Take Accountability, Implement Procedural Safeguards, and Read (and Follow) the Rules
On May 18, 2026, Kenneth Salinger, Justice of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, denied an attorney’s motion to be admitted pro hac vice in a lawsuit against Harvard. The case is Wilder v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 2384-CV-01461-BLS2 (Order and Decision May 18, 2026). For context, a pro hac vice motion is a procedure for an attorney not licensed in a jurisdiction to receive temporary admission for a specific case. Pro hac vice motions are routinely granted. The judge’s order threads together examples of the attorney’s failure to respect the court’s rules, highlighted by the problems below.
- Problem 1: Previously being sanctioned for signing a motion with nonexistent citations that were obvious AI hallucinations. In a prior case, the attorney cited several non-existent cases in a motion in limine he filed in a federal district court. The attorney said his associate wrote the motion using his firm’s AI software. The judge in that other case noted that had the attorney reviewed the filing, he would have noticed a problem because of the unusual format of the case citations. The judge sanctioned the attorney under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Justice Salinger said the attorney’s ethical transgression in the prior case was “quite serious,” noting both that trial lawyers cannot file legal papers supported by fake citations and that the attorney failed to supervise a junior attorney. Although the attorney disclosed the sanction from the federal district court in the pro hac vice motion, the attorney made no attempt to show he had changed his practice to comply with the requirement to review papers. It is critical to read between the lines: if you make a mistake, demonstrate to the court what procedures have been implemented so the mistake does not repeat itself.
- Problem 2: Disregarding the rules by filing a motion in a court where the attorney was not admitted to practice. Massachusetts state law and the local rules prohibit an attorney from appearing unless the attorney is a member in good standing of the Massachusetts bar or the attorney received permission. Here, the attorney filed his own motion to appear pro hac vice. Justice Salinger referred to the fact that the attorney filed the motion before it was granted as a “decision to flout Massachusetts law [that was] not a technical violation.”
- Problem 3: Failing to read the rules as reflected by paying an incorrect fee associated with the motion. The attorney underpaid the associated fee (paying $100 when the fee was $355). Justice Salinger interpreted the attorney paying the wrong fee as a lack of effort to read and follow the rules and highlighted that the attorney did not learn from his mistakes in his previous case where he was sanctioned for citing nonexistent cases that his AI program hallucinated. The court concluded that “for now he cannot be trusted to comply with Massachusetts law and procedural rules.”
Justice Salinger’s closing that “for now” the attorney cannot be trusted to follow the rules leaves open a path to redemption. The lesson here is if you make a mistake, explain how it will not happen again and demonstrate your commitment to not let it happen again.
May 23, 2026. Written by Kim Tyson.