The Judge, the Machine, and the Missing Lawyer
Why Mattox v. Product Innovations Research USA may mark the moment courts began defining Lawyer-in-the-Loop™.
When federal judges invoke Rule 11(b), it’s never casual. That rule requires every lawyer who signs a pleading to certify that the filing rests on truth, evidence, and law—not invention.
In Mattox v. Product Innovations Research USA (W.D. Okla., Oct 22 2025), Judge Timothy DeGiusti confronted a violation on a scale that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago:
28 false or misleading citations
14 cases that did not exist
14 real authorities misquoted or distorted by AI-generated text
No malice was alleged. The problem, the court wrote, came from “a lawyer who used the technology to make his writing more persuasive.” The AI didn’t know better—but the lawyer should have.
The opinion avoids the overheated tone that often follows AI mishaps. Instead, Judge DeGiusti performed a lawyer’s audit: tracing every citation, documenting each fabrication, and recording precisely how unverified text entered the record. Then he did what the rules already require—he held the humans accountable.
“Machines don’t hold responsibility—people do.”
His opinion reads like a user manual for competence in the age of automation:
Control. The lawyer must remain in charge of process and output.
Validation. Every AI-generated statement must be checked against reliable sources.
Disclosure. Courts and opposing counsel are entitled to know when automation has influenced a filing.
The opinion’s tone is measured but unmistakable: technology may assist, but it cannot certify, explain, or defend reasoning. The duty of candor and accuracy remains personal, not programmable.
From Judicial Reasoning to Professional Rule
Judge DeGiusti’s analysis points toward the inevitable next step. Sanctioning misconduct after the fact is not enough. The profession needs a clear, affirmative standard before the next “hallucinated citation” reaches a docket.
That standard already has a name: Lawyer-in-the-Loop™.
Lawyer-in-the-Loop™ would make explicit what Mattox implies—every AI-assisted document must have a responsible lawyer who is:
Informed about the system’s limits and data sources;
Accountable for factual and legal accuracy; and
Answerable for privilege, confidentiality, and ethical compliance.
The Real Solution
Courts like the one in Oklahoma are teaching the same lesson case by case: machines are tools, not practitioners. But that principle should not depend on judicial patience or sanctions after damage is done.
The bar should lead by codifying Lawyer-in-the-Loop™ as the modern expression of Rule 11(b): the lawyer’s personal signature on truth, reason, and responsibility—even when assisted by algorithms.
Every lawyer already promises that duty with each filing. Lawyer-in-the-Loop™ simply updates that promise for the age of AI.
See more about the intersection of AI and the practice of Law.
