Wilkinson v. Schmelzer

What the court wrote

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

In her resistance to Brett’s motion for remand and request for sanctions, Lacey asked our supreme court to impose sanctions on Brett for purported use of generative AI in his briefs. The use of generative AI presents an interesting challenge for modern courts. While Brett is correct that “mere use of [AI] drafting assistance . . . does not constitute sanctionable conduct,” we have stated that “self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings.” Luke v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 24-1421, 2025 WL 2237311, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). The twist is that, absent the presence of a hallucinated case, it is difficult to differentiate poor human drafting from unverified generative AI. Here, we can find no hallucinated case. And it is impossible for us to say with certainty whether Brett’s single reference to the nonexistent “Iowa R. App. P. 6.1004(3)” was a simple typo or the result of unchecked AI use. Thus, we decline to apply sanctions for Brett’s purported use of AI.

Authorities cited in the passage: Luke v. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, 2025 WL 2237311 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025)