⚡ CASE DIGEST
Park v. Kim — U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 30, 2024
Attorney Jae S. Lee cited a fictitious case generated by ChatGPT in her reply brief before the Second Circuit. The court declined to impose monetary sanctions but referred her to the Court’s Grievance Panel — making this the first U.S. federal appellate court to formally refer a lawyer for discipline solely over AI hallucination.
Category: Hallucinations & Sanctions | Jurisdiction: USA | Read time: 5 min
① Case at a Glance
| Full Citation | Park v. Kim, No. 22-2057 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2024) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| Date of Decision | January 30, 2024 |
| Category | Hallucinations & Sanctions |
| Jurisdiction | USA (Federal Appellate) |
| AI Tool Used | ChatGPT |
| Judgment / Order | View on FindLaw |
② Background
Park v. Kim was an appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney Jae S. Lee represented the appellant. After two extensions, the reply brief was filed on July 25, 2023 — a week past the extended deadline. When opposing counsel reviewed the brief, they discovered that one of the cited cases did not exist. Attorney Lee admitted she had used ChatGPT and that the AI had generated a citation to a case that was entirely fictitious.
③ The AI Issue
Whether an attorney’s submission of a ChatGPT-generated hallucinated citation — without verification — breaches Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and constitutes professional misconduct warranting formal disciplinary referral.
④ What the Court Decided
- Filing a brief citing a non-existent case “suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel” [professional misconduct].
- Rule 11 requires attorneys to confirm the existence and validity of every legal authority cited — using ChatGPT without verification violates this obligation.
- The Second Circuit referred Attorney Lee to the Court’s Grievance Panel — the first U.S. Court of Appeals to do so solely for AI hallucination.
- No monetary sanctions were imposed; the referral itself was the proportionate response.
⑤ Key Quote
“The citation in a brief to a non-existent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel.”
— 2d Circuit, Park v. Kim (Jan. 30, 2024)
⑥ The India Angle
Indian advocates must note that the duty to verify every citation is not a peculiarity of American procedure — it is a universal professional obligation. The Bar Council of India Rules under the Advocates Act, 1961 impose a duty of competence and candour upon every enrolled advocate. Rule 14 requires an advocate to “uphold the dignity of the judicial office.” A referral to the BCI Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act is the Indian equivalent of a Grievance Panel referral. Indian courts have inherent power under Section 151 CPC to address abuse of process.
⑦ Quick Takeaways
- Appellate courts will refer lawyers for discipline — not just fine them — for AI hallucinations.
- Extensions of time do not excuse insufficient verification of AI-generated research.
- Verify every citation independently: ChatGPT cannot substitute for Manupatra or SCC Online.