Court Finds AI Hallucinations in Filing by Former State Senate Candidate

Tricia S. Lindsay, attorney for plaintiff Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty, responded to two motions to dismiss by filing a pair of memoranda of law that cited to numerous nonexistent cases. In response, the Court ordered Lindsay to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for her misleading filings. Upon consideration of Lindsay’s response to these orders, we find that she should be sanctioned in the amount of $2,500.00 ….

[T]wo briefs were signed by Lindsay, and each contained a number of fabricated citations. When we say “fabricated,” we do not mean citations that arguably contain typographical errors—for example, Lindsay’s citations to cases that exist and support the propositions for which they were cited but are not located in the volume or at the page of the reporter (or database identifier) given. Similarly, we exclude any otherwise correct citations that give the wrong case name. We also exclude those instances where the cited case covers the same topic as the proposition for which it is cited but where the case’s holding is completely mischaracterized, although such a citation is itself grossly misleading and perhaps deserving of sanctions.

Instead, we consider only citations to cases that cannot be located at all by name—or that were not located where Lindsay said they were and have nothing to do with the propositions for which they were cited—thus showing that the citations were completely made up. The following are descriptions of some of the fabricated citations [listing seven items -EV] ….

Lindsay’s response to being alerted to the fabricated citations did not follow the typical pattern in cases where courts have called upon attorneys to explain the presence of fabricated citations in their papers. The Court’s first OSC [Order to Show Cause] specifically ordered Lindsay to provide “a complete and detailed description of the process of the drafting of the two memoranda of law.” While most attorneys provide such an explanation, which often involves an admission of reliance on artificial intelligence (“AI”) platforms, Lindsay’s brief sworn statement in response offers only airy generalities and conclusory statements. Her response contains no coherent explanation for how the two memoranda of law came to contain the fabricated citations. The most basic questions—most obviously: what was the source of the fabricated citations?—are never answered.

Thus, Lindsay states merely that she “follow[s] a structured and diligent process designed to ensure accuracy, thoroughness, and compliance with all applicable legal and ethical standards.” Bizarrely, she then discusses her “typical” process for drafting briefs without specifically attesting that this was the actual process she followed in drafting the memoranda of law at issue in this case. The clear implication of her statement, however, is that her “typical” process was followed in this case; otherwise, there would be no reason to mention it. Lindsay states that she “manually cross-check[s] case names, docket numbers, and reporter citations against the primary sources in legal databases” and verifies that “the authorities cited support the propositions for which they are referenced.” Lindsay’s contention that these actions occurred in this case are obviously false, however, because a “manual[ ]” check of any of the fabricated citations would have instantly shown that each citation was fake or inaccurate. Thus, while Lindsay’s response acknowledges that eleven citations are inaccurate, she provides no explanation of how these citations came to be included in the memoranda of law.

At one point, Lindsay states that citations to “nonexistent cases” resulted from “typographical errors, misreading of secondary sources, or limitations in the search functionality of legal databases.” In addition to being conclusory, this explanation makes no sense inasmuch as Lindsay never shows how “typographical errors, misreading of secondary sources, or limitations in the search functionality of legal databases” produced the “nonexistent cases” cited to in the memoranda of law. And, in any event, no explanation is made of how Lindsay’s “manual[ ]” check did not reveal the nonexistent cases.

At another point, Lindsay emphasizes that she relied on “established legal research platforms.” But that obviously did not occur here, as there is no evidence that any “established” legal research platform generates or contains fabricated citations, or that an “established” legal research platform somehow supplied the fabricated citations in the memoranda of law. Tellingly, in her initial response, Lindsay never even named what “legal research platforms” she used to draft the memoranda of law and thus never specified which one supplied her with the fabricated citations.

In light of the complete lack of evidence to support the claim that any “established” legal research platform could have supplied these citations, we reject this contention. As a result, there remain only two plausible explanations for the source of the fabricated citations in Lindsay’s memoranda of law: a person who deliberately created them knowing they were fabricated or an AI system. Lindsay never claims that she had the assistance of any person in drafting the memoranda of law. To the contrary, her declaration states:

I am solely responsible for the research, drafting, and review of the memoranda at issue. While I utilize legal research databases and citation management tools to assist in my work, I do not delegate these core responsibilities to others. No other individual or computer system played a substantive role in the drafting process beyond the use of standard legal research and word processing software.

Denying she had any human help, Lindsay thus asks that Court to accept a proposition that is utterly devoid of evidence: that an “established” legal research platform created the fabricated citations.

In her response to Hirshowitz’s filing, Lindsay for the first time states that she “routinely utilizes Lexis Nexis[‘s] … AI-driven features,” and then states that the fabricated citations “may very well have been generated by the Lexis Nexis software during the research phase.” The response, however, is devoid of any specifics as to what Lexis Nexis’s “AI-driven features” she used, how they actually supplied any of the false citations, or any examples where Lexis Nexis’s “AI-driven features” have supplied fabricated citations.

{In her response to the Court’s second OSC addressing the applicability of Rule 11, Lindsay continued her failure to describe how the fabricated citations ended up in her brief. Instead, she stated that “the citation errors at issue were not the result of any intent to mislead the Court or opposing counsel” but rather “were isolated and inadvertent mistakes that occurred despite good faith efforts to ensure accuracy.” She also states that she “reli[ed] on technology that is not immune to error” without specifying that technology.}

We thus find that Lindsay used an AI program that generated the fabricated citations in the memoranda of law and that Lindsay failed to check that these citations were genuine….

“[C]ourts in this [C]ircuit have repeatedly found that presenting AI-generated hallucinations as valid caselaw constitutes subjective bad faith.”

Lindsay’s bad faith is also reflected in the fact that she failed to provide the “complete and detailed description of the process of the drafting of the two memoranda of law” and “detailed and complete description of the role of any individual or computer system that was involved in the drafting process” required by the Court. Her obfuscation reflects a complete lack of acceptance of responsibility, notwithstanding her assertion that she “deeply regret[s] the errors that occurred” and her claim to have “taken all reasonable steps to address and correct them.” Moreover, her other representations to the Court consistently minimize her actions. See Resp. at 9 (“Citation errors, while regrettable, are not uncommon in complex litigation.”); Lindsay Aff. ¶ 6 (“These errors … reflect the inherent challenges of legal research and citation in complex litigation, particularly when working under time constraints and with voluminous records.”); Supp. Resp. at 4 (“The citation errors acknowledged by Ms. Lindsay were the result of an innocent oversight in the review process, compounded by reliance on technology that is not immune to error.”). Even if Lindsay had meaningfully apologized or accepted responsibility for her conduct, “regret and apologies are not necessarily enough to avoid the imposition of sanctions for the submission of non-existent legal authority.” Here of course we have no real acceptance of responsibility….

Lindsay’s bad faith is further reflected in the fact that she filed papers with false citations on two occasions after the Court issued the OSCs.

First, two months after the first OSC, she filed a brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that contained two fabricated citations….

Second, in October 2025, Lindsay filed objections to a Report and Recommendation issued by the undersigned that addressed the motions to dismiss filed by defendants. In a brief filed in opposition to the objection, Hirshowitz’s counsel pointed out that Lindsay’s objection contained eight false, fake, or “hallucinated” citations. These suspect citations were described at length and in detail.

In response, Lindsay stated that she was withdrawing the “specific … citations contained within [the objection] that defense counsel has claimed violate Rule 11” while at the same time asserting that she was doing so “without admission of liability.” In other words, Lindsay again failed to own up to her errors or give any explanation of how they occurred. We have examined the eight citations in Lindsay’s original objection identified by Hirshowitz’s counsel and concur that they are in some cases completely fabricated.

Lindsay’s repetition of the same mistake makes it impossible to credit her contention that the erroneous citations do not “reflect a pattern of disregard for professional obligations” and “were isolated and inadvertent mistakes that occurred despite good faith efforts to ensure accuracy.” Lindsay represented that she “has taken steps to further strengthen her review protocols to ensure accuracy going forward.” These unspecified efforts have turned out to be completely inadequate….

Deterrence is paramount here, given Lindsay’s obdurate refusal to explain how the citations came to be included in her briefs. We believe that a fine of $2,500 will serve as an appropriate deterrent, along with a requirement that she supply to her client a copy of this Opinion and Order. Additionally, it is important that other courts be aware of Linsday’s repeated misconduct, which calls into question filings she has made. Thus, the Court directs that Lindsay supply a copy of this Opinion and Order to the presiding judge in each pending case where she appears as attorney of record by means of a letter filed on the docket and served on opposing counsel….