June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Dorsey v. Jones

Chancery Court of Delaware · Del. Ch. · Delaware bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified May 14, 2026

Citation
Dorsey v. Jones, No. 2024-0134-CDW, 2025 WL 3654768 (Del. Ch. Dec. 16, 2025) (Wright, M.)
Decided
December 16, 2025

Summary

In a derivative action concerning Roots Foods Holdings, Inc., Magistrate in Chancery Christian Douglas Wright found that defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Robert T. Jones had filed two briefs (Dkts. 118, 125) citing false legal authority and miscited authority. The court suspected the answering brief was prepared with generative AI that had "hallucinated." The order does not name a specific tool but defines GenAI to include ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Meta AI, and Thomson Reuters CoCounsel.

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

Order requiring that any future filings by defendant and counterclaim plaintiff prepared using GenAI be accompanied by a sworn certification identifying the tool, the specific portions generated, and confirming human review for accuracy of every citation. No monetary sanction was imposed, but the order warns that failure to comply may lead to sanctions.

Why does Dorsey v. Jones matter for law firms using AI?

The Court of Chancery declined to fine the offending party in Dorsey and imposed a per-filing certification regime instead. Future filings by Robert T. Jones prepared with generative AI must come in with a sworn certification identifying the tool, the portions generated, and a confirmation that every citation was reviewed for accuracy. The order defines GenAI broadly (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Meta AI, Thomson Reuters CoCounsel), so the certification duty does not turn on which platform counsel chose. The case is a usable template for what Delaware judges are prepared to require short of sanctions, and a reminder that one hallucinated brief can trigger structural disclosure duties that travel with the litigant for the remainder of the matter.

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.