Thomas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
US Tax Court · Oct 23, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- US Tax Court
- Record ID
- thomas-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-2024-10-23
- Observed outcome
- The Pretrial Memorandum was deemed stricken.
- Known monetary consequence
- $0
Why this matter warrants attention
The US Tax Court struck the petitioner's Pretrial Memorandum as a sanction for violating Rule 33, which requires counsel to certify that filings are grounded in fact and law. The court found the document contained multiple non-existent or misattributed case citations, likely resulting from AI-assisted drafting that went unverified by the signing attorney.
The court reasoned that under Rule 33, the signing attorney is responsible for the content of pleadings. Because the counsel failed to review the paralegal-prepared memorandum, she failed to certify that the citations were accurate. The court deemed the memorandum stricken as a symbolic sanction, noting that the substantive legal arguments were otherwise correct and that imposing a pecuniary cost would be inappropriate given the client's economic status and the counsel's role in providing necessary representation.
Partners must personally read paralegal-prepared memos before signing — delegation is not a defense when citations are wrong.
Failure modes and consequences
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tax
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Large language model (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $0
- Procedural posture
- Post-trial order following a hearing to address erroneous citations in a Pretrial Memorandum.
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 noted the document had hallmarks of a large language model and inquired about AI use.
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 citations, especially when research is delegated to staff or AI tools.
- Ensure supervising attorneys personally review all filings for accuracy before signature, as delegation is not a defense for Rule 33 violations.
- Establish firm-wide policies regarding the use and disclosure of generative AI in legal research and drafting.