Mike Lindell, the outspoken MyPillow CEO and a key promoter of election conspiracy theories, finds himself deeper in legal trouble. Already facing a defamation lawsuit from former Dominion Voting Systems employee Eric Coomer, Lindell’s defense team has now come under fire for submitting a deeply flawed legal brief — one that was partly generated using artificial intelligence.
Coomer, who served as Dominion’s director of product strategy and security, claims Lindell and his media platform, FrankSpeech, launched a smear campaign against him after the 2020 presidential election. Lindell’s false claims allegedly painted Coomer as a traitor involved in rigging the election, damaging his career and reputation. But just as the case was moving forward, an unexpected twist emerged: Lindell’s lawyers filed a court document riddled with fake case law and glaring mistakes, prompting harsh scrutiny from the judge.
AI Errors Spark Judicial Alarm
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Nina Wang issued a stinging order highlighting nearly 30 serious errors in a brief submitted by Lindell’s attorneys, Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster. Among the problems were misquoted legal principles, inaccurate references to case origins, and — most alarming — citations of cases that don’t even exist.
According to Judge Wang, these issues weren’t minor slip-ups but fundamental flaws that raised questions about the attorneys’ basic competence. After being pressed during a court hearing, Kachouroff admitted he had used generative AI to help draft the brief — without thoroughly fact-checking the output before filing it with the court.
“The Court identified nearly thirty defective citations,” Wang wrote, adding that Kachouroff repeatedly dodged questions about the errors until directly confronted about his use of AI.
Lawyers Struggle to Defend Their Actions
Court documents show that when first questioned about the sloppy filing, Kachouroff offered vague excuses, suggesting the document was just a “draft pleading” and blaming possible paraphrasing mistakes. But under direct questioning from Judge Wang, he finally admitted to relying on AI-generated material.
He also acknowledged that after using AI, he did not verify whether the cases and quotes provided were accurate. Despite claiming that he had personally outlined the brief beforehand, the court remains skeptical given the sheer volume and severity of the mistakes.
In one instance, a case from Kentucky’s federal court was incorrectly listed as coming from Colorado’s district court. Kachouroff blamed co-counsel DeMaster for the citation errors, saying she was tasked with checking references — but the mistakes still slipped through. When asked about a specific citation to a case that didn’t exist at all, Kachouroff said he would be “surprised,” underscoring the lack of due diligence.
Now, both attorneys have until May 5 to submit a sworn statement explaining exactly how the flawed brief was prepared and whether Lindell or his companies authorized the use of AI.
Consequences Loom for Lindell’s Defense
If Kachouroff and DeMaster cannot offer a convincing explanation, they could face serious professional consequences, including sanctions and potential referral to disciplinary boards. Judge Wang’s order signals that the court is taking the matter seriously, especially given the broader concerns about AI’s unregulated use in the legal profession.
This isn’t the first time AI-generated content has caused problems in courtrooms, but the Lindell case is now becoming a textbook example of why human oversight remains critical — especially in high-stakes litigation.
Defamation Lawsuit: High Stakes for All Parties
Coomer’s lawsuit is centered on accusations that Lindell, MyPillow, and FrankSpeech falsely accused him of participating in a criminal conspiracy to rig the 2020 election. These accusations, according to Coomer, were broadcast widely through interviews, online posts, and even during Lindell’s much-hyped “Cyber Symposium” — all of which allegedly inflicted serious damage on his personal and professional life.
The now-infamous February 25 legal brief was Lindell’s team’s attempt to block Coomer’s motion to exclude certain personal matters from the trial. Coomer asked the court to prevent the introduction of irrelevant and prejudicial information, including details about a 2021 car accident, allegations about his private life, and his political and religious beliefs.
In their flawed filing, Lindell’s lawyers argued that this information was relevant to Coomer’s credibility — but the revelation that their arguments were supported by fake citations has now badly undermined their position.
