Post by Kathryn Tewson / Redsky

Yikes

jul 24, 2025, 3:16 pm • 4 0 • view

The amazing thing about this one is that the law firm actually had a robust internal protocol re AI use that was designed to prevent this, and the attorneys whose conduct was at issue just disregarded it. That did not improve the court's opinion of their conduct.

jul 24, 2025, 3:32 pm • 1 0 • view

Oh, yeah — when the OTSC first dropped, Deputy AG Lundsford over here’s first response was to ask if he could just not show up for the hearing. (The court declined.)

First, Mr. Lunsford's request to be excused from the show cause hearing reflected an intense lack of concern for the seriousness of the misconduct that both Plaintiff Johnson and the court had described. See Doc. 188. Either Mr. Lunsford personally reviewed the show cause order and decided to try to skip the hearing despite the accusation of fabricated citations, or he failed to personally review the order and made no effort to evaluate the seriousness of the issue before asking for a pass. Either way, Mr. Lunsford's hasty excuse request troubled the court.

jul 24, 2025, 3:13 pm • 28 3 • view

Mr. Lundsford’s general approach to citation appears to be “trust me, bro, as I have trusted you.” (The cites are to his own declaration. WILD to imagine putting that shit in writing, yeah?)

Second, after the court denied Mr. Lunsford's request and before the hearing, Mr. Lunsford explained in his declaration his ordinary practices and his team's workflow. See Doc. 194-1. He stated that this

jul 24, 2025, 3:17 pm • 29 2 • view

I'm not even a lawyer, but uh...

jul 24, 2025, 3:25 pm • 0 0 • view

Here’s Mr. Lundsford’s declaration in full, you can read it for yourself storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

jul 24, 2025, 3:19 pm • 15 1 • view

“In any event, Mr. Lunsford made clear that performing (or verifying) legal research for each case is not something that he requires of the team he leads.” Y’ALL.

Third, at the hearing, when the court asked Mr. Lunsford about his use of Al, he explained that because the cases he handles as a deputy attorney general often involve similar facts and law, when the team he leads has a need for legal research in a case, it is their ordinary practice to re-use (apparently without verification) material from filings in other cases. See Doc. 200 at 27. This practice, Mr. Lunsford implied, obviated any need to rely on Al. See id. In any event, Mr. Lunsford made clear that performing (or verifying) legal research for each case is not something that he requires of the team he leads.

jul 24, 2025, 3:22 pm • 28 4 • view

That is definitely a choice. As a programmer, I always always always double check AI-generated code, but I'm sure it's not as important when it's only someone's freedom on the line.

jul 24, 2025, 3:25 pm • 3 0 • view

“According to Mr. Lunsford's own testimony, he did not make any effort to verify the contents of the motion to compel before authorizing its filing, and it would have been extremely unusual for him to do so.” Damn, your Honor, I didn’t know you could cook

On this factual record, the court has no difficulty finding that Mr. Lunsford bears responsibility for the false statements of law made to the court over his name in the signature block. He acknowledges as much and has apologized. See Doc. 194- 1 11 2, 6-7, 9, 13. Indeed, although Mr. Lunsford did not personally use Al to generate citations and did not personally file the motions at issue, the record does not suggest that he would have done anything differently than Mr. Cranford did, nor that he expected Mr. Cranford to do anything differently. According to Mr. Lunsford's own testimony, he did not make any effort to verify the contents of the motion to compel before authorizing its filing, and it would have been extremely unusual for him to do so. Nor did he require (or even ask) Mr. Cranford or Mr. Reeves, or any other attorney (or person), to undertake that task. Nor was it his practice to require (or ask) that of them.

jul 24, 2025, 3:25 pm • 34 2 • view

This sounds like the standard process - I've never heard of a senior signing lawyer personally verifying the contents of a motion. That said, the signing lawyer should still face discipline - that's the point of the signature, and he should have set up protections to prevent this kind of thing.

jul 24, 2025, 3:46 pm • 1 0 • view

It’s not the standard process where I work, I can tell you that.

jul 24, 2025, 3:48 pm • 1 0 • view

Huh, are you at a firm or gov/nonprofit? Seems like a hard sell to get a client to pay partner rates for cite checking, but it would certainly prevent this kind of failure.

jul 24, 2025, 3:51 pm • 0 0 • view

(to be clear I've worked in gov and the signing attorneys weren't cite checking there either, but it might be more feasible in gov than at a firm)

jul 24, 2025, 3:52 pm • 1 0 • view

Firm. It doesn’t take *that* much time to verify that the case exists, tbh.

jul 24, 2025, 3:58 pm • 0 0 • view

It can, depending on the number and type of filings the partner is signing. But I don't have any issue with having the signing lawyer cite check if the client will pay for it. My problem is with the judge's implicit assumption that it's per unreasonable to trust the person you delegated to.

jul 24, 2025, 4:25 pm • 1 0 • view

“Indifference,” “complete personal disinterest,” and “utter disregard for the truth.” Only the best for the Alabama Department of Corrections!

jul 24, 2025, 3:28 pm • 32 3 • view

The court does not approve either of Mr. Lundsford’s attempts to “leave the mess for someone else” nor his “explanation in greater fullness of how very little work he personally puts in to be sure that his team's motions tell the truth”

To be clear, the court's finding in this regard is not simply a harsh inference: when it became apparent that multiple motions with his name in the signature block contained fabricated citations, Mr. Lunsford's nearly immediate response was to try to skip the show cause hearing and leave the mess for someone else. And when the court compelled him to appear at the hearing, he paired his apology with an explanation in greater fullness of how very little work he personally puts in to be sure that his team's motions tell the truth. This cannot be how litigators, particularly seasoned ones, practice in federal court or run their teams. Accordingly, the court will impose an appropriate sanction under its inherent authority.

jul 24, 2025, 3:34 pm • 28 0 • view

Mr. Lundsford, by the by, “remains the Attorney General’s counsel of choice.”

D. Office of the Alabama Attorney General Attorney Brad Chynoweth attended the show cause hearing on behalf of the Alabama Attorney General. Doc. 200 at 7. He expressed that his office is

jul 24, 2025, 3:36 pm • 20 1 • view

of course he does!

jul 24, 2025, 4:12 pm • 0 0 • view

But not in this case! Mr. Lundsford has been disqualified from representing the ADOC further in this matter, along with the other referenced attorneys, and has been referred to the Alabama Bar. May they have the courage to do what the Attorney General apparently will not.

The court finds that (1) a public reprimand paired with a limited publication requirement, (2) disqualification, and (3) referral to applicable licensing authorities are necessary to rectify the misconduct here and vindicate judicial authority. Disqualification fits well: lawyers should know that if they make false statements in court proceedings, they will no longer have the professional opportunity to participate in those proceedings. Similarly, litigants should have assurance that false statements will not be allowed in their cases, and no court should be required to allow an attorney responsible for making false statements in the proceedings to continue in the proceedings. Likewise, a public reprimand with limited publication fits: it makes other clients, counsel, and courts aware of the lawyer's misconduct so that they may assess whether any measures are needed to protect their proceedings. Finally, the referral to licensing authorities is a bare minimum in the light of the primary nature of a lawyer's professional responsibility not to make things up.

jul 24, 2025, 3:40 pm • 25 1 • view

jul 24, 2025, 3:44 pm • 2 0 • view

AI hallucinations in legal briefs typically look like the exact case you want. In civil litigation, that is absolute gold. If this dude even perused the briefs, he would have been excited to read those cases and would have asked for a copy of them. Just that would have solved this. Dumb dumb dumb.

jul 24, 2025, 4:04 pm • 3 0 • view

jul 24, 2025, 3:27 pm • 0 0 • view

Not sure if I should go with a "please shut up" gif or a gif about bad lawyering. This is very much saying you couldn't have committed the murder because you were doing a bankrobbery in another state that day.

jul 24, 2025, 3:26 pm • 0 0 • view

Oh he’s toast. Ooooofffff

jul 24, 2025, 3:17 pm • 0 0 • view

Replies