Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Barber v. Morawa
Michigan Court of Appeals · State appellate courts · MI · · No. 374773 · opinion
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirms denial of Joyce Barber’s new-trial motion but sanctions her counsel for AI-related citation failures. The court holds that repeated fabricated and unsupported authorities violated Michigan court rules, remands to determine defendant’s actual damages and expenses, and refers counsel for possible investigation.
- Disposition
- The court affirmed denial of a new-trial motion, remanded to determine fees and expenses caused by the appeal, and referred counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
- Recorded conduct
- Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly filed fabricated and unsupported authorities generated or revised with artificial intelligence, despite defendant identifying the defects. — outcome: costs order; actor: lawyer
- Canonical record
- Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
Counsel’s explanation does not excuse the violation. Artificial intelligence may be a useful tool for legal research and drafting, but the use of such technology does not alter an attorney’s professional obligations. Lawyers remain responsible for the filings they sign and submit. They must verify that cited authorities exist, read the authorities on which they rely, and ensure that those authorities support the propositions asserted. Counsel’s repeated reliance on artificial intelligence without meaningful verification, despite having been alerted more than once that his filings contained fabricated authority, fell below that standard. Counsel’s conduct burdened both defendant and this Court. Defendant was required to expend resources identifying and responding to fabricated citations, unsupported authorities, and arguments grounded in inapplicable criminal doctrine. This Court, in turn, was required to expend judicial resources disentangling plaintiff’s arguments from authorities that either did not exist or did not say what counsel represented them to say. We therefore consider the appropriate sanction. Under MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b), this Court may “assess actual and punitive damages or take other disciplinary action when it determines that an appeal or any of the proceedings in an appeal was vexatious because” a brief filed on appeal “was grossly lacking in the requirements of propriety, violated court rules, or grossly disregarded the requirements of a fair presentation of the issues to the court.” Counsel’s brief violated MCR 1.109(E)(5) and grossly disregarded the requirements of fair presentation by relying on fabricated authority, unsupported citations, and inapplicable criminal doctrine. Sanctions are therefore authorized under MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b).
Authorities cited in the passage: MCR 1.109(E)(5) · MCR 1.109(E)(6) · MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b) · Nixon v. Ken Ganley Ford West, 798 F. Supp. 3d 770 (N.D. Ohio 2025) · Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489 (D. Wyo. 2025) · Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F. Supp. 3d 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2025) · Hardy v. Whitaker, E.D. Mich. 2026
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face