“MyPillow Attys Blame Filing Error After Judge Suspects AI Use”

In MyPillow Attys Blame Filing Error After Judge Suspects AI Use – Law360 (Apr. 28, 2025), Andrea Keckley reported that: “Attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion Voting Systems Corp. executive have told a Colorado federal judge that a February brief the court suspected of being written with AI was a rough draft filed by mistake.”

The article reported that one attorney said that he did not know that his co-counsel had mistakenly filed a draft.  The attorneys asked for leave to file a revised version.

The court wrote:

Despite this unequivocal provision in the Trial Preparation Order, Mr. Kachouroff, lead counsel for Defendants, repeatedly represented during the Final Pretrial/Trial Preparation Conference that he was unaware that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine would be discussed at the conference. Nor was he prepared to do so; indeed, Mr. Kachouroff did not have a copy of the Opposition with him. [Hearing Tr. 83:2–5]. As discussed extensively on the record, after confirming with Mr. Kachouroff that he signed the Opposition consistent with his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition. See generally [Hearing Tr. at 82:11–101:16]. These defects include but are not limited to misquotes of cited cases; misrepresentations of principles of law associated with cited cases, including discussions of legal principles that simply do not appear within such decisions; misstatements regarding whether case law originated from a binding authority such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; misattributions of case law to this District; and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist. See [id.].

Despite having every opportunity to do so, Mr. Kachouroff declined to explain to the Court how the Opposition became replete with such fundamental errors. For example, when confronted with the first misquotation in a parenthetical appearing on page 3 of the Opposition—purportedly drawn from Mata v. City of Farmington, 798 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1227 (D.N.M. 2011), [Doc. 283 at 3]—Mr. Kachouroff stated to the Court:

Your Honor I may have made a mistake and I may have paraphrased and put quotes by mistake. I wasn’t intending to mislead the Court. I don’t think the quote is far off from what you read to me.

[Hearing Tr. 83:22–25]. When asked how a case from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky became attributable to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, see [Doc. 283 at 4 (emphasis added) (compare Ginter v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 576 F. Supp. 627, 630 (D. Colo. 1984), with Ginter v. Nw. Mut. Life. Ins. Co., 576 F. Supp. 627, 630 (E.D. Ky. 1984)], Mr. Kachouroff indicated that he “had given the cite checking to another person,” later identified as Ms. DeMaster, see [Hearing Tr. 86:1–6]. When asked whether he would be surprised to find out that the citation Perkins v. Fed. Fruit & Produce Co., 945 F.3d 1242, 1251 (10th Cir. 2019) appearing on page 6 of Defendants’ Opposition did not exist as an actual case, Mr. Kachouroff indicated that he would be surprised. See [Hearing Tr. 88:10–89:1]. Time and time again, when Mr. Kachouroff was asked for an explanation of why citations to legal authorities were inaccurate, he declined to offer any explanation, see, e.g., [id. at 89:19–90:5; 100:18–22], or suggested that it was a “draft pleading,” [id. at 92:8–13].

Not until this Court asked Mr. Kachouroff directly whether the Opposition was the product of generative artificial intelligence did Mr. Kachouroff admit that he did, in fact, use generative artificial intelligence. [Id. at 101:17–23]. After further questioning, Mr. Kachouroff admitted that he failed to cite check the authority in the Opposition after such use before filing it with the Court—despite understanding his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Id. at 101:24–102:2]. Even then, Mr. Kachouroff represented that he personally outlined and wrote a draft of a brief before utilizing generative artificial intelligence. [Id. at 101:21–23]. Given the pervasiveness of the errors in the legal authority provided to it, this Court treats this representation with skepticism.

Coomer v. Lindell, 2025 WL 1201993, at *1–2 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2025).

Law 360 reports that counsel said:

“The court’s order insinuates that it had to ask ‘directly’ whether I used AI in order for me to admit using it,” Kachouroff said in his declaration Friday. “While this may be the court’s perspective, it is simply not true. I never volunteered that I used any number of other AI programs (including Westlaw), because I did not believe that this was an AI issue. I was trying to search my memory to determine where [the response brief] came from.”

A show cause order was entered:

Given the record before the Court on the wholly deficient preparation and filing of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) On or before May 5, 2025, Defendants’ counsel shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why this Court should not SANCTION Defendants Michael Lindell, FrankSpeech LLC, and My Pillow, Inc.; the law firm of McSweeney, Cynkar and Kachouroff, PLLC; and the individual counsel, Christopher I. Kachouroff and Jennifer T. DeMaster, who signed the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, [Doc. 283];

(2) On or before May 5, 2025, Defendants’ counsel shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why this Court should not REFER Christopher I. Kachouroff and Jennifer T. DeMaster to disciplinary proceedings for violations of applicable Rules of Professional Conduct;

(3) Counsel will specifically address, under the oath subject to the penalty of perjury, the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, including but not limited to whether Defendants were advised and approved of their counsel’s use of generative artificial intelligence;

(4) No later than May 5, 2025, defense counsel of record SHALL CERTIFY that a copy of this Order has been provided to Defendant Michael Lindell personally….

As of this writing early on the morning of May 5^th the docket does not reflect any filing.  Coomer v. Lindell et al | Dockets | Colorado | Westlaw Precision. The time for filing has not yet expired.