Post by Kathryn Tewson / Redsky

There’s a transcript of the OTSC hearing, but it’s on PACER restriction for another month, nnnghhhh

jul 24, 2025, 1:36 pm • 44 1 • view

The judge found that the associates were not primarily responsible and that the firm had responded appropriately and proportionately, and let them off the hook — although not without some dry shade for the firm’s “think of the children!” rhetoric

At the threshold, the court rejects the invitation to consider that actual authorities stand for the proposition that the bogus authorities were offered to support. That is a stroke of pure luck for these lawyers, and one that did not remediate the waste and harm their misconduct wrought. Further, any sanctions discount on this basis would amplify the siren call of unverified Al for lawyers who are already confident in their legal conclusion. This court will have no part of that. Likewise, the court rejects the invitation to consider that the involved lawyers and firm have been deeply embarrassed in media reports. For many very good reasons, courts traditionally have not relied on the media to do the difficult work of professional discipline, and this court is not about to start.

When the court turns to the appropriate scope of its analysis as to Butler Snow — the firm's own conduct — it finds that Butler Snow acted reasonably in its efforts to prevent this misconduct and doubled down on its precautionary and responsive measures when its nightmare scenario unfolded. Accordingly, the court sees no evidentiary basis for a finding that the firm acted in bad faith or with such recklessness that its conduct was tantamount to bad faith. The court therefore releases the firm from disciplinary proceedings.

jul 24, 2025, 2:31 pm • 46 3 • view

As an aside: who here knew off the top of their head that rule 11 didn’t apply to discovery motions?

C. Findings and Conclusions as to Each Attorney and Butler Snow Because the motions at issue are discovery motions under Rules 30 and 37, Rule 11

jul 24, 2025, 2:34 pm • 39 2 • view

I did, for reasons you know firsthand.

jul 24, 2025, 11:46 pm • 2 0 • view

The two partners involved, however, were not so lucky. First up is Matthew B. Reeves. “Having been so extensively alerted of the risk that Al will make things up, and having blown through all of his firm's internal controls designed to protect court filings from counterfeit citations…” Yikes.

4. Matthew B. Reeves Mr. Reeves admits that he utilized Al to generate the legal citations at issue, that he added them to both draft motions without verifying them, and that all of this was

The court has no difficulty finding that Mr. Reeves's misconduct was more than mere recklessness. In the light of repeated general warnings from federal courts about the risks of bogus citations generated by Al, as well as the persistent specific warnings, policies, and expectations of his colleagues and law firm with respect to Al, Mr. Reeves's misconduct was particularly egregious. Having been so extensively alerted of the risk that Al will make things up, and having blown through all of his firm's internal controls designed to protect court filings from counterfeit citations, Mr. Reeves's repeated decisions to parrot citations generated by Al without verifying even one of them reflect complete and utter disregard for his professional duty of candor. This is recklessness in the extreme, and it is tantamount to bad faith. Accordingly, the court will impose an appropriate sanction under its inherent authority.

jul 24, 2025, 2:46 pm • 62 8 • view

wow :(

jul 24, 2025, 10:54 pm • 0 0 • view

Sorry, two partners and of counsel. The conduct of the other partner, William R. Lundsford, was so egregious that I forgot about William J. Cransford. I would describe the court’s commentary about how little effort Mr. Cransford would have needed to expend to prevent this disaster as “withering.”

5. William J. Cranford Mr. Cranford drafted, signed, and personally filed both motions at issue. Doc. 194-3 19 4-19. He included the fabricated citations in these filings without reviewing any of them after Mr. Reeves inserted them. Id. 19 7, 17. Although Mr. Cranford did not know that Mr. Reeves used generative AI, Mr. Cranford had an obligation to check the citations before signing the motions and filing them with the court. Any reasonable investigation (indeed, even the most cursory of investigations, or a spot check) would have quickly revealed the problem. Mr. Cranford acknowledged his culpability at the show cause hearing:

At the threshold, the court observes that if these motions had not been discovery motions, Mr. Cranford's conduct would have been a textbook Rule 11 violation. In any event, Mr. Cranford failed to discharge his most basic responsibility as an attorney signing and filing motions with the court: to make sure that the statements in the motions were true. Mr. Cranford's repeated decisions to make no effort in this regard reflect a troubling indifference to the veracity of his court filings and disinterest in the most rudimentary demands of professional responsibility. This misconduct was more than simple recklessness and is particularly egregious, especially in the light of how little effort would have been required of Mr. Cranford to uncover any of the falsehoods. The unacceptable result of Mr. Cranford's decisions is that motions were filed with the court that no attorney ensured were free from false statements. Attorneys who sign motions must know — as Mr. Cranford acknowledges — that they risk serious sanctions when they make no effort to ensure that those motions tell the truth. Accordingly, the court finds that Mr. Cranford's misconduct was tantamount to bad faith and will sanction him under its inherent power.

To be clear, not every error in a motion is recklessness or more. To err is human, and minor typographical errors, even in citations, occasionally occur despite attorneys' best efforts. Likewise, some factual or legal authorities are the subject of reasonable debate, and a mere disagreement with one side's view does not necessarily mean that the view is objectively false. The insertion of bogus citations is not a mere typographical error, nor the subject of reasonable debate.

jul 24, 2025, 2:54 pm • 49 3 • view

This is beyond walk into the sea. This is leap into a volcano. I imagine if I were a client of this firm, I might be reviewing the work they did for me to see if false citations are in it because I'm sure the other parties will be checking to see if there are.

jul 24, 2025, 2:59 pm • 3 0 • view

And now, we get to William R. Lundsford, apparently “Bill” to his friends and colleagues. Mr. Lundsford has, per his firm bio, “devoted his legal career to representing governmental officials in systemic, institutional reform litigation.” www.butlersnow.com/professional...

jul 24, 2025, 3:01 pm • 24 2 • view

I love the Hotshot Lawyer Mullet.

jul 24, 2025, 3:06 pm • 1 0 • view

He looks like this.

Bill Lundsford, a partner with Butler Snow, is a white man wearing a navy blue suit and a red dotted tie. His face bears an expression which resembles what I imagine would result if you asked ChatGPT to approximate a smile.

jul 24, 2025, 3:04 pm • 16 0 • view

I was gonna say his face looks like it came from a plastic mold used to manufacture these guys. And then I read your alt text...

jul 24, 2025, 3:11 pm • 1 0 • view

This alt!!!!!!!

jul 25, 2025, 9:04 am • 0 0 • view

Is that "uncanny valley" to anyone else?

jul 24, 2025, 3:05 pm • 2 0 • view

check the alt text

jul 24, 2025, 3:06 pm • 0 0 • view

I figured it was real, but it still comes across as *wrong*. Thus, uncanny valley.

jul 24, 2025, 3:07 pm • 1 0 • view

Mr. Lundsford is not just a partner at Butler Snow, however. He is in fact a Deputy Attorney General of the State of Alabama, and it was in that capacity that he was defending the Alabama Department of Corrections and supervising the work of the other Butler Snow attorneys on this case.

6. William R. Lunsford Mr. Lunsford stated in his declaration that he did not review the motion for leave to depose and did review the motion to compel. Doc. 194-1 11 9-10. Nevertheless, in accordance with his practice group's ordinary workflow, Mr. Lunsford allowed Mr. Cranford to use his name in the signature block on both motions. See id. 11 9-11; see generally Doc. 200 at 25-26 (discussing how the

jul 24, 2025, 3:06 pm • 23 2 • view

I think it’s good actually that the prisons have counsel of this quality

jul 24, 2025, 3:11 pm • 1 0 • view

That might be true if we could assume every judge and magistrate (not to mention plaintiff's attorneys) can and will perform the checking needed on filings from such counsel. I'm skeptical that such falsehoods will always be caught.

jul 24, 2025, 3:48 pm • 1 0 • view

Big, and I cannot stress this enough, oof.

jul 24, 2025, 3:08 pm • 47 2 • view

As you all know, I am not an attorney. But god damn, I am pretty sure these are not words that any attorney wants to see written about them by a Federal judge.

jul 24, 2025, 3:10 pm • 57 5 • view

Yeah. I think we're seeing a systemic (though not ubiquitous!) failing of the legal world being dramatically exposed.

jul 24, 2025, 3:10 pm • 3 1 • view

Good grief, that guy bleaches his teeth, doesn't he?

jul 24, 2025, 3:08 pm • 3 0 • view

My take on why we KEEP seeing this has always been "lack of meaningful oversight." There's certainly some of that here, but sheesh -- the idiocy is at a much higher level of responsibility than I might have hoped.

jul 24, 2025, 2:57 pm • 3 0 • view

I knew this, but only because I had a Civ Pro professor who said "you only get discovery sanctions for discovery motions," and it has stuck with me all these years.

jul 24, 2025, 2:37 pm • 4 0 • view

I did, I did!! Well, I didn't know it for federal court for sure, but our state rules are basically the same and I knew that Rule 26 and Rule 37 apply to discovery issues, including motions to compel. 😂

jul 24, 2025, 3:24 pm • 1 0 • view

Replies