Case D-59 · AI Sanctions Case Tracker

Park v. Kim

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, January 30, 2024

The case

Park v. Kim, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, January 30, 2024, 91 F.4th 610. Copy of primary document: `~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-59-park-v-kim.pdf`.

What happened

Attorney Jae S. Lee admitted that she used ChatGPT for case identification after failing to find a decision supporting her argument. ChatGPT suggested a decision that did not exist, and Lee cited it in her reply brief without reading or confirming the case. When the court ordered her to furnish a copy of the decision, she had to concede it was a "non-existent case."

The rule and the sanction

Violation of the attorney's Rule 11 duty to read and confirm the existence and validity of cited authorities, 91 F.4th at 615. The Second Circuit referred Lee to its Grievance Panel and ordered her to furnish the court's decision to her client so the client could evaluate her conduct. Source URLs: the primary PDF (Charlotin documents archive: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/243/Park_v._Kim_US_2nd_Cir._CA_January_30_2024.pdf); Reason/Volokh coverage of the referral: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/30/second-circuit-refers-lawyer-for-disciplinary-proceedings-based-on-ai-hallucinated-case-in-brief/printer/.

How it could have been avoided

Never cite a case you have not opened and read. When an AI tool suggests authority, verify the citation in Westlaw, Lexis, or a free alternative like CourtListener before quoting it. If ordered to produce a cited decision, comply promptly and candidly rather than defending a phantom source.

Sources