Indiana — Tae Sture
Indiana provides an interesting contrast. Attorney Tae Sture filed a brief containing two nonexistent authorities generated through an AI-enabled legal research workflow involving Fastcase. The magistrate initially recommended $7,500. The district judge ultimately reduced…
Indiana provides an interesting contrast.
Attorney Tae Sture filed a brief containing two nonexistent authorities generated through an AI-enabled legal research workflow involving Fastcase.
The magistrate initially recommended $7,500.
The district judge ultimately reduced the sanction to $2,000.
The court rejected the recommendation that Sture violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, while retaining the Rule 11 sanction.
This illustrates something important:
AI hallucination ≠ automatic professional discipline.
The precise circumstances and the lawyer's response matter enormously.