Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others
SC Massachussetts · May 18, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court denied the attorney's pro hac vice motion, citing his prior federal sanction for submitting AI-hallucinated case law and his failure to adhere to Massachusetts procedural requirements for out-of-state counsel, concluding he had not demonstrated the necessary ethical diligence for admission.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the attorney's prior federal sanction for submitting AI-hallucinated citations demonstrated a failure to meet ethical standards of competence and candor. The court further determined that the attorney's failure to show remedial steps regarding his practice, combined with his disregard for Massachusetts procedural rules (improper filing and incorrect fee payment), justified the exercise of judicial discretion to deny the privilege of pro hac vice admission.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates that courts may deny pro hac vice privileges based on an attorney's prior AI-related misconduct in other jurisdictions, emphasizing that ethical lapses involving generative AI tools can have long-term, cross-jurisdictional impacts on an attorney's ability to practice.
Why this matter is tracked
A Massachusetts Superior Court denied Attorney T. Michael Morgan's motion to appear pro hac vice in a consolidated civil action. The court's decision was primarily based on Morgan's recent sanction by a federal district court for filing motions containing eight hallucinated case citations generated by the firm's in-house AI platform, MX2.law. The court found that Morgan failed to fulfill his nondelegable duty to verify the accuracy of legal filings submitted under his signature. Additionally, the court cited Morgan's failure to comply with Massachusetts procedural rules regarding pro hac vice applications, including improper self-filing and payment of incorrect registration fees, as further evidence that he could not be trusted to adhere to local practice standards.
This case illustrates that courts may deny pro hac vice privileges based on an attorney's prior AI-related misconduct in other jurisdictions, emphasizing that ethical lapses involving generative AI tools can have long-term, cross-jurisdictional impacts on an attorney's ability to practice.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The firm's in-house AI platform is identified as MX2.law.
Decision and Order denying a motion for pro hac vice admission.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others?
- The court denied the attorney's pro hac vice motion, citing his prior federal sanction for submitting AI-hallucinated case law and his failure to adhere to Massachusetts procedural requirements for out-of-state counsel, concluding he had not demonstrated the necessary ethical diligence for admission.
- Why does Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates that courts may deny pro hac vice privileges based on an attorney's prior AI-related misconduct in other jurisdictions, emphasizing that ethical lapses involving generative AI tools can have long-term, cross-jurisdictional impacts on an attorney's ability to practice.
- What does the public record establish about Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.