Dastou v. Holmes

Robert Dastou v. Kathryn Holmes, Massachusetts Superior Court (Middlesex), June 25, 2025, Civil Action No. 2381CV02212 (Justice Keren Goldenberg). Copy of primary document: `~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-69-dastou-v-holmes.pdf` (3-page scanned Findings, Rulings, and Order Imposing Sanctions).

Defendant's counsel used ChatGPT to check spelling, grammar, and formatting of her motions in limine and proposed jury instructions, but ChatGPT altered the filings beyond that: citations to cases that do not exist, a quotation attributed to a real case that the opinion did not contain, misstatements of real cases' holdings, and a proposed jury instruction introducing a fictitious legal concept. The attorney said she was unaware ChatGPT could hallucinate and had not created an account that would have kept a history of her prompts.

Violation of the duties of competent representation and candor to the tribunal under Mass. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 and 3.3: "If a lawyer uses generative technology, they may not blame errors in their work product on the technology." The court endorsed counsel's self-imposed sanction of not billing her client for the motions and court time, and as an additional sanction ordered her to complete MCLE's online program "How to Draft Civil Jury Instructions When a Model One Does Not Exist: The 60-Minute Lawyer" within six months and submit a sworn statement of completion. The order does not name counsel. Source URL: the primary PDF (Charlotin documents archive: /documents/585/Dastou_v._Holmes.pdf, https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/585/Dastou_v._Holmes.pdf).

Understand what an AI tool can change beyond your instructions before letting it touch court filings. Keep prompt histories so you can audit what the tool did. Verify every citation and quotation after any AI processing, even for "formatting only" tasks.

• damiencharlotin.com: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/585/Dastou_v._Holmes.pdf