Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · S.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd., No. 25-cv-1704 (JMF), Mem. Op. & Order (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025)
- Decided
- December 17, 2025
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel for David Burlingame submitted opposition briefs that cited In re Refco Inc. Sec. Litig. for an unjust-enrichment proposition the decision does not address, cited Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. Havens, 1994 WL 760822, which Judge Jesse M. Furman noted does not appear to exist, and included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Sec. Litig., 838 F.3d 223, 250 (2d Cir. 2016), and In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 479 F. Supp. 2d 332, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), that appear nowhere in those decisions. Judge Furman observed that the failings suggested another instance of a lawyer relying on artificial intelligence without checking for hallucinations.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No sanctions imposed by Judge Furman. Because the case was being transferred to the Northern District of Ohio on venue grounds, the court expressly left the question of sanctions, and what action to take in response to the citation problems, to the transferee court. Judge Furman stated that, but for the transfer, he would have ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Why does Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. matter for law firms using AI?
Burlingame illustrates how a court can flag suspected AI hallucinations without imposing sanctions when a procedural disposition, here a venue transfer, removes the case from the judge’s docket before a show-cause order issues. For managing partners, the case is a reminder that the risk record follows counsel: Judge Furman’s published findings about fabricated and mischaracterized authority remain on the docket the transferee court inherits, and any subsequent sanctions inquiry begins from those findings rather than a clean slate.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.
- CourtListener docket URL constructed by case name and court; not independently confirmed at verification time.