Steven N. Howe was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act to represent John C. Farris, who appealed his sentencing enhancement for a leadership role in drug trafficking. Howe used Westlaw's CoCounsel AI platform to draft both his principal brief and reply brief, then filed them without properly verifying the legal authorities cited.
The court became suspicious when it noticed the principal brief's filename read 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and discovered three fabricated quotations that didn't appear in their cited sources. 'Howe's failure to verify the artificial-intelligence output still resulted in the submission of false quotations and misleading legal arguments to this Court,' the per curiam opinion stated. The briefs also misrepresented holdings in United States v. Washington and United States v. Anthony.
After the court issued a show-cause order in February, Howe admitted he used AI to prepare both briefs and had a staff member upload district court documents to CoCounsel to create first drafts. He acknowledged the errors occurred because he 'failed to adequately review and verify the draft brief produced by artificial intelligence' and accepted full responsibility.
The panel removed Howe from the case and ordered new counsel to file replacement briefs, further delaying Farris's appeal. The court emphasized that attorneys using AI tools must remain 'diligent in supervising their work product and carefully examine the accuracy of every citation,' warning that new technologies are 'no substitute for tried-and-true safeguards managed by practicing attorneys.'