McCarthy v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
3rd Cir. CA · Mar 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- 3rd Cir. CA
- Record ID
- mccarthy-v-us-drug-enforcement-administration-2026-03-27
- Observed outcome
- The attorney received a formal reprimand, and the Court ordered that the disciplinary action be reported to other courts and the National Disciplinary Data Bank.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Third Circuit sanctioned attorney Daniel A. Pallen for filing briefs containing AI-hallucinated and inaccurate case law. The court issued a formal reprimand and mandated that the disciplinary action be reported to other courts and the National Disciplinary Data Bank, citing the attorney's failure to verify citations despite having notice of potential errors.
The Court reasoned that the attorney violated Pa. R.P.C. 1.1 (competence) and Circuit Disciplinary Rule 2.1(d) by failing to perform a reasonably diligent inquiry into the accuracy of cited authorities. The Court emphasized that the attorney's conduct was particularly egregious because he continued to rely on the unverified citations even after the Government identified the errors and he suspected AI involvement.
Third Circuit now notifies the National Disciplinary Data Bank on AI fabrications — one reprimand follows you circuit-wide.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bar Referral
- Administrative
- Appellate
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter arose from an underlying appeal (No. 24-2704) where the Court ordered the attorney to show cause regarding the submission of fabricated authorities. Following a hearing on August 11, 2025, the Court issued a formal opinion imposing sanctions.
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 tool as AI-generated 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 mandatory verification protocols for all legal research, regardless of the source or tool used.
- Establish a formal sign-off process for verifying the existence and accuracy of every citation before filing.
- Immediately investigate and correct any cited authorities challenged by opposing counsel.
- Maintain an audit trail of research verification to demonstrate compliance with professional duty of diligence.