John C. Farris was convicted in the Eastern District of Kentucky and sentenced to imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines for Farris's leadership role in drug trafficking. Farris appealed this enhancement, and the Sixth Circuit appointed attorney Steven N. Howe to represent him under the Criminal Justice Act. Howe filed a principal brief and a reply brief on Farris's behalf. During the court's initial review, the judges suspected the briefs were generated by artificial intelligence after noticing a file name referencing Westlaw's CoCounsel platform. Upon deeper inspection, the court discovered that the briefs contained three specific quotations that did not appear in the cited legal authorities and misstated the holdings of two Sixth Circuit cases, United States v. Washington and United States v. Anthony. The court issued a show-cause order requiring Howe to explain the drafting process and verify the citations. Howe admitted that he used AI to draft the briefs and failed to adequately verify the output, acknowledging that the errors were the result of his negligence.
The court addressed the ethical obligations of attorneys using artificial intelligence in legal practice. The opinion emphasizes that while new technologies offer promise, they present significant risks of inaccuracy and 'hallucinations.' The court reiterated that the duty of competence and candor requires attorneys to verify every citation and proposition they submit to a court, regardless of the tools used. The court noted that Howe's reliance on an unnamed staff member to supervise the AI-generated work product fell short of his obligations as the attorney of record. The court clarified that citing real legal authorities does not absolve an attorney if the specific quotations or legal propositions derived from those authorities are fabricated or misleading. The opinion cites Model Rules of Professional Conduct and relevant case law to establish that attorneys must remain diligent in supervising their work product and carefully examine the accuracy of every citation. The court found that Howe's failure to verify the AI output resulted in the submission of false quotations and misleading legal arguments, undermining the integrity of the judicial process.
The appeal is vacated and remanded for the appointment of new appellate counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. The briefs filed by Steven N. Howe are locked, and the briefing schedule will be reset. Howe will not receive compensation for his time on this appeal. The court will forward a copy of the opinion to the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit for consideration of disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association. The underlying merits of Farris's sentencing challenge remain unresolved and will be addressed by new counsel.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download