Skip to Content
logologo
AI Incident Database
Open TwitterOpen RSS FeedOpen FacebookOpen LinkedInOpen GitHub
Open Menu
Discover
Submit
  • Welcome to the AIID
  • Discover Incidents
  • Spatial View
  • Table View
  • List view
  • Entities
  • Taxonomies
  • Submit Incident Reports
  • Submission Leaderboard
  • Blog
  • AI News Digest
  • Risk Checklists
  • Random Incident
  • Sign Up
Collapse
Discover
Submit
  • Welcome to the AIID
  • Discover Incidents
  • Spatial View
  • Table View
  • List view
  • Entities
  • Taxonomies
  • Submit Incident Reports
  • Submission Leaderboard
  • Blog
  • AI News Digest
  • Risk Checklists
  • Random Incident
  • Sign Up
Collapse

Report 5572

Associated Incidents

Incident 114526 Report
MyPillow Defense Lawyers in Coomer v. Lindell Reportedly Sanctioned for Filing Court Document Allegedly Containing AI-Generated Legal Citations

Loading...
MyPillow CEO’s lawyers fined for AI-generated court filing in Denver defamation case
coloradosun.com · 2025

Afederal judge ordered two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to pay $3,000 each after they used artificial intelligence to prepare a court filing that was riddled with errors, including citations to nonexistent cases and misquotations of case law. 

Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster violated court rules when they filed the motion that had contained nearly 30 defective citations, Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court in Denver ruled Monday.

"Notwithstanding any suggestion to the contrary, this Court derives no joy from sanctioning attorneys who appear before it," Wang wrote in her ruling, adding that the sanction against Kachourouff and Demaster was "the least severe sanction adequate to deter and punish defense counsel in this instance." 

The motion was filed in Lindell's defamation case, which ended last month when a Denver jury found Lindell liable for defamation for pushing false claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. 

The filing misquoted court precedents and highlighted legal principles that were not involved in the cases it cited, according to the ruling. 

During a pretrial hearing after the errors were discovered, Kachouroff admitted to using generative artificial intelligence to write the motion.

Kachouroff initially told the judge that the motion was a draft and was filed by accident. But the "final" version that he said was the correct one was still riddled with "substantive errors," including some that were not included in the filed version, Wang wrote. 

It was the attorneys' "contradictory statements and the lack of corroborating evidence" that led the judge to believe that the filing of the AI-generated motion was not "an inadvertent error" and deserved a sanction.

The judge also found Kachouroff's accusation of the court trying to "blindside" him over the errors were "troubling and not well-taken."

"Neither Mr. Kachouroff nor Ms. DeMaster provided the Court any explanation as to how those citations appeared in any draft of the Opposition absent the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness by counsel," Wang wrote.

Kachouroff and DeMaster did not immediately return a request for comment Monday.

Read the Source

Research

  • Defining an “AI Incident”
  • Defining an “AI Incident Response”
  • Database Roadmap
  • Related Work
  • Download Complete Database

Project and Community

  • About
  • Contact and Follow
  • Apps and Summaries
  • Editor’s Guide

Incidents

  • All Incidents in List Form
  • Flagged Incidents
  • Submission Queue
  • Classifications View
  • Taxonomies

2024 - AI Incident Database

  • Terms of use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Open twitterOpen githubOpen rssOpen facebookOpen linkedin
  • e1b50cd