Competence, fees and billing

2026-08-20 · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · provisional

The District of Delaware addresses plaintiff’s counsel’s disclosure that StrongSuit generated erroneous claim-construction briefing. The court notes counsel’s candor, withdrawn sections, and defense burden, declines Rule 11 sanctions, and warns that future AI mistakes in the case may result in sanctions.

After Plaintiff’s counsel disclosed to the Court that the previously filed Joint Claim Construction Brief (“Joint Brief”) (D.I. 105) featured multiple errors due to his use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), the Court ordered counsel to show cause in writing as to why the Court should not impose sanctions for counsel’s conduct pursuant to Federal …

2026-08-20 · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · provisional

The Northern District of California grants in part a renewed fee motion and discharges a sanctions order. The order records that plaintiff’s counsel reimbursed SJ 6070 $14,500 for expenses incurred addressing nonexistent cases cited in opposition to an earlier attorneys’ fees motion.

The Court also ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why he should not be sanctioned in an amount sufficient to reimburse Defendant for expenses it incurred in addressing nonexistent cases cited by Plaintiff in opposition to the first attorneys’ fees motion. See Order to Show Cause, ECF 30. The parties have resolved that issue informally, …

2026-08-18 · Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two · provisional

The Washington Court of Appeals affirms a parenting plan and awards Rebekah Muriel fees for responding to Jonathan Farris’s response brief. The court says the brief twice cited nonexistent Marriage of Sanjuan, surmises AI-assisted drafting, deems the filing frivolous, and sets the fee amount for the commissioner.

However, we award appellate attorney fees to Rebekah under RAP 18.9(a) for her time spent reviewing and responding to Jonathan’s response brief. Here, Jonathan’s brief twice cites to Marriage of Sanjuan to support his arguments, but as Rebekah points out in her reply brief, no such case exists. We surmise that Jonathan used artificial intelligence …

2026-08-14 · Superior Court of Vermont, Windham Unit · 2026 WL 2479362 · provisional

The Vermont Superior Court grants Brattleboro’s sanctions motion against Jeffrey Rivard and imposes a civil-division prefiling injunction. The order cites Rivard’s prior non-existent authorities, mismatched Vermont Reports citations, spurious record quotations, and repeated warnings that had not changed his filing conduct.

Plaintiff has himself been admonished by the Court for citing non-existent authority. In his brief, plaintiff cited several purported decisions of this Court, including “Slayton v. Willing, 2010 VT 56, ¶ 14, 188 Vt. 216, 4 A.3d 1155,” “Sorrell v. Wigginton, 154 Vt. 301, 303 (1990),” “Morrison v. City of Montpelier, 2011 VT 9, ¶ …

2026-08-14 · Court of Appeals of Indiana · provisional

The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirms the denial of David Brankle’s motion to compel and a $1,546 expenses award. The memorandum quotes the trial court’s finding that Brankle cited nonexistent rules and fictitious cases suggesting ChatGPT use, and holds hallucinated authorities cannot substantially justify the motion.

Brankle’s motion is totally without merit. First, Commercial Court Rules are inapplicable to this case[,] and Brankle should not cite to them again. Brankle’s repeated citations to rules that do not exist or fictitious cases leads the Court to opine that Brankle is using ChatGPT or other form of artificial intelligence to prepare his numerous …

2026-08-12 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · provisional

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal refers Barry Leff to the Florida Bar after a certiorari petition cited false AI-draft authority. Counsel says he filed the wrong draft; the court finds the petition misrepresented jurisdictional law, lacked controlling adverse authority, and cited non-existent authority.

Counsel filed a certiorari petition in this case that is riddled with false citations and arguments, including an unsupported allegation that this Court has “repeatedly entertained, and granted, certiorari review of orders vacating clerk’s defaults.” The petition cited a non-existent case allegedly from this Court and cited other cases that do not support this proposition. …

2026-08-12 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · 2026 WL 2350902 · provisional

The Northern District of Alabama sanctions Scott Morro for false citations, quotations, and legal representations in Chapman v. City of Priceville. The court treats client-drafted filings submitted without verification like unchecked AI work, publicly reprimands Morro, orders notice in pending cases, and directs publication.

The court finds, based upon its own careful review and Morro's admission, (doc. 34 at 1–2), that the purported citations, quotations, and representations of law in the filings at issue were fabricated. Accordingly, by citing nonexistent cases and attributing nonexistent quotations and propositions of law to actual authorities, Morro made false statements of law. Morro …

2026-08-11 · Appellate Court of Maryland · 2026 WL 2321382 · provisional

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirms judgment for 72 Barrow St. Realty and taxes costs to Simon Eyong. The per curiam opinion notes earlier orders striking large portions of his self-represented briefs for fictitious legal citations and inaccurate summaries, and leaves a sanctions motion for remand.

72 Barrow has moved for sanctions against Mr. Eyong under Rules 1-341 and 8-504, arguing that his citation to fictional legal authority in his opening brief and his reply brief; the lack of legal authority for his positions; and his failure to prepare a record extract justify an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. …

2026-08-11 · United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas · provisional

The Western District of Arkansas sanctions Nicholas Nesbitt in a consumer-credit case by imposing filing restrictions. The court says he relied on AI for legal research and writing, filed at least two motions with fabricated cases, apologized after a Rule 11 show-cause order, and continued filing improper papers.

Since then, Plaintiff has filed numerous replies without leave of Court, repetitive notices and motions, and at least two motions relying on fabricated cases. ... On July 17, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) for citing nonexistent case law in …

2026-08-10 · Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware · provisional

The Delaware Court of Chancery master recommends removing Gregory Palumbo as trustee, denying his accounting petition, and shifting fees. The report says the self-represented disbarred attorney cited Kuroda and Koninklijke for propositions they do not support, treated fictitious quotations as an AI hallmark, and found subjective bad faith.

Moreover, many of the cases cited by Respondent in support of his proposition neither expressly state nor even suggest the statements for which he invokes them. Respondent cites Kuroda v. SPJS Holdings, LLC for the proposition that (1) the proper procedural retort to a confusing claim is a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite …

2026-08-10 · Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · provisional

The Arizona Court of Appeals dismisses Stefanie Kuerschner’s appeal and awards appellate fees and costs. The court says her brief lacked record citations, repeatedly misquoted or misstated cases, included one unlocatable case, and repeated citation problems despite earlier warnings about AI-related errors.

Stefanie’s opening brief does not include a single citation to the record. Her opening brief also consistently misquotes cases and cites cases for propositions either not mentioned or directly contradicted by the case. And one case she cites appears not to exist. ... On page 27, the brief quotes State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. …

2026-08-07 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · provisional

The Western District of North Carolina resolves summary-judgment and spoliation motions and discharges an AI show-cause order. The court says plaintiff’s counsel accepted responsibility for fabricated quotations but did not explain their origin or substantiate claims about an unnamed AI program.

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 …

2026-08-06 · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175482; 2026 LX 497566 · provisional

The Middle District of Tennessee sanctions attorney Louis W. Ringger III after a filing contained hallucinated quotations and misleading citations. The order says unchecked AI-generated content contributed to the deficiencies, publicly reprimands Ringger, and orders him to pay $1,500 to the clerk.

On July 30, 2026, the Court ordered several of plaintiff's attorneys to show cause why they should not be sanctioned-under either or both of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's inherent authority-for filing a document at Doc. No. 293 that contained hallucinated quotations and misleading citations. ... Ringger has …

2026-08-06 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · provisional

The Northern District of Ohio rules on Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority’s motion to dismiss and flags a Shimola citation. The court says the cited reporter page points to another case, Shimola does not support the proposition, and future hallucinated citations may be sanctioned.

The Court first addresses GCTRA’s reliance on Shimola. First, “State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland” is not found at “70 Ohio St.3d 40” as cited by GCRTA. That citation is to State ex rel. Hopkins v. Indus. Comm’n of Ohio, 70 Ohio St.3d 36, 635 N.E.2d 1257 (Ohio 1994). And that case was …

2026-08-06 · United States District Court for the District of Nebraska · 2026 WL 2267773 · provisional

The District of Nebraska grants an EAJA fee request and cautions plaintiff’s counsel over a cited Peterson decision. The order says the Eighth Circuit citation does not exist, a similarly named case lacks the quoted language, and Nebraska’s AI rule requires verification.

Plaintiff cites one case in her initial brief in support of the Motion for Attorney Fees. Filing No. 27-1 at 2. Plaintiff quotes Peterson v. U.S. Retirement Board, 785 F.2d 245 (8th Cir. 1986) as follows: Agency action found to be arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence is virtually certain not to have …

2026-08-05 · United States District Court for the Western District of Texas · provisional

The Western District of Texas issues a show-cause order in Cain v. Hyatt. The order says plaintiffs cited nonexistent Henry v. Kroger authority in a dismissal response and requires attorney Daniel Miguel Hernandez to appear under Rule 11(c)(3).

Plaintiffs cited nonexistent case Henry v. Kroger Co., No. 4:19-cv-00630, 2019 WL 6311295 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2019), in their Response to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal. Dkt. 9 at 7. Under Rule 11(b), an attorney certifies that legal citations in papers presented to the Court are correct “to the best of the person’s knowledge, …

2026-08-05 · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourth District · provisional

The Texas Fourth Court of Appeals reverses denial of SAISD’s jurisdiction plea and renders dismissal. Before reaching the merits, the court identifies four hallucinated opinions in Becerra’s brief and cautions counsel that similar future issues will not be tolerated.

We begin by noting that Becerra’s appellee’s brief cites eight judicial opinions, four of which appear to be hallucinations created by generative artificial intelligence: “Alief Independent School District v. Lozano, 543 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied),” cited on page 23 of Becerra’s brief, does not exist. The citation 543 S.W.3d 118 …

2026-08-04 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · provisional

The Southern District of Texas magistrate judge recommends summary judgment for SWBC Mortgage and Cenlar. The recommendation says plaintiffs’ counsel cited fabricated Pointe West and Tractebel cases, misused other authorities, and is reminded of Rule 11 duties.

Plaintiffs cite Pointe West Center, LLC v. It’s Alive, Inc., 796 S.W.2d 830, 838–39 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied), and Motten v. Chase Home Financial, 821 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 2011), for the proposition that a cause of action for wrongful initiation of foreclosure proceedings exists. Pointe West is a …

2026-08-04 · United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · provisional

The District of Connecticut sanctions defense counsel Hilary Miller in a trademark dispute. The order says Miller used Open Law, Claude, and ChatGPT, submitted unverified AI-generated legal authorities with nonexistent quotations and erroneous citations, and must pay $3,500 with a grievance referral.

This Order addresses the Court’s previously issued Order to Show Cause concerning defense counsel Hilary Miller’s use of unverified generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in this matter. Having considered counsel’s written response to the Order to Show Cause and his representations made at the show-cause hearing, the Court concludes that sanctions are warranted and imposes the …

2026-08-03 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina · 2026 WL 2439988 · provisional

The Eastern District of North Carolina recommends dismissal of Damon Forney’s employment case as untimely and sanctions attorney Lucas Colantonio. The order says Colantonio repeatedly submitted fabricated authority after a warning, must pay Cary’s response fees, and is referred to the North Carolina State Bar.

The record provides clear and convincing evidence that Colantonio engaged in conduct that justifies imposing sanctions under the court's inherent authority. First, Colantonio provided erroneous case citations repeatedly even after being warned. Colantonio has admitted that the citation was erroneous. ... Thus the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that Colantonio knowingly submitted a …

2026-07-31 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2026 WL 2220314 · provisional

The Eastern District of Virginia bankruptcy court dismisses Alicia Mahar’s adversary complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Footnotes note that counsel cited a nonexistent In re Coastal Carolina Fruit Company decision and supplied incorrect court, Westlaw, or date information for three other mortgage cases.

At the March 26, 2026 hearing, the Court advised Ms. Mahar's counsel that one of the cases he cited in support of this proposition does not exist. ECF No. 61, Transcript of Mar. 26, 2026 hearing, at 9-10. Despite extensive efforts, the Court was unable to locate any case by the alleged name, and its …

2026-07-31 · Texas Court of Appeals, Twelfth District · provisional

The Texas Twelfth Court of Appeals affirms Kevin Higgins’s conviction. The opinion recounts defense counsel’s admission that an AI-produced evidentiary memorandum misstated case holdings because counsel did not read the cited cases, but holds Higgins did not establish Strickland prejudice.

Outside the jury’s presence, the trial judge referred to a written memorandum defense counsel filed regarding the admissibility of said items. During the ensuing colloquy between the trial judge and defense counsel, the trial judge stated that defense counsel’s memorandum misstated the holdings of several cases, whereupon defense counsel admitted that the memorandum was produced …

2026-07-31 · United States District Court for the District of Oregon · 2026 WL 2212298 · provisional

The District of Oregon partially suppresses statements in a criminal case. In resolving the Miranda arguments, the court notes that defense briefing supplied a quotation that does not appear in Smith and admonishes counsel, while recording counsel’s statement that the mistake was not caused by generative AI.

Perhaps recognizing that Smith does not support his argument, Williams resorts to providing a non-existent quotation from the case: “The Ninth Circuit held that officers cannot ‘prevent a suspect from making an unambiguous request for counsel by cutting him off.’ ” Reply, ECF 172 at 9. This Court admonishes Williams's counsel for misquoting Smith, but …

2026-07-30 · United States District Court for the District of Utah · provisional

The District of Utah grants transfer to Arizona and flags possible improper AI use in plaintiff’s opposition. The order says counsel cited two cases the court could not locate on Westlaw, quotes authority condemning fake opinions, and leaves the matter to the receiving judge.

Before addressing the substance of Defendants’ Motion, the Court calls attention to certain concerns it has regarding the Opposition Plaintiff’s counsel filed on March 10, 2026. In reviewing the Opposition, the Court located a number of case citations suggesting that the improper use of artificial intelligence may have occurred here. For example, the Opposition cites …

2026-07-30 · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District · provisional

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirms a child-custody modification judgment and sanctions Father’s lawyer. The court finds fabricated quotations from Harrison and Swim, unsupported assertions from Lenz and A.S., assumes AI hallucination rather than deliberate deception, and orders three additional hours of AI-focused CLE.

Finally, some discussion of appellant’s brief is warranted. As previously mentioned, appellant’s brief is disjointed and difficult to follow. However, that is not the only shortcoming of appellant’s briefing. It is obvious that appellant’s brief was either (1) the result of using artificial intelligence yielding hallucination citations or (2) a deliberate attempt to mislead this …

2026-07-30 · Texas Court of Appeals, Second District · provisional

The Texas Second Court of Appeals affirms a child-custody modification judgment on rehearing. The opinion notes Mother’s original brief cited a nonexistent case and that her counsel-filed amended brief cited nonexistent case portions and false quotations, but the court resolves the appeal on briefing and merits grounds.

Despite the lengthy preparation time, her opening brief’s purported legal analysis—which advanced six appellate issues—spanned just five pages with zero record references and a citation to a nonexistent case. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). ... Three months later, on the day Father’s brief was due, Mother moved for leave to file an overhauled amended …

2026-07-29 · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · provisional

The District of Colorado magistrate judge recommends summary judgment and grants discovery-fee sanctions in part. The order separately finds Maloit’s briefs contain misquotations, misstatements, and seven nonexistent cases likely from generative AI, then orders her to show cause about additional sanctions.

Finally, it has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff’s Response briefs in opposition to the instant Motion for Summary Judgment [#91] and Motion for Sanctions [#87] contain defective citations to case law. These defects include (1) misattributed or inaccurately quoted language from cases, (2) misrepresentations of legal concepts associated with the cited cases, and, …

2026-07-28 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas · provisional

The Northern District of Texas denies disqualification motions in a commercial dispute. The opinion notes briefing problems, including one nonexistent Northern District citation likely caused by imprudent generative-AI reliance, and admonishes pro hac vice counsel about responsible AI use and Rule 11 obligations.

The filings in this case are riddled with inaccurate citations, seemingly deliberate misrepresentations of guiding caselaw and the factual record, failures to comply with Court rules, and, in at least one instance, advocacy using caselaw that does not exist, likely the result of imprudent reliance on a generative artificial intelligence tool. ... (See Int. Resp. …

2026-07-28 · Appellate Court of Illinois, First District · 2026 IL App (1st) 251462

The Illinois First District affirms dismissal of Kimberly Scott’s discrimination charge and sanctions attorney Mason Cole. The opinion says ChatGPT produced 10 false citations or quotations, fines Cole $15,000 at $1,500 per misstatement, and directs the clerk to send the opinion to the ARDC.

We also sanction petitioner’s attorney Mason Cole for submitting briefs containing false citations and quotations that are the product of artificial intelligence (AI) hallucinations. ... Petitioner’s briefs also contain false case citations. One such case, “Harris v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 2022 IL App (1st) 210454,” does not exist at all. The citation 2022 IL …

2026-07-28 · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · 2026 WL 2167989 · provisional

The District of Arizona expands an AI show-cause inquiry against Elizabeth Tate. The order recounts Tate’s Claude AI workflow, finds that list-based cite checking missed false quotations in several filings, criticizes delegating whole-brief drafting to Claude, and requires a supplemental memorandum.

On July 8, 2026, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) requiring Plaintiff's counsel, Elizabeth Tate, to show cause why she should not be sanctioned or disciplined for including, in Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion for attorneys’ fees, two false quotations from Ninth Circuit cases. ... Ms. Tate utilized Claude AI to help …

2026-07-24 · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · provisional

The Western District of Washington sanctions Jocelyn Stewart in the LeDoux litigation. The order finds Stewart used ChatGPT and Claude without verifying outputs, causing dozens of false citations across briefs and expert reports, and imposes a $3,000 personal sanction plus future citation certifications.

In November and December 2025, Plaintiff Joann LeDoux submitted multiple filings containing dozens of inaccurate factual and legal citations which appeared “hallucinated” by a generative artificial intelligence tool. On February 4, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Jocelyn Stewart, to show cause and explain why she should not be sanctioned for these errors. ... …

2026-06-23 · Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department · 2026 NY Slip Op 03935

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department sanctions attorney Michael Sanders and Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC after an appellate brief used GenAI-assisted research. The court finds nonexistent cases, fictitious Court of Appeals quotations and misstatements, ordering $8,000 and $2,500 sanctions.

In this case, we impose sanctions upon an attorney and a law firm for submitting a brief, prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (hereinafter GenAI), containing citations to nonexistent cases, fictitious purported Court of Appeals quotations wholly contrary to actual law, and misrepresentations about what certain real cases actually held or decided. As …

2026-06-17 · Michigan Court of Appeals

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.

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 …

2024-02-22 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · provisional

On 2024-02-22, the Southern District of New York awards IDEA attorneys’ fees but reduces the requested hourly rates and hours. The court rejects the Cuddy Law Firm’s ChatGPT-4 fee-rate cross-check, citing citation hallucination cases and warning against using ChatGPT in future fee applications.

The Cuddy Law Firm also states that its requested hourly rates are supported by feedback it received from the artificial intelligence tool “ChatGPT-4.” Pl. Mem. at 16; see also Dkt 19 (“Kopp Decl.”). In fairness, the Cuddy Law Firm does not predominantly rely on ChatGPT-4 in advocating for these billing rates. It instead presents ChatGPT-4 …