Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out

Two federal judges who issued rulings containing made-up elements said their staff employed AI tools in the drafting process.

The judges—US District Judge Julien Neals in New Jersey and US District Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi—admitted to the AI usage in letters addressing questions raised by Senate judiciary committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). The judges’ letters, which were mailed to the Administrative Office of the US Courts Director Robert Conrad on Oct. 20 and 21, were reviewed by Bloomberg Law.

Judge Neals said a law school intern in his office used Chat GPT to perform legal research, resulting in an order that contained case quotations that didn’t exist. Judge Wingate said his law clerk used the AI tool Perplexity as a drafting assistant, resulting in an opinion that referred to parties, allegations, and quotes unconnected to the case.

“It was a draft that should have never been docketed,” Judge Wingate wrote. “This was a mistake.”

Judge Neals said the law school intern who used Chat GPT didn’t have access to confidential or non-public information when using the AI tool; Judge Wingate said the clerk didn’t input any confidential or non-public information about the case into Perplexity.

Grassley’s probe began after both judges rescinded and replaced rulings that lawyers in the cases flagged as problematic.