Isaacs v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
The case
Isaacs v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 3:25-cv-13626 (GC) (JBD) (D.N.J.), sanctions order (Document 15) filed November 3, 2025. Federal district court. Copy of primary document: `~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-104-isaacs-v-novartis.pdf`.
What happened
Attorney Brian M. Cige filed a brief containing two nonexistent cases that his client had supplied from ChatGPT. He presented them to the court without verifying they existed or supported his arguments.
The rule and the sanction
Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found a Rule 11 violation but imposed no monetary sanction; it ordered Cige to certify in writing within 30 days that he completed the October 7, 2025 Porzio, Bromberg & Newman seminar on AI use in legal practice.
How it could have been avoided
(a) Never paste client-provided research into a filing without independent verification. (b) Check every case cited in a primary legal database before signing. (c) Complete AI-competence training before using or relying on generative AI output, as the court ordered Cige to do after the fact.
---