Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A.
SC Delaware · Mar 12, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Delaware
- Record ID
- mark-lillard-v-offit-kurman-pa-2025-03-12
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and mandated that all future filings in the case must include a certification if generative AI was used in their creation.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Delaware Superior Court is now requiring forward-looking AI certifications from pro-se litigants; expect the same for attorneys soon.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Fabricated_quotes
- Pro Se
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, issued March 12, 2025.
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 court refers to the use of generative AI generally without naming a specific platform.
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 a mandatory human-in-the-loop verification process for all legal citations generated by AI tools.
- Maintain a record of the specific AI platforms used and the sections of filings where AI assistance was applied.
- Ensure that all cited cases are independently verified against primary sources to confirm the accuracy of holdings and quotes.
- Prepare to include formal certifications of AI use in jurisdictions that adopt similar standing orders.