Tricia S. Lindsay, legal professional for plaintiff Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty, responded to 2 motions to dismiss by submitting a pair of memoranda of regulation that cited to quite a few nonexistent instances. In response, the Courtroom ordered Lindsay to point out trigger why she shouldn’t be sanctioned for her deceptive filings. Upon consideration of Lindsay’s response to those orders, we discover that she ought to be sanctioned within the quantity of $2,500.00 ….
[T]wo briefs have been signed by Lindsay, and every contained various fabricated citations. After we say “fabricated,” we don’t imply citations that arguably comprise typographical errors—for instance, Lindsay’s citations to instances that exist and help the propositions for which they have been cited however will not be positioned within the quantity or on the web page of the reporter (or database identifier) given. Equally, we exclude any in any other case appropriate citations that give the incorrect case title. We additionally exclude these situations the place the cited case covers the identical matter because the proposition for which it’s cited however the place the case’s holding is totally mischaracterized, though such a quotation is itself grossly deceptive and maybe deserving of sanctions.
As an alternative, we think about solely citations to instances that can’t be positioned in any respect by title—or that weren’t positioned the place Lindsay mentioned they have been and don’t have anything to do with the propositions for which they have been cited—thus displaying that the citations have been utterly made up. The next are descriptions of among the fabricated citations [listing seven items -EV] ….
Lindsay’s response to being alerted to the fabricated citations didn’t comply with the everyday sample in instances the place courts have referred to as upon attorneys to elucidate the presence of fabricated citations of their papers. The Courtroom’s first OSC [Order to Show Cause] particularly ordered Lindsay to supply “an entire and detailed description of the method of the drafting of the 2 memoranda of regulation.” Whereas most attorneys present such a proof, which frequently includes an admission of reliance on synthetic intelligence (“AI”) platforms, Lindsay’s temporary sworn assertion in response provides solely ethereal generalities and conclusory statements. Her response incorporates no coherent rationalization for a way the 2 memoranda of regulation got here to comprise the fabricated citations. Essentially the most fundamental questions—most clearly: what was the supply of the fabricated citations?—are by no means answered.
Thus, Lindsay states merely that she “comply with[s] a structured and diligent course of designed to make sure accuracy, thoroughness, and compliance with all relevant authorized and moral requirements.” Bizarrely, she then discusses her “typical” course of for drafting briefs with out particularly testifying that this was the precise course of she adopted in drafting the memoranda of regulation at subject on this case. The clear implication of her assertion, nevertheless, is that her “typical” course of was adopted on this case; in any other case, there could be no motive to say it. Lindsay states that she “manually cross-check[s] case names, docket numbers, and reporter citations towards the first sources in authorized databases” and verifies that “the authorities cited help the propositions for which they’re referenced.” Lindsay’s competition that these actions occurred on this case are clearly false, nevertheless, as a result of a “guide[ ]” test of any of the fabricated citations would have immediately proven that every quotation was pretend or inaccurate. Thus, whereas Lindsay’s response acknowledges that eleven citations are inaccurate, she gives no rationalization of how these citations got here to be included within the memoranda of regulation.
At one level, Lindsay states that citations to “nonexistent instances” resulted from “typographical errors, misreading of secondary sources, or limitations within the search performance of authorized databases.” Along with being conclusory, this rationalization is not sensible inasmuch as Lindsay by no means exhibits how “typographical errors, misreading of secondary sources, or limitations within the search performance of authorized databases” produced the “nonexistent instances” cited to within the memoranda of regulation. And, in any occasion, no rationalization is product of how Lindsay’s “guide[ ]” test didn’t reveal the nonexistent instances.
At one other level, Lindsay emphasizes that she relied on “established authorized analysis platforms.” However that clearly didn’t happen right here, as there isn’t a proof that any “established” authorized analysis platform generates or incorporates fabricated citations, or that an “established” authorized analysis platform someway provided the fabricated citations within the memoranda of regulation. Tellingly, in her preliminary response, Lindsay by no means even named what “authorized analysis platforms” she used to draft the memoranda of regulation and thus by no means specified which one provided her with the fabricated citations.
In gentle of the entire lack of proof to help the declare that any “established” authorized analysis platform might have provided these citations, we reject this competition. Consequently, there stay solely two believable explanations for the supply of the fabricated citations in Lindsay’s memoranda of regulation: an individual who intentionally created them realizing they have been fabricated or an AI system. Lindsay by no means claims that she had the help of any individual in drafting the memoranda of regulation. On the contrary, her declaration states:
I’m solely answerable for the analysis, drafting, and evaluation of the memoranda at subject. Whereas I make the most of authorized analysis databases and quotation administration instruments to help in my work, I don’t delegate these core tasks to others. No different particular person or laptop system performed a substantive position within the drafting course of past using normal authorized analysis and phrase processing software program.
Denying she had any human assist, Lindsay thus asks that Courtroom to simply accept a proposition that’s completely devoid of proof: that an “established” authorized analysis platform created the fabricated citations.
In her response to Hirshowitz’s submitting, Lindsay for the primary time states that she “routinely makes use of Lexis Nexis[‘s] … AI-driven options,” after which states that the fabricated citations “could very effectively have been generated by the Lexis Nexis software program through the analysis part.” The response, nevertheless, is devoid of any specifics as to what Lexis Nexis’s “AI-driven options” she used, how they truly provided any of the false citations, or any examples the place Lexis Nexis’s “AI-driven options” have provided fabricated citations.
{In her response to the Courtroom’s second OSC addressing the applicability of Rule 11, Lindsay continued her failure to explain how the fabricated citations ended up in her temporary. As an alternative, she said that “the quotation errors at subject weren’t the results of any intent to mislead the Courtroom or opposing counsel” however slightly “have been remoted and inadvertent errors that occurred regardless of good religion efforts to make sure accuracy.” She additionally states that she “reli[ed] on know-how that isn’t resistant to error” with out specifying that know-how.}
We thus discover that Lindsay used an AI program that generated the fabricated citations within the memoranda of regulation and that Lindsay did not test that these citations have been real….
“[C]ourts on this [C]ircuit have repeatedly discovered that presenting AI-generated hallucinations as legitimate caselaw constitutes subjective unhealthy religion.”
Lindsay’s unhealthy religion can also be mirrored in the truth that she failed to supply the “full and detailed description of the method of the drafting of the 2 memoranda of regulation” and “detailed and full description of the position of any particular person or laptop system that was concerned within the drafting course of” required by the Courtroom. Her obfuscation displays an entire lack of acceptance of duty, however her assertion that she “deeply remorse[s] the errors that occurred” and her declare to have “taken all affordable steps to deal with and proper them.” Furthermore, her different representations to the Courtroom constantly decrease her actions. See Resp. at 9 (“Quotation errors, whereas regrettable, will not be unusual in advanced litigation.”); Lindsay Aff. ¶ 6 (“These errors … mirror the inherent challenges of authorized analysis and quotation in advanced litigation, notably when working beneath time constraints and with voluminous information.”); Supp. Resp. at 4 (“The quotation errors acknowledged by Ms. Lindsay have been the results of an harmless oversight within the evaluation course of, compounded by reliance on know-how that isn’t resistant to error.”). Even when Lindsay had meaningfully apologized or accepted duty for her conduct, “remorse and apologies will not be essentially sufficient to keep away from the imposition of sanctions for the submission of non-existent authorized authority.” Right here in fact we’ve got no actual acceptance of duty….
Lindsay’s unhealthy religion is additional mirrored in the truth that she filed papers with false citations on two events after the Courtroom issued the OSCs.
First, two months after the primary OSC, she filed a quick in the US Courtroom of Appeals for the Second Circuit that contained two fabricated citations….
Second, in October 2025, Lindsay filed objections to a Report and Suggestion issued by the undersigned that addressed the motions to dismiss filed by defendants. In a quick filed in opposition to the objection, Hirshowitz’s counsel identified that Lindsay’s objection contained eight false, pretend, or “hallucinated” citations. These suspect citations have been described at size and intimately.
In response, Lindsay said that she was withdrawing the “particular … citations contained inside [the objection] that protection counsel has claimed violate Rule 11” whereas on the identical time asserting that she was doing so “with out admission of legal responsibility.” In different phrases, Lindsay once more did not come clean with her errors or give any rationalization of how they occurred. We’ve examined the eight citations in Lindsay’s authentic objection recognized by Hirshowitz’s counsel and concur that they’re in some instances utterly fabricated.
Lindsay’s repetition of the identical mistake makes it not possible to credit score her competition that the faulty citations don’t “mirror a sample of disregard for skilled obligations” and “have been remoted and inadvertent errors that occurred regardless of good religion efforts to make sure accuracy.” Lindsay represented that she “has taken steps to additional strengthen her evaluation protocols to make sure accuracy going ahead.” These unspecified efforts have turned out to be utterly insufficient….
Deterrence is paramount right here, given Lindsay’s stubborn refusal to elucidate how the citations got here to be included in her briefs. We imagine {that a} advantageous of $2,500 will function an applicable deterrent, together with a requirement that she provide to her shopper a replica of this Opinion and Order. Moreover, it will be significant that different courts concentrate on Linsday’s repeated misconduct, which calls into query filings she has made. Thus, the Courtroom directs that Lindsay provide a replica of this Opinion and Order to the presiding decide in every pending case the place she seems as legal professional of file via a letter filed on the docket and served on opposing counsel….
