Tri-Cities attorney sanctioned over suspected AI ‘hallucinations’ in court filing

A Richland attorney has been sanctioned by a federal judge in Arizona for filing a court document that the judge said was filled with errors that appeared to be “hallucinations” created by artificial intelligence.

“... well over the majority of the citations provided to this court in plaintiff’s opening brief were fabricated, misleading or unsupported,” the judge said in her order.

The attorney, Maren Bam, is the owner of Salus Disability, located at The Fuse Business and Community Accelerator in Richland. Her nationwide practice specializes in Social Security disability filings and appeals.

The company’s website says it is one of the fastest-growing Social Security disability appeals firms in the country and was founded on the principles of innovation and efficiency without a brick and mortar presence.

Among the sanctions under the Arizona judge’s order, Bam is required to notify judges on her other cases about the issues in the Arizona case. The case is an appeal of a decision made by the Social Security Administration for a woman there.

Bam’s current cases include 14 in Western Washington, eight in Eastern Washington and three in Oregon, according to a search of a federal court document filing system.

A copy of the court order by U.S. Judge Alison Bachus also will be sent to the Washington State Bar Association, should it want to take action, according to a court document.

The order removes Bam as the attorney for the case at issue in Arizona and removes the document in the case that the judge said appeared to be filled with errors generated by artificial intelligence.

In addition, Bam must notify three judges to whom the court document allegedly attributed fictitious legal cases.

The judge raised issues July 22, alleging that a court document signed by Bam referred to court cases that did not exist, at least not in the District of Arizona as claimed, and cases that did not support the point for which they were cited.

On Aug. 14, the judge issued sanctions after Bam submitted her explanation for the issues.

Bam’s explanation was not made publicly available in an electronic federal court document system, and Bam did not immediately respond to requests for comment left at her company.

Contracted attorney writer

Of the 19 citations to other court cases that Bam used to provide the legal standing of her arguments in her initial filing, five to seven of the cases existed and appeared to be quoted from correctly or to refer to the matter for which they were cited, the judge found.

Bam told the court that she was the owner and the signing attorney of the firm that brought the federal lawsuit.

She said that she would screen incoming cases for merit and then the firm’s managing paralegal would assign documents to be written to contracted attorneys.

The briefs they wrote would be reviewed by an on-staff supervising attorney to ensure it is legally sound, Bam told the court. Then Bam would review and edit documents for submission to the court, according to a court document.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bam was responsible for the information in the faulty document, because she was the attorney that signed it, according to the judge.

The judge concluded that Bam “failed to conduct any review whatsoever that those cases were valid or that the arguments she was making were legally tenable.”

While Bam acknowledged her responsibility as the signing attorney, she also deflected responsibility with other statements, such as that the “inclusion of improper citations was unintentional,” the judge said.

“(Her) decision to completely cede the accuracy of her brief to other lawyers was intentional,” the judge wrote. “Her subsequent decision to signify accuracy by signing her brief, when she clearly had not verified its contents was intentional.”

In Bam’s response to the court before the sanction was imposed, she said “I did not know that AI was likely used, much less misused,” according to the judge.

However, that defense rings hollow, said the judge in a court document.

AI pitfalls known

The pitfalls of using AI are well known in the legal profession, according to the judge.

The attorney who was contracted to write the document at issue was sent an announcement from a different U.S. court district that warned that AI-generated arguments and citations to non-existent cases could result in “sanctions to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.”

Bam’s practice also told the writer that courts were “cracking down” on its use, according to a court document.

Despite that warning and Bam’s knowledge about at least one court’s admonishment regarding AI and verification of citations, Bam took no discernible steps to verify the accuracy of her filing, the judge said.

Bam has implemented new procedures to ensure the issue does not recur, including an AI policy, according to a court document.