Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A.
SC Delaware · Mar 12, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Delaware Superior Court ordered that all future filings by either party in this case must include a certification if generative AI was used. This certification requires identifying the AI platform, specifying the sections where it was used, and providing a sworn statement that a human has verified the accuracy of all legal citations and propositions.
- Why the court cared
- The court determined that the plaintiff's filings contained multiple mis-cited and incorrect cases, including mischaracterizations of holdings and quotes that could not be located in the cited opinions. The court mandated the certification requirement to ensure the accuracy of legal citations and to enforce the court's expectation of human review for all filings involving generative AI.
- Why it matters now
- Delaware Superior Court is now requiring forward-looking AI certifications from pro-se litigants; expect the same for attorneys soon.
Why this matter is tracked
In Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A., the Delaware Superior Court addressed the pro se plaintiff's use of generative AI in legal filings. Following a motion to dismiss hearing, the court identified multiple instances of misrepresented case law and fabricated quotes within the plaintiff's submissions. The court explicitly noted that the plaintiff acknowledged using generative AI in the preparation of his filings. Consequently, the court issued an order requiring both parties to provide a formal certification for any future filings created with the assistance of generative AI. This certification must identify the platform used, specify the sections where AI was employed, and include a sworn statement confirming human review of all legal citations for accuracy and relevance.
Delaware Superior Court is now requiring forward-looking AI certifications from pro-se litigants; expect the same for attorneys soon.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court refers to the use of generative AI generally without naming a specific platform.
Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, issued March 12, 2025.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 52 Cal.App.4th 820 (Ct. App. 1997) but used it to suggest conduct by an attorney; court found the case concerns an accountant, not an attorney (mischaracterization).
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Delaware decision from the Dow Chemical litigation (42 Del. J. Corp. L 509, C.A. No. 12090-VCG (2018)) and attributed two specific quoted statements to it; the court could not find those quoted statements in that opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff referenced "Spence v. Spence" and attributed the quote “[d]ismissal is appropriate only if it is reasonably certain that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief.” Court located Spence v. Spence, 2012 WL 1495324 (Del. Super. Apr. 20, 2012) but the quoted language is not in that opinion; quote cannot be verified.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited E.E.C. v. E.J.C., 457 A.2d 688 (Del. 1983) to support standing because harm to a business flows to the owner; court noted E.E.C. concerns a divorce valuation of a husband's sole proprietorship and does not support Plaintiff's asserted proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A.?
- The Delaware Superior Court ordered that all future filings by either party in this case must include a certification if generative AI was used. This certification requires identifying the AI platform, specifying the sections where it was used, and providing a sworn statement that a human has verified the accuracy of all legal citations and propositions.
- Why does Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A. matter for legal AI risk?
- Delaware Superior Court is now requiring forward-looking AI certifications from pro-se litigants; expect the same for attorneys soon.
- What does the public record establish about Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A.?
- 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 Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A. 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.