Am Law 100 Firm Accused Of Filing Brief Riddled With AI Hallucinations… AGAIN!

Above the Law

by Joe Patrice

February 19, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

A prominent Am Law 100 firm, Gordon Rees, has been accused once again of submitting court filings riddled with AI-generated errors, sparking concerns about the reliability of legal AI tools and attorney oversight. This marks the second time the firm has faced significant repercussions for inaccuracies in its filings, including a $50k fine earlier this year after fabricated citations were discovered. Despite implementing updated AI policies following the first incident, the firm now faces renewed scrutiny over errors in a recent brief filed in *Huynh v. Redis Labs*. Opponents argue that the brief cites non-existent legal authority and misrepresents case law, potentially violating ethical obligations. The latest allegations stem from a motion to compel deposition in *Huynh v. Redis Labs*, where Gordon Rees' opposition brief was found to contain several misleading claims. For instance, the firm cited *Doppes v. Bentley Motors* to argue against terminating sanctions, despite the case holding the opposite conclusion. Similarly, other cited cases were either misrepresented or entirely fabricated, including *Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp.* and *Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund*. These errors raise serious questions about whether AI tools are being properly vetted and whether attorneys are fulfilling their duty to verify all legal authorities. The brief also includes a local precedent emphasizing that attorneys cannot delegate the responsibility of verifying cited cases to AI, as reliance on "hallucinated authority" can result in sanctions. Bach Mili LLP, representing the plaintiff, asserts that Gordon Rees' errors go beyond simple negligence, constituting a violation of basic legal ethics by submitting false information to the court. This latest incident follows another reprimand for AI-related mistakes in *Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Pol*, where the firm again faced criticism for inaccuracies. The repeated failures highlight the growing concern over AI's role in legal drafting and the need for attorneys to maintain rigorous oversight of their work, even when using advanced tools. As courts grow increasingly intolerant of such errors, the legal profession must balance efficiency with accountability to preserve trust in the judicial system.

Verticals

legalnews

Originally published on Above the Law on 2/19/2026