AI in the Courtroom: A Cautionary Tale from St. Louis

Richard Hunsaker and Michael Hall from Heyl Royster’s St. Louis office recently faced a unique challenge: defending a malpractice case where the opposition’s legal filings appeared to be AI-generated. Two plaintiffs, both proceeding pro se, initiated the suit, claiming damages of $15 million. In response to a Motion to Dismiss, the pro se plaintiffs submitted an Opposition Memorandum that, while polished, cited non-existent case law or false legal authorities.

Richard and Michael swiftly responded with a motion to strike with a prayer for relief, meticulously listing the false citations and requesting sanctions to deter future computer-generated pleadings. When the case reached the judge, it was revealed that both St. Louis County and the Missouri Supreme Court are developing rules to prohibit such activities. Ultimately, the plaintiffs chose to dismiss their own case after learning the seriousness of submitting false authority, despite claiming to be dealing with a lawyer, even after submitting a series of texts that appeared to have been communicated with a bot.

🔎 Lesson Learned: As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, it’s crucial to scrutinize legal filings—especially those from unrepresented parties—for signs of automation: fake citations, legal misstatements, and disconnected narratives. Heyl Royster is closely monitoring these developments as new rules are enacted in Missouri and beyond.