Kaufman v. Upton: Attorney Referred to Bar Overseers for AI-Generated Nonexistent Citations (D. Mass., Jan 2026)

Case at a Glance

Full Citation	Brittney Kaufman v. Jamey Upton et al., Civil Action No. 25-11550-FDS (D. Mass.)
Court	United States District Court, District of Massachusetts
Date of Decision	21 January 2026
Category	AI Hallucinations & Sanctions
Jurisdiction	USA
AI Tool Used	Artificial intelligence (specific tool not disclosed by attorney)
Judgment / Order	Order Referring Attorney to Board of Bar Overseers (Doc. 28)

Background

Plaintiff Brittney Kaufman brought civil claims against Jamey Upton and others. Attorney Roger Peace represented Kaufman and filed opposition briefs against defendants’ motions to dismiss. After the court identified apparent AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority in the submissions, it issued an order to show cause in September 2025. Peace’s response — that the errors were a ‘version control mistake’ in which a ‘first draft with placeholder and unverified citations’ was inadvertently filed — failed to satisfy the court. Critically, his response did not address whether AI was used at all.

The AI Issue

The court had to decide what consequences should follow when an attorney (1) files AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority, (2) gives an evasive and incomplete response to a show-cause order, and (3) fails to acknowledge whether AI was used in the preparation of the submissions. The court framed the issue in terms of the attorney’s duty of candour under Rule 3.3(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.

What the Court Decided

• The court found that Peace had submitted false authority to the court — whether AI-generated or not [duty of candour violated].
• Peace was formally referred to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers for potential discipline [bar disciplinary referral].
• The evasive response to the show-cause order — failing to disclose AI use — was itself a factor in the referral [lack of candour aggravated].
• The court noted that submitting false authority implicates an attorney’s duty of candour under Rule 3.3(a), regardless of the source [AI-neutral principle].

Key Quote

“The submission of false authority to a court, whether generated by artificial intelligence or not, potentially implicates several rules of professional conduct, including an attorney’s duty of candor.”

— Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, D. Massachusetts, 21 January 2026

The India Angle

Indian Law Equivalent: The duty of candour before courts is fundamental in Indian law. Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rule 15 of the Bar Council of India Rules both prohibit advocates from making false statements or misleading representations to courts. An evasive response to a court’s query — as seen here — would itself constitute contempt.

Bar Council Rules: An Indian advocate who submitted false case citations and then gave a misleading explanation when questioned by the court would face two separate charges: (1) contempt of court and (2) professional misconduct under the Advocates Act. The Bar Council could suspend or remove them from the roll.

Practical Advice for Indian Advocates: The Kaufman case teaches two lessons: first, never use AI-generated citations without verification; second, when a court asks whether AI was used, answer fully and honestly. Evasion is treated as a separate and aggravating breach of professional duties.

Quick Takeaways

• Bar referrals for AI citation misconduct are now a real consequence — not just fines or warnings.
• Failing to disclose AI use when questioned by a court is treated as a separate breach of candour duties.
• Indian advocates must be prepared to honestly disclose AI tool usage if asked by a court — this transparency is now a professional obligation.