|
13 July 2026 (Washington, D.C.) - Tennessee personal injury firm Reaves Law Firm PLLC must pay more than $45,000 in attorney fees to Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC over Reaves Law's misuse of artificial intelligence in a federal malpractice suit against Baker Donelson.
U.S. District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman found last month that self-represented Reaves Law should be sanctioned for filing a motion with faulty citations likely generated by artificial intelligence and then continuing to enter filings with the same errors after being notified of the mistakes.
Judge Lipman ordered Baker Donelson to provide an accounting of the hours its attorneys spent responding to the filings containing the errors to determine the amount Reaves Law should pay. Judge Lipman said in an order Friday that after Reaves Law failed to object to Baker Donelson's accounting by the court's deadline, she deemed their "assertions undisputed."
After slightly adjusting downward the number of hours Baker Donelson's lawyers should be compensated for, Judge Lipman entered an award of $45,763 in her Friday order. In her June order finding that Reaves Law should be sanctioned, Judge Lipman directed the court clerk to forward the order to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility's disciplinary counsel and said Baker Donelson was entitled to recoup fees.
It was in a partial motion to dismiss counterclaims and subsequent filings relating to Baker Donelson's motion for judgment on the pleadings that Reaves Law allegedly misused generative artificial intelligence, according to the order.
In arriving at her June decision to sanction Reaves Law and Henry Reaves III, who represented the firm and serves as its CEO, Judge Lipman said the firm failed to follow her instructions to provide a list of all the cases cited in various filings that had been called into question, detailing if each case exists, how it was verified, whether it was pertinent to the argument being made and if its quotations were accurate:
"This case presents a study in the perils that can result from the unchecked use of artificial intelligence in the drafting of legal filings, which can hallucinate, in the current jargon".
In a separate order in late June, Judge Lipman granted Baker Donelson's motion for a judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Reaves Law's malpractice claims but leaving Baker Donelson's counterclaims intact.
Judge Lipman said in the order granting Baker Donelson's motion that she had taken judicial notice of the record in the underlying case that Reaves Law claimed Baker Donelson mishandled:
"The record there reveals that the bulk of the allegations contained in plaintiff's complaint, particularly those associated with its malpractice claim, are implausible as pled, warranting dismissal under Rule 12(c)".
Reaves Law had accused Baker Donelson and various individual attorneys in a complaint last year of bungling underlying representation that ended in a $3.6 million judgment against Reaves Law. Baker Donelson fired back with counterclaims alleging Reaves Law failed to pay legal fees for its representation in several matters.
On Monday, Baker Donelson filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss its counterclaims without prejudice:
"At a minimum, Baker Donelson respectfully submits, the final judgment should reflect a dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff's claims and a dismissal without prejudice of Baker Donelson's counterclaims. Baker Donelson respectfully suggests the final judgment should also reflect any award of fees and costs jointly and severally against plaintiff and plaintiff's only counsel of record and signing attorney on all filings, Henry Reaves, III".
A representative of Baker Donelson said Friday that the firm "is pleased with the rulings and appreciates the Court's thorough consideration and diligent review of the record and issues presented".
| 
