Brooklyn Lawyer Faces $76K Sanction Over AI Blunders in T.D. Jakes Case
The legal drama swirling around Bishop T.D. Jakes just took a wild new turn — and this time it’s not about hush money or defamation, it’s about artificial intelligence gone wrong.
Brooklyn attorney Tyrone Blackburn, who was representing alleged Jakes accuser Duane Youngblood, is now staring down a potential $76,197.63 penalty after admitting that key filings in the case were riddled with bogus, AI-generated citations. If a Pennsylvania federal judge signs off, the fine could cripple Blackburn’s practice.
The Case Behind the Chaos
The saga started in 2024 when Youngblood appeared on Larry Reid Live claiming that Jakes groomed and assaulted him decades earlier. Jakes responded by filing a blistering defamation lawsuit, insisting the allegations were false and accusing Youngblood of trying to extort him for $6 million in hush money.
Enter Blackburn. The Brooklyn-based lawyer took on Youngblood’s defense pro bono (for free), but things quickly spiraled. According to Jakes’ legal team, the filings Blackburn submitted were “filled with fake case law and phony legal info” — legal gobbledygook that appeared to be spit out by faulty AI tools.
AI: Friend or Foe?
Blackburn admitted he messed up, blaming “new AI features” in LexisNexis and Westlaw, two of the most widely used legal research platforms in the country.
“I made no excuses then, and I make none now,” Blackburn wrote in a filing, confessing that he failed to double-check every citation before handing in his briefs. He said he had already started fixing the errors before being booted from the case in June.
Since the fiasco, Blackburn claims he’s been working overtime to educate himself, logging 11 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) courses specifically on AI, ethics, and compliance.
A Lawyer on the Brink
The potential financial hit is staggering. Blackburn insists that forcing him to cough up $76K would devastate his firm, especially since he often represents low-income clients and abuse survivors for little or no pay.
“My representation of Mr. Youngblood was entirely pro bono. I do not possess the resources to pay $76,197.63, or any amount, without jeopardizing my practice and my client,” he pleaded with the court.
He urged the judge to consider an alternative punishment — more CLE hours, or maybe even a stern warning — instead of a sanction that could shutter his office.
“My Dad is a Marine, my uncles are Marines and now my nephew is a Marine,” he added, pulling on family values to highlight his sense of accountability. “Service to the least of these and unequivocal accountability when wrong is how I was raised. I have taken full ownership of those citation errors.”
Jakes’ Team: “Pay Up”
Bishop Jakes’ lawyers aren’t buying it. They claim they had to spend more than 140 hours sifting through Blackburn’s faulty work just to clean up the mess. Their ask? Either Blackburn or his client should cover the full $76,197.63 — within 30 days.
From their perspective, the blunder wasn’t just sloppy, it was expensive, and someone has to pay.
Bigger Picture: AI on Trial Too
While Blackburn is the one in hot water, the case is also raising broader questions about how quickly artificial intelligence is creeping into the legal world — and how risky it can be when lawyers lean too heavily on it.
Courts around the country are now facing similar cases of “hallucinated” citations generated by AI. For Blackburn, it could be a career-altering mistake. For the rest of the legal system, it’s a wake-up call: when machines get it wrong, the consequences can be very, very human.