Professionalism, Rudwin Ayala, the Exploding Hoverboard, and Abuse of AI by Lawyers

Exploding Hoverboards

Self-balancing scooters, more commonly known as hoverboards, are electric mobility devices that are controlled via the operator shifting his weight. These devices use gyroscopes and pressure sensors to measure how a person is standing or leaning and microprocessors use this data to maintain upright balance or to move in the desired direction. The interpreted smoothness of the acceleration in the desired direction of travel has been likened to a hovering sensation, hence the name.

Hoverboards rose to prominence in 2015 when a number of celebrities began posting images and videos on social media using or posing with the hoverboards. This led to a surge in popularity among largely children and young teenagers, but also some adults. By the end of 2015, thousands of individual units were being imported to the US each day; due to the overwhelming amount of copy-cat products flooding the market at this time, exact sales totals are difficult to ascertain, but some estimate that manufacturers shipped almost $2 Billion worth of hoverboards between early 2015 and mid-2016[1].

Despite this clear boom in popularity, many of these hoverboards were designed poorly, either because of the massive amount of knock-offs or due to a desire to lower the price. These devices were almost all powered by lithium-ion batteries[2]. Unfortunately, many of these lower-quality devices had issues with their lithium-ion batteries. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, between 2015 and 2020, there were around 250 incidents involving hoverboards catching fire; in at least 99 specific instances, the battery pack overheating or sparking was the direct cause[3]. This has led to several recalls, totaling over half a million individual units. Most recently, 53,000 hoverboards were recalled in 2023[4].

Tragically, per the CPSC, there were at least 13 fatalities between 2017 and 2022 directly caused by or linked to hoverboards either catching fire or exploding. In 2017, a 2-year old girl and her 10-year old sister died in a house fire in Harrisburg, PA that was found to have started when a hoverboard battery overheated and sparked.[4]

AI Hallucinations

Large Language Models, AI Chatbots, and generative AI models are all known to be capable of generating misinformation or biased information. This phenomenon is collectively known as hallucination[5]. AI hallucinations tend to stem from either gaps in training data or from bias originating from the training data it was built from[6] These hallucinations can vary from slightly inaccurate information to comically false claims. For example, in November of 2022, Meta’s Galactica LLM generated prejudiced, inaccurate information during part of a public demonstration. Originally marketed as a tool designed to help scientists, Galactica was trained on over 48 million scientific journal entries, articles, and papers and was intended to be used by scientists and students as a sort of “short cut”; according to Meta, it could “write math problems, generate wiki articles, summarize scientific papers…and more.” However, after only three days of its demo phase, Meta pulled the plug due to poor performance and prevailing issues, including hallucinations due to the LLM’s inability to discern true and false information, no matter how obvious[7]

The Fire

On February 1, 2022, Matthew Wadsworth was working a night shift while his wife Stephanie and their 4 children remained home[8]. In the middle of the night, the Wadsworth home caught fire[8]. Emergency responders were called at 4:30 AM[9]. Ryan Pasborg, on his way to work, saw the flames[8]. 3 children escaped with minor injuries, but told Pasborg that Weston Wadsworth and his mother remained inside[8]. Pasborg rescued Stephanie and Weston from the fire and waited for help to arrive[8]. The family alleged that the source of the incident was a Jetson Plasma Iridescent Hoverboard, sold by Walmart, which exploded and caught fire[10].

Weston suffered burns to his right hand and both feet[11]. Stephanie suffered severe burns covering 35% of her body[12]. Two dogs did not make it out of the fire[9]. Stephanie was airlifted to Salt Lake City in critical condition[9]. In April 2022, Stephanie returned home after surgeries and skin grafts[11]. As of April 7 2022, Stephanie was doing physical therapy, getting her voice back after being intubated, and making adjustments to other life changes (such as losing her hair in the fire)[11]. A “Wadsworth Family benefit” gofundme has raised $47,375 towards a $50,0000 goal[13].

Resulting Lawsuit & Rudwin Ayala

In July 2023, Stephanie and Matthew Wadsworth filed litigation on behalf of their four minor children against Walmart and Jetson10]. The family is represented by T. Michael Morgan of Morgan & Morgan PA, and Taly Goody of Goody Law Group[10]. Rudwin Ayala of Morgan & Morgan PA drafted motions in limine (pretrial motions that seeks the exclusion of specific evidence from being presented[14]) and cited 9 court cases using an in-house artificial intelligence database created by Morgan & Morgan ([MX2.law)[15]. T. Michael Morgan, the son of Morgan & Morgan founder John Morgan, and Taly Goody of Goody Law Group signed their names without reviewing the documents[10]. Defendants Walmart and Jenkins Electric Bikes could not identify the cited cases through Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER, and Google, but were able to find some on ChatGPT[10].

In February 2025, Judge Rankin issued an order to show cause why the attorneys should not face disciplinary action: "provide a true and accurate copy of all cases used in support" of the motions in limine[10]. The attorneys filed a notice that they were withdrawing the motions, and expressed “great embarrassment” when admitting that the motions indeed included case law hallucinated by AI[10]. For guidance on sanctioning, Judge Rankin referred to sanctions carried out in previous cases where AI-generated cases were cited (particularly Mata v. Avianca, Inc.)[15]. Judge Rankin revoked Ayala’s pro hac vice status (which allowed him to participate in a jurisdiction where he lacks the license to practice) and fined him $3,000 based on[15]:

• The number of hallucinated cases vs real cases[15].
• His access to legal research resources[15].
• The fact that legal professionals have known about AI hallucinations[15].

Morgan and Goody were fined $1,000 each for failing to review the documents before signing[15]. M&M and Goody paid opposing counsel's fees for defending the motions in limine[15]. The attorneys have begun implementing internal policies and training to prevent future occurrences[10].

Rudwin Ayala’s Prompts to MX2.law

In order to draft his motions in limine, Rudwin Ayala supplied the following prompts to MX2.law:

• “add to this Motion in Limine Federal Case law from Wyoming setting forth requirements for motions in limine” [15]
• “add more case law regarding motions in limine” [15]
• “Add a paragraph to this motion in limine that evidence or commentary regarding an improperly discarded cigarette starting the fire must be precluded because there is no actual evidence of this, and that amounts to an impermissible stacking of inferences and pure speculation. Include case law from federal court in Wyoming to support exclusion of this type of evidence.” [15]

The misconduct of Rudwin Ayala, T. Michael Morgan, and Taly Goody seems obvious now. To properly learn from this case, one must understand exactly where the misconduct occurred. Was the use of AI inherently unethical? What if the error were never caught, would their conduct be considered nearly as unethical? Should Rudwin Ayala and his colleagues be held accountable for the error, or should AI in some form be held accountable? There is no definite answer, but the following examples land clarity to the case.

Rudwin Ayala and Plato's Allegory of the Cave

In Book VII of The Republic, Greek philosopher Plato tells The Allegory of the Cave. Though open to interpretation, this work can be applied to the case of Rudwin Ayala and broader professional ethics. For context, Plato's work[16] is briefly summarized below:

In the work, Plato tells a tale of a community born and raised in a cave, interpreting the world around them only through the shadows projected on the cave wall. They are confident in their analysis of the shadows, despite never seeing the things that cast them. Upon his departure from the cave, one member is shocked and nearly blinded by the outside world. By the time he returns to the cave, his eyes have adjusted to his new reality. The returner can no longer interpret the shadows the way he used to, for which he is mocked by his peers.

In the context of professional ethics, to become a professional is to willingly leave the cave. To devote one's life to the pursuit of specialized knowledge comes at the surrender of prior ignorance. A professional must know the source of their field's shadows.

By contrast, the average consumer (or cave dweller) need not fully understand the source of every shadow in their lives. The behavior of the cave dwellers in Plato's allegory could be described as "black boxing" - oversimplification for ease of understanding. The cave dwellers need not - and indeed cannot - identify all of the components of a shadow, only the figure in its entirety as it is cast upon the wall. The same applies for technology in the home. Take, for example, something as ubiquitous as a WiFi router. There is no need for the consumer to understand exactly how it works- that is black boxed left to the professionals.

Importantly, danger exists when professionals haphazardly blackbox processes or information they should have mastered. In using artificial intelligence to gather case law for his submission to the court, Rudwin Ayala returned from his "outside world" of professional training, sat down in front of the wall, and made a cave dweller of himself once more. By virtue of calling himself a professional in the field of law, Mr. Ayala should have been capable of compiling and verifying the case law himself. However, he took a shortcut by allowing artificial intelligence to project shadows upon the wall for him. This blind faith in AI made him no better than any person who had never left the cave- that is, someone with no professional legal training.

Rudwin Ayala, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft are words borrowed from the German language to describe the structure of certain social environments. They were first used in this context by German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies in his 1887 work Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft[17]. Gemeinschaft broadly translates to "community," wherein trust is high and there exists a "universal sense of solidarity" [17]. By contrast, Gesellschaft translates to "society," where trust is low and "rational self interest" takes priority[17].

A professional partakes in a high gemeinschaft environment. By virtue of their education and experience, they are trusted to act responsibly and in the best interest of those around them. A professional need not be interrogated for every decision they make. Rather, their similarly educated peers trust that their colleague is acting in congruence with the expectations of their shared background. Someone who cannot be trusted cannot be considered a professional.

Extreme Gemeinshaft was demonstrated by T. Michael Morgan and Taly Goody in their blind signing of Rudwin Ayala's work. Be it through negligence or good will, Morgan and Taly acted in a way that implied they had no reason to believe Ayala's work was faulty. This case exemplifies that while professionals work in high gemeinschaft realms, it should neither be taken for granted nor used as a shortcut.Trust is a bidirectional relationship. One cannot be trusted without reciprocally being trusted. A professional must be trustable. Importantly, artificial intelligence is not sentient and therefore not capable of trusting. As a result, it cannot be trusted in return and cannot ever be considered a professional in its own right.

Professional Ethics and AI in the Workplace

With the examples of Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Tönnies' Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in mind, meaning can be found in the case of Rudwin Ayala, exploding hoverboards, and the abuse of AI by lawyers.

Rudwin Ayala was not inherently wrong for using artificial intelligence. His error lied in blindly believing the fabricated case law as presented and trusting that AI would not lead him astray. As with all other technology, artificial intelligence is a tool. It is not a catch-all solution, and it will never be able to take a place among professionals by virtue of its inherent inability to trust and be trusted. Over-reliance on such tools, especially without an understanding how they work or verification of accuracy, puts professionals at risk of becoming “cave dwellers” themselves. Making such an error is damaging to one’s one reputation and the reputation of their profession, as it diminishes their expertise and breaks down the trust between client and professional. In the words of Judge Kelly H. Rankin, who presided over the case, "As attorneys transition to the world of AI, the duty to check their sources and make a reasonable inquiry into existing law remains unchanged.[10]"

• ↑ Cendrowski, Scott. "How the Hoverboard Fad Blew Up". Fortune. Retrieved 2025-05-05.
• ↑ "How do Hoverboards work?". Personal Electric Transport. 2023-09-08. Retrieved 2025-05-05.
• ↑ Domonoske, Camila (2016-07-06). "Half A Million 'Hoverboards' Recalled Over Risk Of Fire, Explosions" (in en). NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/06/484988211/half-a-million-hoverboards-recalled-over-risk-of-fire-explosions.
• ↑ a b Oxenden, McKenna (2023-03-31). "U.S. Recalls 53,000 Hoverboards After Reports of Fires" (in en-US). The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/us/jetson-hoverboard-recall-fire-deaths.html.
• ↑ "When AI Gets It Wrong: Addressing AI Hallucinations and Bias". MIT Sloan Teaching & Learning Technologies. Retrieved 2025-05-05.
• ↑ McNeley, Cory. "Is Your AI Lying To You? How To Avoid Hallucinations". Forbes. Retrieved 2025-05-05.
• ↑ "Why Meta's latest large language model survived only three days online". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2025-05-05.
• ↑ a b c d e Brittain, Trina (2022-04-10). "Love, gratitude and faith: Communities help fire victims rebuild". Rocket Miner. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
• ↑ a b c "Two injured after early morning house fire near Green River". Rocket Miner. 2022-02-01. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
• ↑ a b c d e f g h i Berg, Lauren (2025-02-24). "Injury Attys Sanctioned Over AI-Hallucinated Case Citations - Law360". Law360. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
• ↑ a b c Romero, Hannah (2022-04-07). "Family recovers, receives community support after fire". Green River Star. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
• ↑ Brittain, Trina (2022-03-30). "After the Fire: Sweetwater County family prepares for recovery". Rocket Miner. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
• ↑ Copeland, Luke. "Wadsworth Family benefit". gofundme.com. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
• ↑ "motion in limine". Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
• ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k "WADSWORTH v. WALMART INC LLC (2025)". Findlaw. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
• ↑ Plato. "The Allegory of the Cave". webspace.ship.edu. Retrieved 2025-05-05.
• ↑ a b c "Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft | Community, Interaction & Relationships | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2025-05-06.

Where this page came from

This page was imported from Wikibooks. From “Professionalism” on Wikibooks, by its contributors, under CC BY-SA 4.0. Changed here: set as a page; navigation and edit links left out; each image under its own licence, credited in its caption.

Nobody has written it yet — it is the source material at a new address, which is why search engines are asked to skip it and why no one earns from it. It is up for grabs: take it on, and it is yours to rewrite and to earn from.