
By Michael Phillips | TXBayNews
A federal racketeering case out of northwest Arkansas is sending shockwaves far beyond the legal community, raising hard questions about attorney ethics, client solicitation, and the growing — and risky — use of artificial intelligence in court filings.
Last week, Timothy L. Brooks, a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, ordered an additional $1.6 million in attorney fees and costs against Fayetteville lawyer Tony Pirani after finding that Pirani submitted court filings generated with ChatGPT that contained fabricated legal citations.
The ruling caps off one of the most significant civil RICO judgments in Arkansas history — and highlights how new technology, when misused, can collide with long-standing professional standards.
The Case: Funeral Home Solicitation and RICO Violations
The case, Jason M. Hatfield, P.A. v. Tony Pirani, stems from a fatal tractor-trailer crash in Benton County in 2020. Springdale attorney Jason M. Hatfield alleged that a network of lawyers and non-lawyers improperly solicited grieving families at funeral homes — a practice often referred to as “hearse-chasing.”
According to court findings:
- Non-lawyer “runners” allegedly approached families during funeral arrangements.
- Promises of financial help and immigration assistance were reportedly used to steer clients.
- Fee-splitting arrangements were hidden through shell entities and out-of-state affiliations.
Most defendants settled before trial. Pirani chose to proceed — and represent himself.
Jury Verdict: Millions in Damages
In July 2025, a federal jury found Pirani liable for:
- Federal RICO violations, and
- Arkansas civil conspiracy.
The jury awarded:
- Nearly $4 million on RICO claims, and
- Additional actual and punitive damages under state law.
Under RICO’s mandatory trebling provision, the total judgment entered in August 2025 exceeded $11 million.
The AI Filing That Changed Everything
After the verdict, Pirani filed post-trial motions asking for relief. He later admitted those filings were drafted using ChatGPT.
The problem:
Several of the cited cases did not exist.
Judge Brooks struck the filings, calling the conduct a “flagrant violation” of the lawyer’s duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry before filing papers with the court. Unlike traditional legal research tools, the court noted, generative AI does not verify citations — and blindly trusting it is unacceptable.
New Sanctions and Fee Award
In a December 17–18, 2025 order, Judge Brooks:
- Awarded $1.58 million in attorney fees and $93,000 in costs to Hatfield,
- Denied all post-trial motions,
- Imposed a $1,000 fine,
- Barred Pirani from appearing in the Western District of Arkansas until the fine is paid,
- Required co-counsel for any future appearances for two years, and
- Referred the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court Office of Professional Conduct.
The judge emphasized deterrence, warning that AI cannot replace professional judgment — especially in federal court.
Why This Matters Beyond Arkansas
This case isn’t just about one lawyer or one courtroom.
For concerned citizens, it raises broader issues:
- Ethical guardrails in high-stakes wrongful-death litigation,
- Consumer protection for grieving families,
- Judicial integrity in the age of AI, and
- Whether courts are prepared to handle the rapid adoption of powerful but unreliable tools.
As courts nationwide grapple with AI-generated filings, Arkansas has now become a cautionary example: technology can assist lawyers — but it does not absolve them of responsibility.
Bottom Line
The Hatfield v. Pirani case underscores a simple but critical principle:
Innovation without accountability erodes trust.
Whether it’s unethical client solicitation or unverified AI-generated filings, the courts are making clear that shortcuts — technological or otherwise — come with consequences.
For Arkansas, and for the rest of the country watching closely, this ruling sends a message that the rule of law still demands human judgment, verification, and ethical restraint.
Leave a comment