Michael Cohen Lawyer Ordered to Explain Nonsense Case Citations

An attorney for Donald Trump’s former fixer, Michael Cohen, has been ordered to explain himself to a federal judge in Manhattan after he filed a motion for early termination of Cohen’s supervised release that cited to irrelevant or nonexistent cases.

His letter brief cited three examples of cases that he claimed supported his client’s bid for early termination. But none of the cites were what they were purported to be, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York said Tuesday in a order to show cause.

The attorney who filed the motion, David M. Schwartz of Gerstman Schwartz LLP, must either provide copies of the cited cases by Dec. 19 or show cause in writing why he shouldn’t be sanctioned, the order said.

Judge Jesse M. Furman also wants to know what role, if any, Cohen had in preparing the motion.

One of the citations—supposedly to a Second Circuit case—refers to a Fourth Circuit decision that has nothing to do with supervised release. Another citation corresponds to a decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals. The third cite, meanwhile, “appears to correspond to nothing at all,” Furman said.

“We will have to see what the lawyer says in response to the order to show cause, but the order sure seems like another case of an attorney not understanding AI’s limitations,” Sean Marotta, a partner with Hogan Lovells in Washington, said.

“So far, sanctions have been monetary, but judges may decide they need to send a stronger signal, such as referral to disciplinary authorities,” he said. “Where Judge Furman comes down likely depends on how the nonexistent cases made their way into the brief and how forthcoming and contrite the lawyer is about the error.”

The errors were acknowledged in reply letter filed by new counsel for Cohen, E. Danya Perry of Perry Law said.

“I came into this case after the initial motion had been filed by another attorney and after the government had filed its opposition,” Perry said in an email.

Perry, who represented Cohen in his testimony in the civil fraud trial brought by the New York attorney general’s office against Trump, said she was “unable to verify the case law that had been submitted by previous counsel” after conducting her own research.

“Consistent with my ethical obligation of candor to the court, I advised Judge Furman of this issue,” she said.

Perry said that based on cases she cites in her reply, she believes the motion for early termination of Cohen’s release to be a “meritorious one.”

Furman is reserving judgment pending Schwartz’s submission.

Schwartz didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s request for comment.

The case is United States v. Cohen, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:18-cr-00602, order to show cause 12/12/23.