Dastou v. Holmes
Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex County · Middlesex Sup. Ct. · Massachusetts bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Dastou v. Holmes, No. 2381CV02212 (Mass. Super. Ct. Middlesex County June 25, 2025) (Goldenberg, J.)
- Decided
- June 25, 2025
Summary
Counsel for defendant (Kathryn Holmes) prepared motions in limine and proposed jury instructions using ChatGPT. Counsel represented that she had a bank of motions in limine and used ChatGPT to check spelling, grammar, and formatting, but the tool altered the substance. One proposed jury instruction (which counsel claimed was a Westlaw model instruction but later admitted she 'put into ChatGPT for formatting') referenced a fictitious legal concept and included a footnote with both a fictitious case and a real case that did not support the concept. Filings contained fabricated citations, a quotation attributed to a real case that did not appear in the opinion, and misstatements of holdings. The underlying matter was a breach of contract and conversion dispute over a dog after a break-up; a jury found for the plaintiff on his claims and for the defendant on one counterclaim, and the dog was ultimately awarded to the defendant.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT
What sanction did the court impose?
Justice Keren E. Goldenberg of the Massachusetts Superior Court issued Findings, Rulings, and Order Imposing Sanctions on June 25, 2025. The court (1) enjoined defendant's counsel from billing her client for time spent preparing the motions in limine and jury instructions and for time in court litigating those motions, and (2) ordered counsel to complete the MCLE on-demand webcast 'How to Draft Civil Jury Instructions When a Model One Does Not Exist: The 60-Minute Lawyer' (https://www.mcle.org/product/catalog/code/2200324WBA) and submit a sworn statement of completion to the Clerk of Court within six months. Justice Goldenberg warned that overreliance on AI 'risks deskilling legal practitioners, especially attorneys who need to develop critical thinking and legal writing skills.'
Why does Dastou v. Holmes matter for law firms using AI?
Dastou v. Holmes is Massachusetts’s second Superior Court AI sanction in a 15-month span and notable for the non-monetary but operationally significant no-billing sanction, which transfers the cost of the AI error from the court to the law firm. The sanction signals that Massachusetts courts view overreliance on AI as a competence problem rather than a procedural one. For Massachusetts practitioners, the case establishes that even routine documents like jury instructions require full verification and cannot be delegated to AI tools for completion.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- https://thedailyrecord.com/2025/07/17/hallucinating-chatgpt-lands-boston-lawyer-in-hot-water/
- https://www.ocmlaw.net/razor/superior-court-decision-serves-as-reminder-of-pitfalls-of-using-generative-ai/
- Counsel's name not stated in the order text; the order refers only to 'Defendant's Counsel.'