or erroneous citations and quotes that were produced by misusing AI programs to research or draft case filings.

Attorneys are ethically bound to ensure the accuracy of court filings, including by vetting documents prepared with the help of AI or other technologies.

In the Mississippi case, Wingate on July 20 issued a temporary restraining order that blocked state officials from enforcing a ban on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in state universities and public schools.

Lawyers for the state told the court that the decision contained a number of inaccuracies. Among them, the attorneys said the ruling "relies upon the purported declaration testimony of four individuals whose declarations do not appear in the record for this case."

Defense lawyers in the New Jersey case wrote to Neals on July 22 to raise concerns about his decision, which denied their motion to dismiss a securities lawsuit against pharmaceutical company CorMedix.

CorMedix’s lawyers at law firm Willkie Farr said the decision in three places misstated the outcomes of other lawsuits that the ruling cited.

CorMedix also said the ruling attributed two quotes to defendants that they are not alleged to have made.

Neals last week said in a notation on the court docket that the opinion was issued in error and that he would issue a new one.

While mistakes do occur in court opinions, legal experts said the apparent errors in the two cases were unusual.

University of Arizona law school professor Keith Swisher, who teaches legal ethics, said errors in legal filings are likely to surface more frequently as courts and law firms experiment with AI tools.

"These errors are going to come out if you don't pay very careful attention to the output," Swisher said.

Read more:

Judge disqualifies three Butler Snow attorneys from case over AI citations

AI 'hallucinations' in court papers spell trouble for lawyers

Trouble with AI 'hallucinations' spreads to big law firms

US appellate judge calls bans on AI use by lawyers 'misplaced'

 (Reporting by Mike Scarcella)

 ((Mike.Scarcella@thomsonreuters.com;))