Judge Refrains from Sanctioning Michael Cohen and Lawyer Despite Fake Citations in Court Filing

Key Takeaways:
– No sanctions are imposed on Michael Cohen and his attorney by the Federal judge for including false citations in a court filing.
– Attorney David M. Schwartz included non-existent case citations provided by Cohen in a court brief submitted late last year.
– A request for early termination of Cohen’s supervised release got denied by US District Judge Jesse Furman.

Federal Judge Rules on Cohen’s Case

A federal court chose not to impose sanctions on Michael Cohen, ex-personal lawyer to ex-US President Donald Trump, as well as his lawyer, David M. Schwartz, for incorporating false court citations in a court filing. These citations were produced by the Google Bard AI tool.

Late in the previous year, Schwartz filed a court brief citing three non-existent cases. Reportedly, Cohen had provided these fake cases to Schwartz, who failed to validate their authenticity prior to submitting them as part of a motion. The motion was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

No Sanctions for Cohen and His Lawyer

US District Judge Jesse Furman turned down the suggestion to administer any sanctions against Cohen or Schwartz. This ruling was issued recently and puts an end to the controversy that exacerbated since the fake citations’ submission.

It highlighted the complications that can arise with the advent of AI technology in the legal realm. The current incident underscores the importance of validating AI-generated results before their usage in sensitive domains such as the legal field.

Cohen’s Early Release Denied

Regardless of the let-off in terms of sanctions, there was a bit of unfavorable news for Cohen. Judge Jesse Furman rejected his request for an early termination of his supervised release. Although he’s escaped legal sanction for the fake citations debacle, this form of release is what most individuals under supervised release hope for, and in Cohen’s case, the request has been denied.


As AI continues to permeate legal processes, such cases with false information could become increasingly common. It holds as a reminder for attorneys to conduct due diligence when dealing with any data, especially that derived from AI sources.

The incorporation of fake case citations in Cohen’s filing marked an unforeseen development in the sphere of law. The court’s decision to not sact currently serves as a reference for how such situations might be handled in the future.

Subsequently, the denial of Cohen’s request for an early termination of his supervised release adds another dimension to the unfolding legal narrative. While the full implications of AI in law remain to be fully comprehended, incidents such as these emphasize the need for thorough fact-checking in court filings.