As someone whose special interest is not going to prison, I’d be pretty keen on my lawyer not using AI to advise them in the courtroom. So I suppose I can be glad that I was not the debtor who enlisted the Semrad Law Firm in a bankruptcy case last year (via Damien Charlotin). The firm and its attorney in the case—Thomas Nield—have been rapped over the knuckles by judge Michael Slade for using ChatGPT to dredge up relevant legal history to help them represent the debtor.
Problem was, the relevant cases ChatGPT spat out, and which were submitted to the court by Nield, didn’t exist.
The bankruptcy case in question has been ongoing since 2024, but AI reared its robotic head last month. After a back-and-forth, Nield and his firm filed a chapter 13 repayment plan (essentially, a plan detailing how the debtor he represents would pay back the money they owe their creditor). Alas, the creditor in question, Corona Investments LLC, didn’t like the look of it, and so filed a “kitchen sink” objection that disputed (among other things) the plan’s feasibility.
Here’s where things get weird. Nield and Semrad filed a response that argued Corona didn’t have the standing to contest the feasibility of the proposed repayment plan. This had judge Slade a tad baffled, so he gathered his staff and “began to examine the issue in depth to
see if Semrad’s argument was supported by the caselaw” and quickly found, well, problems.
Nield cited four pieces of previous caselaw to support his argument: In re Montoya, 341 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006), In re Coleman, 373 B.R. 907 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2007), In re Russell, 458 B.R. 731 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2011), and In re Jager, 344 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006). Let’s take them one at a time.
- In re Montoya: Judge Slade’s examination found that “not only does the language quoted by counsel [Nield] not appear anywhere in the court’s opinion, but the opinion does not address issues of standing at all.”
- In re Coleman: This case actually happened in Missouri, not Wisconsin, and judge Slade found that “again, not only does counsel’s quotation not appear in the case at all, the opinion does not discuss the proposition for which it is cited, let alone support it.”
- In re Russell: This case actually happened in Virginia, not Wisconsin, and judge Slade found that “yet again, the quotation from counsel’s brief does not appear anywhere in the court’s opinion, and the opinion does not touch on the topic of standing at all.”
- In re Jager: The cherry on the cake. Judge Slade found that this case simply “does not exist.”
“In sum, what happened here is that Mr Nield cited four cases for a proposition of law, but none of them exist as alleged in his brief. Worse still, none of the quotations relied upon in the Semrad brief are actual statements written by any court.”
Why? Because Nield had gotten them from ChatGPT. “I asked Mr Nield directly whether he used some sort of AI to come up with this portion of his brief,” wrote Slade in his memorandum, “and he stated the following: ‘I think the citation element of these cases, I guess, was—I ran it through AI to some extent, but I didn’t think that the citation was wrong.’
“To his credit,” continues Slade, “Mr Nield appears to both understand what he did wrong and to be remorseful for it.” Nield claimed he had never used AI to do his legal research prior to this case and that he hadn’t reviewed the data it gave him because he “assumed that an AI program would not fabricate quotes entirely.” Oh, Mr Nield, if only you knew.
Appropriately contrite, Nield promised the court that “he will never again use an AI program to do legal research ‘without checking every element of the AI’s work product'” and said that he had reported himself to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Semrad, meanwhile, assured the court that it “strictly prohibits using AI for legal research or the generation of legal citations without manual verification.”
Nield and Semrad asked the court not to sanction them over the blunder since, hey, “they have already voluntarily: (1) admitted their misconduct and promised not to do it again; (2) withdrawn any application for compensation in this case; and (3) watched an online CLE [Continuing Legal Education] video.”
That didn’t quite fly: “while I appreciate their candor and efforts,” said judge Slade, “‘[t]here must be consequences.'”
Slade justifies his decision to sanction for two reasons. For one, he simply dislikes how this case in particular was handled, and suggests that if Semrad did not have the resources to give all its clients the attention they need, it should have offloaded some of them to other firms rather than resort to GenAI.
But he also takes issue with “Nield’s claim of ignorance” about the potential risks of using AI for this kind of thing. “At this point, to be blunt, any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud. This has been a hot topic in the legal profession since at least 2023,” writes Slade.
“The bottom line is this: at this point, no lawyer should be using ChatGPT or any other generative AI product to perform research without verifying the results. Period… In fact, given the nature of generative AI tools, I seriously doubt their utility to assist in performing accurate research (for now).
“They can write a story that reads like it was written by Stephen King (but wasn’t) or pen a song that sounds like it was written by Taylor Swift (but wasn’t). But they can’t do your legal research for you. ChatGPT does not access legal databases like Westlaw or Lexis, draft and input a query, review and analyze each of the results, determine which results are on point, and then compose an accurate, Bluebook-conforming citation to the right cases.”
As an aside, it’s a tad concerning that a stuffy Illinois judge seemingly has a much better grasp on the limitations of AI than many tech and games industries CEOs, but I digress.
So Slade sanctioned Nield and Semrad anyway. First up, they had to fork over $5,500 to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court: “I view this as a modest sanction, and the next lawyer who does the same thing is warned that he or she will likely see a more significant penalty.”
Second, the judge reckons some education is in order here. He notes that “fortunately,” the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges is running its annual meeting in Chicago concurrently with this brouhaha. “Even more fortuitously, during the meeting, at 9.00 a.m. on Friday, September 19, 2025, NCBJ will hold a plenary session titled ‘Smarter Than Ever: The Potential and Perils of Artificial Intelligence.'”
“Mr Nield, and at least one other senior attorney at the Semrad firm (chosen by Mr. Semrad), are ordered to register for and attend that session of the NCBJ annual meeting in person. Others reading this opinion are welcome, too.”
Remember, aspiring legal scholars—AI: not even once.
Best PC gaming kit 2025