Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

Justice Kenneth W. Salinger exercised his discretion under G.L. c. 221, section 46A to deny Morgan's motion to appear pro hac vice. The court held that Morgan's role in submitting hallucinated case citations to the Wyoming federal court, and his failure there to review motions filed over his signature, "provide ample grounds for denying his request." It found it "surprising" and "troubling" that Morgan, while disclosing the Wyoming sanctions, made no attempt to show that he had changed his practice or taken steps to ensure that he and his firm would not file motions citing nonexistent case law in the future. The court treated the Rule 3:15 violations in the Massachusetts motion itself, filing on his own behalf and not paying the required fee, as a further reason for denial, stating that these transgressions "suggest that Morgan has not learned from the mistakes that he made in the Federal case in Wyoming, and that at least for now he cannot be trusted to comply with Massachusetts law and procedural rules." The order imposes no fine or other sanction; the plaintiffs remain represented by their existing counsel.

Why does Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others matter for law firms using AI?

This decision shows the downstream cost of an AI-citation sanction. The underlying conduct occurred in Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., where the District of Wyoming fined T. Michael Morgan $1,000 in February 2025 after motions in limine drafted with Morgan & Morgan’s in-house platform, MX2.law, cited eight cases that did not exist. Morgan later asked the Massachusetts Superior Court for leave to appear in a consolidated action against Harvard. Justice Salinger reviewed the Wyoming findings in detail and concluded that “Morgan’s ethical transgression in this Wyoming case was quite serious,” adding that “[m]ore senior attorneys have just as much responsibility as any lawyers whom they supervise to review motions and legal memoranda …”

The court grounded its ruling in the discretionary nature of pro hac vice admission, which Massachusetts treats as a privilege rather than a right. It drew on recent federal and state authority, including the Sixth Circuit’s statement that citing even a single fake case can be sanctionable, and stated that filing motions “riddled with made-up case law, or permitting a colleague to do so over one’s signature,” reflects a lack of diligence, and that “[d]oing so inadvertently is no excuse.”

The court stressed the absence of any showing of change, although it held that Morgan’s role in the Wyoming filings and his failure there to review motions “provide ample grounds” for denying his request. The court noted that Morgan disclosed the sanction but offered nothing to show he had altered his practice of reviewing papers filed over his signature, and it compounded that concern with his procedural missteps on the Massachusetts motion itself. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider keeping a record of post-sanction remedial measures that can be presented when a lawyer next seeks admission elsewhere.