Kaufman v. Upton
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · D. Mass. · Massachusetts bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Kaufman v. Upton, No. 1:25-cv-11550-FDS (D. Mass. Jan. 21, 2026) (order referring counsel to Board of Bar Overseers)
- Decided
- January 21, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel Roger A. Peace filed submissions opposing defendants' motions to dismiss that contained what the court found to be AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority. After Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a show-cause order, Peace responded that the bad citations resulted from a "version control mistake" and a "clerical error" by which a "first draft with placeholder and unverified citations" was inadvertently filed. The court characterized that response as "somewhat less than forthcoming" because it did not address whether or how artificial intelligence was used, nor the precise nature of the clerical error.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
The court referred Attorney Peace to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers for potential discipline under Mass. R. Pro. Conduct 3.3(a) (candor toward the tribunal), directing the clerk to transmit the referral order, the September 10, 2025 show-cause order, and counsel's September 23, 2025 response. No monetary sanction was imposed; the underlying action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Why does Kaufman v. Upton matter for law firms using AI?
Kaufman illustrates that a “clerical error” or “version control” explanation will not insulate counsel from bar referral when fabricated citations reach the docket. Judge Saylor’s order treats the submission of false authority as a candor problem under Rule 3.3(a) regardless of whether AI was the proximate cause, and faults counsel for declining to disclose whether AI was used. For managing partners, the lesson is procedural: a firm’s filing workflow should make it impossible for an “unverified placeholder” draft to be served on a federal court, and counsel facing a show-cause order should answer the AI-use question directly rather than invite the inference.
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.