Matter of Mendel S. v. Faigy S., 2026 NY Slip Op 26118 (Fam Ct, Kings County 2026)

The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence in the legal profession presents attorneys with substantial opportunities to improve efficiency, streamline legal research, and assist with drafting. However, Matter of Mendel S. v. Faigy S. serves as a recent and important reminder that artificial intelligence does not relieve an attorney of the fundamental responsibility to verify the accuracy of the work submitted to a court. In that case, the Family Court, Kings County, discovered that an attorney had submitted an objection containing sixteen legal citations, eleven of which were fabricated or nonexistent. The court further found that, in nearly all of the remaining instances, the actual cases did not support the legal propositions for which they were cited. The court concluded that the attorney's failure to properly scrutinize AI-generated legal authorities constituted frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1. Although the attorney accepted responsibility, expressed remorse, and completed continuing legal education concerning artificial intelligence and legal ethics, the court imposed a $1,000 sanction, while declining to refer the attorney to the Attorney Grievance Committee.

The significance of the case extends beyond the particular attorney and filing at issue. The decision reinforces a principle that remains unchanged despite the rapid development of generative AI: attorneys are ultimately responsible for representations made to a court. As Judge Laura M. Paley recognized, the submission of fabricated authorities does more than undermine an individual legal argument. It wastes judicial resources, forces courts and opposing parties to investigate authorities that should never have been cited, and threatens confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. The court's decision also reflects the growing expectation that competent attorneys must understand both the benefits and risks associated with the technology they employ. AI may be a valuable tool for brainstorming, organizing information, or assisting with legal research, but it cannot substitute for professional judgment. Before filing a document, counsel must independently confirm that every cited authority exists, accurately states the law, and actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.

Matter of Mendel S. v. Faigy S. therefore provides an important warning to practitioners that the use of artificial intelligence may change the way legal work is performed, but it does not change the lawyer's ethical and professional responsibility for the final product.