Almost overnight, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has become ubiquitous in numerous aspects of life, both personal and work-related. Nearly all major law firms have begun to explore and, in many instances, have already embraced the use of GenAI for various drafting and litigation tasks. Recently, the Court of Chancery had occasion to address the pros and cons of using GenAI to help draft a brief.
In April 2025, Vice Chancellor Lori Will issued the Delaware Court of Chancery’s first decision addressing the use of GenAI to draft court filings. Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc., involved a motion to compel filed by a pro se litigant. 2025 WL 1024661, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2025). The court observed that the motion included numerous case citations that did not support the propositions for which they were cited and, in some instances, direct quotes in the brief seemingly were invented by GenAI; they did not appear in the cases cited.
The court conducted its own independent research and confirmed that the direct quotes did not appear in any federal or state case available on Westlaw. The court suspected that the litigant had used GenAI when drafting the motion to compel and that program may have “hallucinated,” meaning that it created fabricated or inaccurate outputs that appeared plausible but lacked an underlying, legitimate basis. Id.
The court took the opportunity to issue important guidance to litigants on the use of GenAI in the Delaware courts. On the positive side, Vice Chancellor Will recognized that GenAI has the potential to benefit litigants and the courts. For instance, GenAI can streamline and make legal research more efficient, aid in drafting court filings, and support efficient document review and summarization. GenAI’s enhanced access to legal services also has the societal benefit of lowering barriers to justice, particularly pro se litigants like the one here. Archblock, 2025 WL 1024661, at *1-2.
The Vice Chancellor, however, also discussed the downside risks that GenAI presents when, as in Archblock, it is used carelessly (or deceptively) without confirming the accuracy of material prepared with GenAI before filing it with the court. As the court noted: “‘Quite obviously, many harms flow from such deception — including wasting the opposing party’s time and money, the court’s time and resources, and reputational harm to the legal system (to name a few)’” Id. at *2 (quoting Morgan v. Cmty. Against Violence, 2023 WL 6976510, at *8 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2023)).
Vice Chancellor Will then cautioned litigants that the “submission of a filing with fictitious citations is sanctionable. ‘[I]t is improper and unacceptable for litigants — including pro se litigants — to submit non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations.’” Archblock, 2025 WL 1024661, at *2 (quoting Anon. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2024 WL 3460049, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024)).
To remedy the misuse of GenAI in future filings by the pro se litigant in Archblock, the court ordered him to certify the use of GenAI in any court filing, identify the GenAI technology used in the as-filed court filing, and confirm the veracity of all legal authority cited. See 2025 WL 1024137 (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2025) (ORDER); see also Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A., 2025 WL 800833, at *1-2 (Del. Super. Mar. 12, 2025) (ORDER) (ordering similar certification). The court warned that failure to do so could result in sanctions, such as monetary penalties, stricken filings, or dismissal. Archblock, 2025 WL 1024661, at *2.
Conclusion
Archblock offers a guide to best practices for responsible use of GenAI when drafting court filings. Archblock also serves as a reminder that, although the Delaware courts are busier than ever, the judges carefully read the filings in the cases before them, as well as the authorities cited, and that unverified reliance on GenAI creates significant reputational and credibility risks.
The decision also highlights that Delaware litigants who do not verify GenAI-generated case law cites could potentially face sanctions for failing to do so. At a minimum, the court will require notice of GenAI use, and insist that the responsible attorneys have reviewed and confirmed the validity and veracity of cited authority obtained through GenAI.
While GenAI has the potential to assist litigants in drafting litigation papers efficiently and performing many other litigation-related assignments, all output must be reviewed with a critical eye and the accuracy verified. As Vice Chancellor Will wrote, GenAI can benefit litigants and the courts alike, but only if litigants ensure that every filing is “truthful, accurate, and cites to legitimate authorities.” Archblock, 2025 WL 1024661, at *2.
This memorandum is provided by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and its affiliates for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This memorandum is considered advertising under applicable state laws.