There are a great many who have had revelations about artificial intelligence (AI) recently. In the last month, I have outlined contrasting efforts at regulation and education. See A Positive Step? (June 2026) and Kentucky Leads (June 2026).
In passing, the best response I have seen to the "certification" of reality requirement is an excellent and humorous piece penned by an anonymous author. I wish they would publish it, as it is both informative and entertaining. Unfortunately, there are challenges with any "reality." That piece is littered with deep thoughts worthy of Descartes and others. But, alas, it remains hidden for now.
But today, we return to the somewhat more mundane of dealing with the "professionals" who misuse AI or at least fail in their self-preservation instinct when working around it. Anyone knows fireworks are dangerous, yet every year there are stories of someone's failure to exercise caution.
Attorney Jean Marie McKeen learned a valuable lesson in this in May 2026. She was publicly reprimanded for the effects of AI. The situation is reasonably familiar now. A lawyer files a legal document. The document includes hallucinations. The fakery is discovered. The lawyer is humiliated. Authorities step in to deliver punishment. It is not a new story. "Second verse, same as the first" (I'm Henry the Eighth, I Am, Herman's Hermits, 1965),
This Virginia case is styled In the Matter of Jean Marie McKeen, VSB Docket No. 26-060-137382. The facts illustrated significant wasted time and failure. Despite being the same old story, it is worthy of discussion for several reasons.
First, this is a workers' compensation situation. For all the tribulations of various state and federal courts, the world of workers' compensation has been amazingly fortunate in this challenge thus far. That said, there is a notable uptick in AI slop being filed. Too many are leveraging AI without exercising judgment or verification.
Second, the sheer volume of misrepresentations. Sorry, that is the only word that works. These citations are not innocent accidents, typographical errors, or honest mistakes. The time for that is past. False citations are now a decision, conscious or not, to deceive or mislead. The McKeen order identifies 11 of them in a single case.
They can be categorized into the obvious ("does not appear to exist"). (listed as 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11). Those are easy. The recent certification discussion might help with these. But when someone files a document citing a case that does not exist, that is wrong. It is wrong whether the filer certifies that the cites are real or not. The certification may make the judge more comfortable in imposing sanctions, but it is not really necessary. See A Positive Step? (June 2026).
The least offensive of these is 2. The opinion points out that this citation shows a decision date of 1878 and corrects that it should read 1989. Taken alone, if this were the only error, we would all rationally and unequivocally agree that mistakes happen. A misstated date, a typo, and similar are merely proof of our humanity. On these, I suggest we go with the movie Frozen ("Let it go, let it go")(Disney 2013).
But, the real problems are misquotes as identified in 1, 7 (e.g., "a criminal law case that neither discusses the provision of a panel nor contains the language quoted in the written statement."). These are instances in which one might argue the cited authority exists. But they are the equivalent of citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), in support of arguing the U.S. Congress's exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce (but see Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)).
In the interest of full disclosure, I relied on Justia.com for both of the preceding citations (links). I did not travel to a "library," which was historically a place where books were kept, to look at these decisions in a printed form. I did not contact the issuing court to either question or verify these citations or the existence of these decisions. To the best of my knowledge and belief, however, both cases do exist and are accurately cited here.
You see, the misquotes we see in 1 and 7 are as problematic as the made-up cases. If I tell you Roe v. Wade is the seminal case on the interstate commerce clause, that is problematic. First, it likely means I never read the case. Or, second, it assures you I did not understand it.
The recent effort on certification does not address this challenge. In fairness, neither that challenge nor the hallucinated (fake) case is an AI problem. Lawyers have mis-cited authority for years. They have lifted citations from other lawyers' briefs and articles without double-checking them for years. But AI has allowed them to proliferate and spread at an epic pace. It reminds me of Mitch Radcliffe:
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila."
That said, AI allows you to make them even faster and with far less effort. In truth, "AI lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention," and with convincing, fawning, and sycophantic devotion to the user's hubris and ego. It does so with little effort and with great persuasiveness.
Third, the Virginia instance includes a worthwhile legal requirement that others should consider. Note that the Virginia Commission discovered the fallacies and falsities in Ms. McKeen's filing. But, when she was advised, she informed the Commission she advised the Virginia State Bar:
"As noted above, by copy of this response, I am self-reporting this matter to the Virginia State Bar and will abide by any sanctions imposed by the Bar."
There is some requirement of self-reporting in the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3(e)(read on the Internet, not independently verified with source). It clearly does not apply to all violations or transgressions. But the lawyer here elected to notify the bar, which is an admirable decision.
I have been a fan of personal responsibility. When you make an error, own it. See Don't Double Down Dummy! (June 2017); Conferences and Consequences (November 2019); We Don't Need You (March 2020); Respond Before the Trouble Starts (September 2022)(These have been verified as authentic as the author was personally consulted).
There is an expectation for judges to self-report violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This is implied in Florida by the obligation on all lawyers and judges to report suspected violations by others. See Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 98-21 (read on the Internet, not independently verified with source). The same might be said of the Florida Bar Rule requiring such reporting.
If it applies to reporting others, shouldn't it require self-reporting as occurred in Virginia? Who is in a better position to decide if a transgression or error merits involving the bar?
Finally, the McKeen order is important because the failure is in reliance. The lawyer received suggestions from others: the client's
"family members sent proposed legal arguments with cites to legal authorities to Respondent"
and
"Respondent did not verify the propositions cited in her written statement nor verify the accuracy of the cites to legal authorities."
This has been noted repeatedly. The responsibility rests with the lawyer or party signing the pleading. Where the falsehoods originate is neither critical nor exculpatory. The signing lawyer is certifying. If a client, co-counsel, or your mother recommends or supplies authority, check it before filing (you can email me, and I will tell you if my posts are real).
The Virginia filing is an apt illustration that AI challenges are deeper than valid citations. They include carelessness, blind reliance, sloth, and worse. The hallucination or misrepresentation of the citation aspect is important. But the accuracy of what a cited case or statute says or stands for is as important or more.
