EDITED BY:
Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor
PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
PUBLICATION DATE: March 31, 2026
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 3
FEATURE ARTICLE: AI & Sanctions
One of the most puzzling effects of the introduction of generative AI into current law practice is the number of lawyers who continue to use AI without proper safeguards against so-called hallucinations and submit documents to courts that provide the court with fictitious citations. At the time of writing this article, there are well over 1,000 reported instances of such submissions, and the number continues to grow.
The submission of such a document to a court may implicate both disciplinary rules and court-ordered sanctions. For sanctions, federal judges often focus on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11:
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
. . .
ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Articles on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
1.) Douglas B. Ammar, et al., The Lawyer as Active Participant in Public Life, 76 Mercer L. Rev. 1103 (2025).
Lawyers have taken part in the public life of the United States at every level since the birth of the nation. This article comments on that.
2.) Kyle Rozema, Hiding Lawyer Misconduct: Evidence from Florida, 22 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 318 (2025).
3.) Albert Yoon, In the Eye of the Beholder: How Lawyers Perceive Legal Ethical Problems, 22 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 345 (2025).
These two articles examine empirical evidence about ethics in practice. The more we can base ethical rules on actual practice, the better.
A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Blast from the Not so Distant Past
Remember, your AI intern, though incredibly fast and knowledgeable, is not flawless. It is crucial to keep a critical eye on and treat the AI as a tool that works for you. By defining its persona, engaging in a collaborative editing process, and continually providing guidance, you can take advantage of AI as as a form of collaborative co-intelligence.
— Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI 60 (Portfolio 2024).
Anyone using or planning to use AI in law practice—as well as anywhere else—needs to understand the basics of AI use. Ethan Mollick’s book is a great way to learn those basics. The world of AI technology is moving so fast, and most two-year-old books are already outdated. Professor Mollick’s book will be useful for years, if not decades.
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 3
About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.
We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.
When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.
