Holstein v. Holstein

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

These circumstances present an opportunity for this court to reemphasize the importance of verifying every citation, holding, and quote a litigant selects for inclusion in his or her filings to a court. We expect this even more so from an attorney when case-related information is provided by his non-lawyer client for use in his brief. “All attorneys are officers of the legal system and have a duty of candor toward tribunals.” Brown v. State, 746 N.E.2d 63, 70 (Ind. 2001) (citing Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 3.3); see Ind. Trial Rule 11(A) (“The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleadings; [and] that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support it[.]”). “[A] lawyer who uses . . . legal authority obtained from [artificial intelligence] in a pleading without independently confirming its accuracy fails to adhere to the obligation of candor to the court if those representations turn out to be false.” Maura R. Grossman et al., Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary? 107 Judicature 68, 75 (2023). “Courts nationwide have confronted this problem and imposed sanctions on attorneys . . . who file briefs containing fictitious authority.” Wilcox v. Gingrich, 274 N.E.3d 1269, 1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2026). However, given the unique circumstances at issue here, we do not find sanctions are warranted. First, Father’s counsel brought this to the Court’s attention and sought to rectify the situation almost immediately upon discovering his mistake. In light of counsel’s honesty in bringing this matter to the Court’s attention and a lack of any alleged prejudice, we do not find monetary sanctions are appropriate in this case and therefore deny Mother’s request. Notwithstanding our decision, we echo the warnings issued by this Court and others around the country, especially to attorneys, of the risks posed by using artificial intelligence in litigation and the sanctions that can result from its misuse.

Authorities cited in the passage: Brown v. State, 746 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. 2001) · Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 3.3 · Indiana Trial Rule 11(A) · Wilcox v. Gingrich, 274 N.E.3d 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2026) · Dec v. Mullin, 171 F.4th 940 (7th Cir. 2026) · Williams v. Kirch, 268 N.E.3d 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025)