Holstein v. Holstein

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

In an opinion by Judge DeBoer, with Judges Mathias and Kenworthy concurring, the court affirmed the custody award and denied Mother's request for $5,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction. It said the circumstances presented an opportunity "to reemphasize the importance of verifying every citation, holding, and quote a litigant selects for inclusion in his or her filings to a court," adding: "We expect this even more so from an attorney when case-related information is provided by his non-lawyer client for use in his brief." Given "the unique circumstances at issue here," it found sanctions unwarranted: counsel brought the problem to the court's attention and sought to rectify it almost immediately; Mother had not raised the issue in her original brief; she offered no argument or evidence of prejudice; and neither side's arguments changed in the amended briefs. The court nonetheless echoed prior warnings "of the risks posed by using artificial intelligence in litigation and the sanctions that can result from its misuse," listed possible sanctions (monetary penalties, striking filings, restrictions on future submissions, dismissal of the appeal), and implored attorneys to heed those warnings. No sanction was imposed.

Why does Holstein v. Holstein matter for law firms using AI?

Holstein is an Indiana Court of Appeals opinion in which, as counsel explained it, the non-existent authority came from the client, and the court addressed that pathway directly. Counsel told the court that Father had provided the citations and that he had included them without checking; he found the problem himself while preparing the reply and moved to amend. The court said the circumstances presented “an opportunity for this court to reemphasize the importance of verifying every citation, holding, and quote,” and quoted commentary that “[a] lawyer who uses … legal authority obtained from [artificial intelligence] in a pleading without independently confirming its accuracy fails to adhere to the obligation of candor to the court if those representations turn out to be false.” The opinion does not say whether AI generated the client’s citations.

The court declined to sanction for reasons specific to the record: counsel’s “honesty in bringing this matter to the Court’s attention,” the appellee’s failure to raise the issue in her original brief, and the absence of any claimed prejudice, since neither side’s arguments changed after amendment. It relied on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Dec v. Mullin, where counsel was admonished but spared harsher sanctions after taking responsibility and where opposing counsel had also failed to catch the errors. The court added that “our review was not hindered.”

The closing paragraph is a warning addressed “especially to attorneys” about “the risks posed by using artificial intelligence in litigation and the sanctions that can result from its misuse,” listing sanctions from monetary penalties to dismissal of the appeal. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here counsel’s prompt self-report was the first reason the court gave for declining to impose fees.