Today, a federal judge in the Middle District of Florida issued a one-year suspension order to attorney Thomas Grant Neusom for naming fabricated cases in filed court documents and for violating other court procedures, processes, and civility expectations.
The relevant facts and proceedings toggle between two case files: Clark Pear LLC v. MVP Realty Associates LLC, (2:23-cv-00503) and In Re: Thomas Grant Neusom, (2:24-mc-00002).
Eight months passed between when opposing counsel first emailed Neusom with her concerns and when the court’s discipline order was issued.
August 2, 2023. Opposing counsel Danielle Crowley (of NJ Law PLLC) emailed attorney Thomas Neusom with concern that Neusom’s client may be using ChatGPT to draft litigation documents which Neusom was filing without separately verifying. Ms. Crowley’s email also asked Neusom to provide the full citation to a case mentioned in a filing, informed him that another cited case was mischaracterized, and put Neusom on notice that she “will be making a full list of the cases and their actual citations and what the case is actually about. Upon my completion of that, I will share the same with you and then will likely be filing the same with the Court.”
August 5, 2023 (Saturday). Neusom dismissively replied to Ms. Crowley: “I have conducted an exhaustive reexamination of the pleadings, and everything checks out. A case is open to interpretation. People dont go to the library and get form books and treatises as much as they used to, but using sources and drafting aides like westlaw and fastcase is common. Chat GPT is something new, but no one I know uses it.”
August 6, 2023 (Sunday). Nabil Joseph (of Ms. Crowley’s firm NJ Law PLLC) responded to Neusom considering his reply to be inadequate: “Do you have the cases or not? What checks out to you, the existence of the fake cases or that you would rather face the ramifications exemplified in the attached order entered by the federal court in New York? Your chosen path, absent production of cases you cite to, is now going to be considered willful and intentional as the attached order further exemplifies. The courts are no place for beta-testing your client’s proclivity to use ChatGPT as he already attempted in the state court in another case involving him that he removed to the middle district and pending in the middle district of Florida.”
August 7, 2023 (Monday). Neusom hid behind attorney-client privilege, said the matter was being investigated, and “new directives and firm policy instructions have been issued in light of your concerns.” Neusom also challenged: “If you can prove chat gpt was used, andit wasicorrect, let meknow, because I have no problem suing chat gpt, westlaw, lexus, google, reuters, or anyone else who suppliesinaccurate information that was reasonably relied on.”
On behalf of their client, NJ Law PLLC filed its motion later that day seeking, among other things, an award of attorney’s fees and costs, and an order to show cause why the plaintiff should not be sanctioned for vexatious and dilatory tactics. The emails were included as Exhibit 8 in the motion.
August 10, 2023. The federal magistrate referred attorney Thomas Grant Neusom (Florida Bar Number 37148) to the court’s grievance committee for investigation. “The committee is directed to investigate whether attorney Neusom’s conduct related to this case, including both the items filed with the court and his communications (or lack thereof) with opposing counsel, fell short of professional and ethical norms and to recommend any remedial action.”
January 12, 2024. The Grievance Committee issued its 15-page report and recommendations. As for the inaccurate citations, pages 5–6 of the report noted: “The Committee found that Mr. Neusom included inaccurate citations and fabricated authorities in his filings. We called Mr. Neusom for a response. He stated in a telephonic interview that he ‘used Westlaw and FastCase and may have used artificial intelligence to draft the filing(s) but was not able to check the excerpts and citations.’ Mr. Neusom stated that he would also provide a written response. Mr. Neusom’s written response to the Committee failed to address the concerns of fabricated citations. The response included accusations that opposing counsel made procedurally improper allegations, that the allegations were a sham, and that civil RICO charges were being filed against opposing counsel. The Committee found Mr. Neusom’s response wholly unsatisfactory, unprofessional, and highly concerning.”
As a result, the Grievance Committee found and concluded that:
A. Probable Cause exists to find that Mr. Neusom violated Rule 4-1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence.
The pleadings contain inaccurate authorities to support what appear to be mostly frivolous legal arguments in violation of Rule 4-1.3. Mr. Neusom admitted to the Committee in his telephonic interview that “he used Westlaw and FastCase and may have used artificial intelligence to draft the filing(s) but was not able to check the excerpts and citations”. As such, the Committee finds that Mr. Neusom did not act with reasonable due diligence. Whereas we understand that artificial intelligence is becoming a new tool for legal research, it can never take the place of an attorney’s responsibility to conduct reasonable diligence and provide accurate legal authority to the Court that supports a valid legal argument.
January 15, 2024. Neusom filed his objections and response to the Grievance Committee’s report and recommendations.
March 8, 2024. The federal judge issued his Opinion and Order adopting the Grievance Committee’s findings and recommended sanctions.