blog
An v. Archblock, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0102-LWW (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2025)
The Delaware Court of Chancery found that the authority cited in a pro se litigant’s motion to compel discovery was incorrect and apparently prepared by generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”). The citations ranged from entirely fabricated authorities to real cases that did not support the asserted tenets. When questioned by Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will, the pro se petitioner acknowledged that he used GenAI tools to draft the motion. But he insisted inaccurately that he confirmed all citations, and that the thrust of the motion was legally correct.
The Court noted that using GenAI in legal work “is not inherently problematic[,]” but it bears significant risk if done carelessly. Fictitious authority presented to a court wastes time and resources, and it harms the legitimacy of the legal process. Because the petitioner did not sufficiently confirm the accuracy of the GenAI tool output, the Court denied his motion to compel. Further, because the petitioner claimed inaccurately that he had checked the authorities cited and he unreasonably “doubled down” on his motion, the Court denied his motion to compel with prejudice. The Court also required that all future filings by petitioner in this matter certify whether GenAI was used in their preparation. If so, then the petitioner also was required to certify that “any text in the court filing prepared using GenAI has undergone a human review for accuracy and completeness[,]” including “confirming that any citation to legal authority is accurate and that the authority stands for the cited proposition.”
