A Delaware court recently ruled on a case involving the misuse of artificial intelligence in legal filings. The decision affects how attorneys use AI tools when preparing court documents. This ruling highlights the importance of verifying legal citations and maintaining professional standards in legal practice.
The case, Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery of Delaware under docket number 2025-0426-CDW (LWW). The issue arose when the plaintiffs’ legal team submitted a brief that included fictitious citations and fabricated legal propositions, which they later attributed to errors in using a generative AI tool.
The plaintiffs, represented by Richard P. Rollo and his firm Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., faced backlash after their Answering Brief was found to contain numerous inaccuracies. The defendants, led by their legal counsel, raised concerns over the validity of the citations and the overall integrity of the legal arguments presented.
The dispute escalated when the defendants filed exceptions to the Magistrate’s advancement order, claiming that the plaintiffs’ brief was misleading. In response, the plaintiffs acknowledged the use of a generative AI tool but insisted that the underlying legal arguments were valid. This led to a series of back-and-forth communications between the parties, highlighting the contentious nature of the case.
On February 2, 2026, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will issued a letter opinion addressing the exceptions raised by the defendants. The court ruled against the defendants, affirming the Magistrate’s report while retaining jurisdiction to determine appropriate remedies for the inaccuracies found in the plaintiffs’ filings. Vice Chancellor Will noted, "The submission of hallucinated legal propositions raises an inference of a Rule 11(b) violation, requiring counsel to show cause why sanctions should not issue." This statement underscores the court's serious view of the integrity of legal submissions.
The court emphasized that attorneys must certify the accuracy of their filings, stating that an attorney's signature is a certification to the tribunal. The ruling highlighted the risks associated with using generative AI in legal work, noting that while AI can streamline processes, it does not absolve attorneys of their responsibility to verify the accuracy of the content generated.
In her opinion, Vice Chancellor Will pointed out that the plaintiffs’ legal team failed to verify the AI-generated content before submitting the Answering Brief. She stated, "Using GenAI in preparing court filings is not inherently problematic—provided the attorney (or litigant) carefully verifies the accuracy of the output." This statement serves as a warning to legal professionals about the potential pitfalls of relying solely on AI tools without proper oversight.
The court also ordered Richard P. Rollo and his firm to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(c) for their actions. The ruling requires them to provide a timeline of how the AI tool was used in drafting the brief, the cite-checking process, and the steps taken to correct the errors after they were identified.
This ruling could have significant implications for the legal profession, particularly as the use of AI tools becomes more widespread. It stresses the importance of maintaining high standards of accuracy and accountability in legal filings. The court's decision may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the use of AI in legal practice.
Moving forward, this case may prompt law firms to reevaluate their policies and procedures regarding the use of generative AI tools. Legal professionals may need to implement stricter guidelines and training programs to ensure that all submissions to the court are accurate and comply with legal standards.
As for what’s next, the plaintiffs’ legal team must respond to the court’s order by July 15, 2026. They will need to provide affidavits detailing their use of AI and the measures taken to verify the accuracy of their filings. The court will then determine whether an evidentiary hearing or further action is necessary.