Veteran attorneys with a track record of arguing high-profile cases submitted an error-filled brief to one of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts, raising questions from a judge about their use of artificial intelligence.
When attorneys submit a brief with errors, whether AI-generated or otherwise, that is already a serious problem. But this happening in a case before Commonwealth Court is even more concerning, said David A. Harris, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
Appellate courts determine whether lower courts have correctly applied the law by looking at established legal precedent. Those rulings are then used to decide future cases. For example, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutional in 2015, the decision extensively cited Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 case that invalidated state bans on interracial marriage.
Fake citations pollute that process, said Harris: “You misshape the law by taking it in a direction that doesn't exist.”
Filings in at least 13 Pennsylvania cases contained confirmed or implied AI hallucinations in 2025, according to a database maintained by researcher Damien Charlotin that tracks legal decisions.
The majority of those cases were brought by pro se litigants — people acting as their own attorneys. In a couple of instances, judges issued warnings when citation errors were discovered. In one sex discrimination case, the pro se plaintiff was fined $1,000, and their suit was dismissed.
The lawyers who submitted the error-filled brief could be sanctioned and issued a fine by Commonwealth Court. The court could alternatively refer them to the state Supreme Court’s disciplinary board or its office of disciplinary counsel. Such a referral might also come from opposing counsel.
A referral could kick off an investigation to determine if the attorneys violated rules of professional conduct, which include providing competent representation of clients. Then the disciplinary counsel would decide whether to issue a public or private reprimand.
The state Supreme Court could issue a public censure or suspension; in the most severe cases, an attorney can be disbarred.
Harris emphasized he holds no ill will for the attorneys, but argued AI “screwups” will continue until people face serious consequences.
“If we want to get our own house in order, which I think we should, as a self-governing profession, we better pay attention,” Harris said.
‘Who wrote the brief?’
Commonwealth Court Judge Matthew Wolf was not happy.
On Dec. 10, Wolf was prepared to hear arguments in South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Two Western Pennsylvania districts, parents, and state lawmakers are arguing that the commission overstepped its constitutional authority when it redefined the definition of “sex” so it can investigate certain complaints of gender discrimination, including those brought by transgender students.
Thomas Breth and Thomas W. King III presented the case and are special counsel for the Thomas More Society, a conservative public-interest law firm. They have contributed to legal challenges that sought to overturn the 2020 election results after President Donald Trump lost. (A third attorney, Jordan Shuber, was named in the brief; he told Spotlight PA he’s a solicitor for one of the school districts and was not involved in the filings.)
As King began to make his case, Wolf interrupted and detailed numerous citation errors, going through them one by one.
“Who wrote it? And does it contain AI, artificial intelligence hallucinations?” Wolf asked King. The attorney seemed rattled and apologized to the justice.
The issues Wolf noted include misquotes, attribution errors, and quotes that don’t exist.
One quote in the brief was attributed to Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry, a 2010 ruling from the state Supreme Court. The brief reads, “agencies ‘may not, under the guise of interpretation, enlarge a statute or engraft additional substantive requirements not included by the General Assembly.’”
This quote appears nowhere in the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Wolf said he’d spent significant time going over the brief, and had asked others to double-check his work so he was certain before raising his concerns.
“I feel as though you have put the court at a disadvantage," he added.
Breth told the court, which included Wolf and six other judges, that writing the brief was a “collaborative process” among various colleagues. But he owned that ultimately what’s submitted is his and King’s responsibility.
“This is incredibly embarrassing. It is a very significant issue. We take it that way,” he said.
King requested permission to file a corrected brief, and later filed an application for relief to address the issues Wolf raised. Commonwealth Court had yet to decide whether to allow them to do this as of Jan. 6.
In response to Spotlight PA’s request for comment, Breth and King’s firm sent an emailed statement saying, “We have filed an Application with the Commonwealth Court seeking permission to more fully respond in writing to inquiries raised by Judge Wolf during oral argument. We are awaiting the Court’s decision on our application. We do not believe it would be appropriate for us to comment further pending the Court’s Decision.”
Speaking to WESA in December, King said AI was not used to draft briefs. It’s unclear if he was also referring to legal research that was cited in the document.
King also told WESA that his firm uses a type of software to verify that citations are correct. He did not name the software.
New territory
The Pennsylvania Bar Association, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and the American Bar Association all say it's acceptable for attorneys to use AI, provided it's used ethically.
That requires a thorough fact-check to identify AI-created errors. But many attorneys fail to do so.
Retired Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie shared Harris’ concerns about the growing presence of AI-generated errors in legal filings.
He wouldn’t speculate on how Commonwealth Court should handle the issue at hand. But he said that sanctions would generally be appropriate because they help ensure quality and truthfulness.
Before sitting on the Third Circuit, Vanaskie was chief judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He told Spotlight PA that AI wasn’t an issue during his judicial career, and couldn’t recall any attorneys submitting a brief with multiple citation errors.
Vanaskie would like attorneys to disclose if they used AI, but he said using it isn’t automatically bad. Provided legal filings are fact-checked for accuracy, AI can create efficiencies, he argued.
These efficiencies benefit both attorneys and clients, said corporate attorney Jordan Rhone, who uses AI to help with legal research and review documents, and is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Technology Committee.
Traditionally, lawyers bill by the amount of time spent on a case. The less work something takes, the smaller a client’s invoice. In this way, Rhone argued, AI democratizes access to legal services by making them more affordable for people with limited budgets.
“I actually think that we'll come to a point in time where if a law firm or a lawyer is not utilizing AI in some way, then that's going to be, I think, more of a red flag than attorneys who are using it,” he said.
Rhone’s also optimistic about how AI can help incarcerated people who are representing themselves, or fellow inmates, in legal petitions such as civil rights complaints. These plaintiffs can’t afford to pay for an attorney, so access to AI would be invaluable for them.
Even if the attorneys avoid sanctions, they have likely tarnished their professional reputations, said Vanaskie. That might affect their practice’s ability to attract new clients. And judges are likely to be more skeptical of their arguments going forward.
“Your credibility is such an important part of what a lawyer is to bring to the case,” said Vanaskie. “If the lawyer is not verifying what's being submitted, their credibility is shot.”