AI Sanctions: Latest York Ruling Highlights Legal Risks of Generative AI

A recent decision in Suffolk County, New York, Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C., is serving as a cautionary tale for attorneys utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Justice Linda Kevins imposed sanctions totaling $10,000 against two attorneys and their firm for submitting a legal brief containing inaccurate citations and potentially plagiarized content generated with the assistance of AI. The ruling underscores the ethical obligations of lawyers to diligently review AI-generated work and maintain professional competence.

Background of the Case

The case, Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C., involved a lawsuit brought by Michele Cassata against Michael Macrina Architect, P.C., stemming from the collapse of a residence. The plaintiff alleged flawed design and failure to adhere to industry standards. The dispute centered around affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, which the plaintiff sought to strike from the record.

The Sanctions Hearing and Findings

Following allegations that the defendant’s opposition papers contained plagiarized content and inaccurate citations, a sanctions hearing was held on December 22, 2025, after a show cause order was issued on December 9, 2025. Justice Kevins found that defense counsel violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, including:

• Duty of Competent Representation (Rule 1.1): The court determined that submitting papers with fabricated case citations and unsupported legal propositions constituted a lack of competent representation.
• Duty to Keep Abreast of Technology (Rule 1.1, Comment [8]): The supervising attorney was found to have failed to adequately understand and oversee the technology used by their team.
• Duty to be Diligent (Rule 1.3) and Duty Regarding Non-Meritorious Claims (Rule 3.1): Copying sections from a third-party brief without proper review and tailoring the arguments to the specific case facts violated these rules.
• Duty of Candor to the Tribunal (Rule 3.3): Failing to promptly correct inaccurate information submitted to the court breached the duty of candor.
• Duty of Supervision (Rule 5.1): The supervising attorney and the firm were faulted for insufficient oversight of the submission.

Sanctions Imposed

As a result of these findings, Justice Kevins ordered the following sanctions:

• Each of the two attorneys involved was fined $1,000, payable to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection.
• The law firm, Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, was ordered to pay $8,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to the plaintiff’s counsel.

Key Takeaways and Implications

This case highlights the critical need for lawyers to exercise caution and diligence when using AI tools in legal work. While AI can be a valuable resource for research and drafting, it cannot replace the lawyer’s responsibility to verify information and ensure the accuracy of legal submissions. The court emphasized that attorneys must not simply rely on AI output without “meaningful review.”

The ruling serves as a clear warning that the legal profession is entering a new era where understanding and responsibly utilizing AI is paramount. Attorneys must stay informed about the capabilities and limitations of these technologies and prioritize ethical obligations above speed and convenience.

As stated in the ruling, the “AI train has arrived” and lawyers must adapt to this new reality.