Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others
SC Massachussetts · May 18, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Massachussetts
- Record ID
- glenn-wilder-and-others-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college-and-others-2026-05-18
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the attorney's motion to appear pro hac vice.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucination
- Lack_of_human_oversight
- Failure_to_verify_citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- MX2.law
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Decision and Order denying a motion for pro hac vice admission.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The firm's in-house AI platform is identified as MX2.law.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory human review and verification protocols for all legal citations generated by AI tools.
- Ensure all pro hac vice applications strictly adhere to local jurisdictional rules regarding filing procedures and fee payments.
- Document remedial training or practice changes following any AI-related error to demonstrate ethical diligence to future courts.