A short excerpt from the long opinion in Judge Anna Manasco (N.D. Ala.) in last week's Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp.:
This case is before the court for ongoing disciplinary proceedings against Attorney Joshua Watkins and his former law firm, Burrill Watkins LLC, following Mr. Watkins's misuse of artificial intelligence to make false statements to the court….
On multiple occasions, in multiple filings and hearings, and in response to multiple questions and orders, Mr. Watkins has intentionally misled the court. Rather than taking responsibility for his actions, Mr. Watkins has feigned contrition, obfuscated the truth, changed his stories when it suits him, and attempted to blame others for his own professional misconduct….
Mr. Watkins's misconduct includes—and extends well beyond—the misuse of artificial intelligence to make both misleading and outright fabricated statements of law. Between the protracted misconduct in this case, and the similar AI issue in a sister court, the court is gravely concerned about the consequences of Mr. Watkins's misconduct.
Mr. Watkins's misconduct did not occur in a vacuum. The court also has serious concerns about Burrill Watkins's apparent lack of internal controls and guardrails surrounding its attorneys' use of artificial intelligence—indeed, the very AI the firm pays for and encourages its attorneys to use. Though Burrill Watkins maintains that it acted swiftly to remediate Mr. Watkins's errors, which it says it had no reason to know about, the firm has not explained how it enforced any policies about responsible AI use, how it will prevent improper AI use going forward, or any other circumstance—let alone an extraordinary one—why it shouldn't be sanctioned.
