Wayne K. Smith, Sr. v. Polk County

What the court wrote

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

On June 3, 2026, the Court directed counsel for the Plaintiff to show cause in writing as to why she should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Court’s Standing Order Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence. [Doc. 98 at 15]. The Court specifically directed counsel for the Plaintiff to explain both the origin of the fabricated quotations in briefing she filed with the Court and her repeated failure to provide timely certifications that complied with the Court’s Standing Order. ... Counsel represented that she “does not use AI to conduct legal research,” and that “[t]o ensure the accuracy of citations . . . [she] runs briefs through LexisNexis brief analysis” and fixes any error that appears “alarming.” ... Moreover, counsel has not explained the origin of the fabricated quotations other than to accept responsibility for them and assert that they were not produced by an artificial intelligence program. How such fabricated quotations could have appeared in the Plaintiff’s filings at all therefore remains a mystery. Finally, while counsel asserts that the artificial intelligence program embedded in her practice cannot hallucinate, she has provided no corroboration for that assertion, nor has she even provided the name of the artificial intelligence program that she uses. As a result, the Court finds that counsel’s response has fallen well short of the Court’s expectations. Nevertheless, because counsel has accepted responsibility for the errors in the Plaintiff’s filings, the Court will discharge the Show Cause Order. Counsel for the Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that any similar shortcomings in future filings will result in sanctions.

Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · Standing Order Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence