Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (federal)

Barteca Holdings LLC v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00250 (D. Conn.)

·US District Court for the District of Connecticut·US-FEDSanctions

In a restaurant trade-dress dispute, the US District Court for the District of Connecticut sanctioned defense counsel USD 3,500 and referred him for discipline after a brief polished with Open Law, Claude and ChatGPT misquoted Ashcroft v. Iqbal and other cases. Judge Vernon Oliver said using AI does not diminish counsel's duty to verify every cited authority.

Court
US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Date
2026-08-04
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Open Law, then Claude and ChatGPT (per counsel)
Conduct
Defense counsel Hilary Miller's motion-to-dismiss briefing in a trade-dress case contained four false quotations attributed to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Landscape Forms, Yurman and other cases, and four misrepresented holdings. The court held a show-cause hearing on 25 June 2026 before imposing sanctions.
Outcome
Sanctions
Penalty
US$3,500
Regulatory outcome
State disciplinary authority (Connecticut; body not named verbatim in the extract): Court referred counsel to the state disciplinary authority in its Order Imposing Sanctions (ECF 43). No disposition on record. (2026-08-04)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-03

What was fabricated or misused

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) — quoted for “bare assertions” and “conclusory allegations,” but those quotations do not exist on the cited page
  • Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739, 744 (2d Cir. 1998) — cited for an incontestability proposition the case did not address
  • 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. JAND, Inc., 119 F.4th 234 (2d Cir. 2024) — cited to page 251 for a discussion the court said appears on pages 249–50
  • Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 113 F.3d 373, 381 (2d Cir. 1997) — quoted language did not exist in the cited case
  • Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101, 116–17 (2d Cir. 2001) — quoted for “amorphous overall style,” but the case did not say that
  • O Zon Inc. v. Charles, 272 F. Supp. 2d 307, 317–18 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) — cited to pages beyond the end of the opinion
  • Starter Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 84 F.3d 592, 595–96 (2d Cir. 1996) — mischaracterised as limiting declaratory relief and cited to the wrong pages
  • Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286–87 (1995) — cited for a redundant declaratory-judgment proposition the case did not support
  • Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152–53 (2d Cir. 2002) — quoted language on Rule 12(b)(6) review did not exist in the cited form
  • Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152–53 (2d Cir. 2002) — cited for Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), which the case did not address
  • Pearson v. Gesner, 125 F.4th 400, 409–12 (2d Cir. 2025) — cited to pages the opinion did not contain
  • Friedl v. City of New York, 210 F.3d 79, 83–84 (2d Cir. 2000) — quoted language did not exist; the court identified different language at page 83
  • Fonte v. Board of Managers of Continental Towers Condominium, 848 F.2d 24, 25 (2d Cir. 1988) — quoted language did not match the case
  • Kopec v. Coughlin, 922 F.2d 152, 155–56 (2d Cir. 1991) — cited to the wrong pages for the relevant discussion
  • Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47–48 (2d Cir. 1991) — misstated as allowing Rule 12 consideration only when plaintiffs had notice and relied on the documents

What the court said

“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.”
US District Court for the District of Connecticut, p. 1
“Concerned about the risk of AI hallucinations, Attorney Miller then cross-checked the citations in the brief to determine whether they existed and were cited correctly, including by Shepardizing every case in the brief through Lexis.”
US District Court for the District of Connecticut, p. 8
“However, he did not adequately verify that each “pin cite” referred to the correct page or that the quotations included in his brief were accurate.”
US District Court for the District of Connecticut, p. 8
“Balancing these considerations, the Court concludes that a monetary sanction of $3,500, together with a referral of this matter to the Grievance Committee pursuant to Local Rule 83(c)(2), is appropriate.”
US District Court for the District of Connecticut, p. 18

Timeline

  1. Defendants filed the motion to dismiss containing disputed authorities.
  2. Defendants filed the motion to exclude extrinsic evidence.
  3. Court issued an order to show cause after finding hallucinations.
  4. Miller responded, accepting full responsibility and describing verification changes.
  5. Court held the show-cause hearing and heard the AI-tool explanation.
  6. Court imposed a $3,500 sanction and grievance referral.
  7. Deadline set for payment and any corrected motion to dismiss.

Why this case matters

Barteca is the lawyer counterpart to In re Booker in the same District of Connecticut. Both were before Judge Oliver and both involved generative-AI text that survived cross-checking by other tools or databases. The difference is that the court moved from admonishing a pro se appellant in Booker to a USD 3,500 Rule 11 sanction, withdrawal or termination of tainted motions, and a grievance referral for counsel. The record is also useful because it separates two checks: citation existence and quotation or pinpoint accuracy.

Practice note

The court accepted that counsel checked whether cases existed but found that insufficient. For any AI-assisted draft, verify the quoted sentence and pinpoint against Lexis, Westlaw, or the official decision, not only whether the case exists. Where a standing order warns about AI, keep a final cite-check log and hyperlink each authority when the court requires it.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

  • Johnson v. Dunn, No. 2:21-cv-01701-AMM (N.D. Ala.), 792 F. Supp. 3d 12412025-07-23 · US District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Southern Division) · SanctionsIn the Northern District of Alabama, Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded Butler Snow attorneys Matthew B. Reeves, William J. Cranford and William R. Lunsford for filing two motions containing citations hallucinat…
  • Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind.)2025-05-28 · US District Court, Southern District of Indiana (Terre Haute Division) · SanctionsIn the Southern District of Indiana, Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore recommended a $15,000 Rule 11 sanction against attorney Rafael Ramirez for three briefs citing non-existent AI-generated cases and referred him to t…
  • Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 2:25-cv-00576-MMB (E.D. Pa.)2025-04-10 · US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · SanctionsIn the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Baylson found attorney Nicholas L. Palazzo violated Rule 11 by citing two non-existent cases the court described as apparent AI hallucinations; the court struck his appeara…
  • Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:25-cv-00052-MIS-DLM (D.N.M.)2025-04-02 · US District Court, District of New Mexico · SanctionsIn the US District Court for the District of New Mexico, Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez sanctioned attorney Felipe D.J. Millan $1,500 under Rule 11 for filing a brief, bought from a LAWCLERK freelancer, citing six…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Barteca Holdings LLC v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00250 (D. Conn.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/barteca-v-tacobarn (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →