Lawyers, check your citations Mike Lindell’s lawyers used AI to write brief—judge finds nearly 30 mistakes Lindell brief has many defects including "cases that do not exist," judge says. Jon Brodkin – Apr 25, 2025 5:53 pm | 23 MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on March 4, 2023, in National Harbor, Maryland. Credit: Getty Images | Alex Wong MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on March 4, 2023, in National Harbor, Maryland. Credit: Getty Images | Alex Wong Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more A lawyer representing MyPillow and its CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation case admitted using artificial intelligence in a brief that has nearly 30 defective citations, including misquotes and citations to fictional cases, a federal judge said. "[T]he Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition. 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," US District Judge Nina Wang wrote in an order to show cause Wednesday. Wang ordered attorneys Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster to show cause as to why the court should not sanction the defendants, law firm, and individual attorneys. Kachouroff and DeMaster also have to explain why they should not be referred to disciplinary proceedings for violations of the rules of professional conduct. Kachouroff and DeMaster, who are defending Lindell against a lawsuit filed by former Dominion Voting Systems employee Eric Coomer, both signed the February 25 brief with the defective citations. Kachouroff, representing defendants as lead counsel, admitted using AI to write the brief at an April 21 hearing, the judge wrote. The case is in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. "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, or suggested that it was a 'draft pleading,'" Wang wrote. "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." “Your honor, I may have made a mistake” Kachouroff admitted after further questioning that failed to check citations, but "represented that he personally outlined and wrote a draft of a brief before utilizing generative artificial intelligence," Wang wrote. "Given the pervasiveness of the errors in the legal authority provided to it, this Court treats this representation with skepticism." The judge's order quotes some of Kachouroff's responses at the hearing. When asked about one misquote, he said, "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." The judge's order continued: 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, Mr. Kachouroff indicated that he "had given the cite checking to another person," later identified as Ms. DeMaster. 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. The lawyers must explain themselves more fully by May 5. "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," the order said. We contacted Kachouroff and DeMaster and will update this article if they respond. Kachouroff is with the law firm McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff in Virginia. DeMaster is an attorney in Wisconsin. Lawsuit against Lindell, MyPillow Coomer's lawsuit was filed against Lindell, the Lindell media company called FrankSpeech, and MyPillow. Lindell and his companies "have been among the most prolific vectors of baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election," and Lindell falsely claimed that Coomer committed treason, the lawsuit said. Coomer is the former director of product strategy and security for Dominion. "Defendants have published these numerous false statements, defamatory interviews, and other dishonest content maligning Dr. Coomer on the website frankspeech.com often alongside a sales pitch for products from MyPillow," the lawsuit said. "In addition, Defendants further made claims against Dr. Coomer a centerpiece of a failed 'Cyber Symposium' that they organized and broadcast around the world." The February 25 brief that got Lindell's lawyers in trouble was an opposition to Coomer's motion asking the court to exclude certain evidence. Coomer's brief said "that Defendants will attempt to mislead and distract the jury with a smear campaign against Dr. Coomer based on completely or largely irrelevant attacks on his character instead of presenting proof that Dr. Coomer was involved in a criminal conspiracy to rig the 2020 presidential election. The Court should exercise its discretion to exclude the evidence set forth to avoid unfair character assassination and to ensure a fair trial on the merits." Coomer asked the court to exclude evidence related to a September 2021 motor vehicle accident, his sex life, alleged drug and alcohol use, religious beliefs, and political views. In their brief that apparently relies on incorrect and fictional citations, Lindell's lawyers argued that much of the evidence Coomer wants to exclude is relevant to his credibility, character, and reputation. Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 23 Comments