United States v. Boehm
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · M.D. Pa. · Pennsylvania bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se supervised-release defendant filed a motion citing Third Circuit precedent with false quotations consistent with AI hallucination.
Consequence
Motion dismissed without prejudice; no sanction; affidavit disclosing AI use required for any future filing in the matter.
Lesson
Courts are tailoring AI disclosure orders to specific litigants with prior hallucination history rather than applying a chambers-wide rule.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- United States v. Boehm, No. 3:18-cr-00312 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2025) (Munley, J.)
- Decided
- December 3, 2025
Summary
Pro se defendant Brian Boehm, a formerly incarcerated individual on supervised release, filed a motion for clarification of his supervised- release conditions. Judge Julia K. Munley found that the motion cited Third Circuit precedent (including U.S. v. Helena, 906 F.3d 288) with false quotations and misrepresented holdings consistent with generative-AI hallucination. The court declined to sanction in light of his post- incarceration pro se status but ordered that any future filing be accompanied by a separate affidavit disclosing whether AI was used in its preparation, identifying the specific AI tool, and explaining how the tool was used.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI; the court ordered prospective disclosure of the specific tool used
What sanction did the court impose?
Motion for clarification dismissed without prejudice. No monetary sanction imposed. Prospective AI-use affidavit ordered for any future filing in the matter.
Why does United States v. Boehm matter for law firms using AI?
Boehm illustrates the per-litigant AI disclosure remedy. Judge Munley did not invoke a chambers-wide standing order; she crafted an order specific to this defendant’s future filings in this matter. The disclosure requirement applies only to Boehm and only in this case, but it requires an affidavit naming the specific AI tool used and explaining how it was used. That granularity is harder for a litigant to satisfy than a generic disclosure box on a form.
For attorneys practicing in M.D. Pa., the takeaway is that judges in the district are now experimenting with per-litigant tailoring rather than relying solely on uniform standing orders. A firm with multiple matters before different judges in the district may encounter several different disclosure regimes operating concurrently: chambers-wide standing orders (e.g., Mehalchick, Caraballo, Latella), per-case procedural orders, and per-litigant orders like the one in Boehm. Tracking which regime applies in which matter is now part of the basic case-management discipline for AI-assisted work in the district.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Review filings from formerly incarcerated pro se litigants for AI hallucination markers when responding on the government's behalf or on behalf of supervisory authorities.
- Document any per-litigant disclosure orders that apply in matters where the firm has appearing counsel; chambers-tailored orders can apply alongside any chambers-wide standing order.