Young v. City of Memphis

What sanction did the court impose?

Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order on January 14, 2026 (ECF No. 72) requiring each plaintiffs' counsel (David Mendelson of Mendelson Law Firm and the attorneys from Romanucci & Blandin LLC representing plaintiffs in the consolidated White matter) to file affidavits within one week disclosing: (i) whether they or anyone acting for them had made any recordings violating Local Rule 83.2(a)(1) in any Western District of Tennessee matter, and (ii) whether they recorded any non-judicial proceedings (meet-and-confers, depositions, or other proceedings) without informing opposing counsel. The order further required preservation of all such recordings pending further court order. The court flagged concern that "the violation 'was not a one-off incident, and was not, in fact, unintentional.'" No monetary sanction was imposed in this order; the affidavit-disclosure requirement was the procedural sanction.

Why does Young v. City of Memphis matter for law firms using AI?

Young v. City of Memphis is a structurally novel entry in the AI-conduct database: it is the first published Western District of Tennessee order treating an AI-assistant transcription feature as a Local Rule 83.2(a)(1) recording violation. Chief Judge Lipman’s January 14, 2026 order does not address fabricated citations or Rule 11 conduct; it addresses the inadvertent activation of Microsoft Teams Read AI during a virtual status conference and the AI-generated recap that was distributed afterward.

Three points are notable. First, the order treats AI-generated recaps as recordings for purposes of Local Rule 83.2(a)(1), even though the rule’s plain text predates AI transcription. The court applies the recording prohibition functionally: if an artifact of the proceeding is created and distributed, the recording prohibition applies, regardless of whether the artifact is audio, video, or AI-generated text. Second, the affidavit-disclosure remedy is calibrated to the court’s suspicion that the violation was not isolated. Defendants represented that plaintiffs’ attorneys had used AI to transcribe meet-and-confers, depositions, and prior court hearings; the affidavit requirement asks each attorney to confirm or deny that pattern across the firm and across W.D. Tenn. matters. Third, the preservation order applies to all recordings the attorneys may have generated, not just the January 12 hearing recording, anticipating sanctions exposure if the affidavits reveal a pattern.

For firms practicing in any federal district with a recording prohibition (most do), the operational implication is that AI transcription features baked into the platforms used for virtual hearings (Microsoft Teams Read AI, Zoom AI Companion, Google Meet’s “take notes for me,” Webex AI Assistant, Otter.ai, Fireflies) are exposed under existing local rules whenever they are active during a court proceeding. Firms should configure these features to off by default at the account or tenant level and confirm before each virtual hearing that no AI assistant is recording. For non-judicial proceedings (depositions, meet-and-confers), the Young order treats undisclosed AI recording as a separate disclosable category; firms should adopt a written disclosure protocol notifying opposing counsel before any AI transcription is enabled.