DOJ Attorney in Raleigh Accused of Fake Legal Arguments, Prompting Warning About AI from Prosecutor
By Editorial Team
A lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice in Raleigh is under scrutiny after accusations surfaced in court that he submitted a legal brief containing false quotations and citations. The incident has led to a cautionary note about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal filings.
Rudy Renfer, the DOJ attorney in question, admitted to submitting “incorrect citations” in the case, which prompted a judge to demand an explanation and threaten sanctions. Renfer was subsequently replaced as the attorney in the case. Efforts to obtain a comment from Renfer were unsuccessful as of Wednesday.
Following Renfer’s removal from the case, U.S. Attorney Ellis Boyle of the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a warning to his staff regarding the use of AI in legal work. Boyle emphasized that “AI may hallucinate,” cautioning against relying solely on AI for legal filings. He stressed the importance of personally verifying each quote or proposition from a legitimate source.
Boyle’s internal memo obtained by WRAL highlighted the potential risks associated with AI-generated legal briefs, citing instances from other states where AI led to inaccurate legal analyses and fake citations.
Addressing his staff, Boyle’s memo stated, “We cannot misquote or make up any quotes or inaccurately pinpoint cite quotes to a case or make up a fake case. This is federal Big Boy court. Act out of fear, or respect, or reverence, or some combination thereof, accordingly.”
Boyle, who was appointed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to oversee the DOJ’s operations in the Eastern District of North Carolina, confirmed that the memo was issued in response to Renfer’s case. The case revolves around the eligibility of certain individuals covered by the military’s Tricare insurance to access GLP-1 weight loss drugs.
Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers expressed concerns about the accuracy of Renfer’s filings, noting discrepancies in quotations and representations in the documents submitted. Renfer attributed the errors to the inadvertent inclusion of incorrect citations from the circuit’s case law.
Boyle reiterated the policy against using AI to draft legal briefs filed with the court, emphasizing the need for accuracy and diligence in legal work. The incident serves as a reminder of the potential pitfalls of relying solely on AI for legal research and drafting.
