Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Forney v. Township of Cary, North Carolina, No. 5:25-CV-00738-M (E.D.N.C.)
·US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina·US-FEDCosts order
Having warned the same lawyer in a prior action, the chief judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina used inherent authority to order him to pay the Town of Cary's fees for a brief built on a nonexistent citation and misleadingly truncated authority, and referred him to the North Carolina State Bar.
- Court
- US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
- Date
- 2026-08-03
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Attorney Lucas Colantonio's response brief relied on a citation to In re S.L.L. that did not exist at the reference given and selectively quoted Armco. He had been warned about citation accuracy in the earlier Forney I action and admitted he did not investigate the citations.
- Outcome
- Costs order
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- North Carolina State Bar: Chief Judge Myers referred counsel to the North Carolina State Bar. No disposition on record. (2026-08-03)
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- In re S.L.L., 177 N.C. App. 430, 432, 628 S.E.2d 618 (2006) — did not appear at the citation provided; neither it nor the cases at those citations dealt with service of process
- Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Building Systems, Inc., 733 F.2d 1087, 1089 (4th Cir. 1984) — quoted only the first half of the paragraph and omitted the limiting sentence that service rules may not be ignored
- Hoyle v. United Auto Workers Local Union 5285, 444 F. Supp. 2d 467 (W.D.N.C. 2006) — offered at the hearing as the intended citation, but counsel could not show it supported the brief’s proposition
- Capstar Corp. v. Pristine Indus., Inc., 768 F. Supp. 518, 521 (W.D.N.C. 1991) — invoked at the hearing through Hoyle, but the court noted it did not support counsel’s position
What the court said
“This opinion also sanctions Forney's attorney, Lucas Colantonio, for submitting a brief that contained fabricated legal authority for the second time.”
“There should not be a next time. If there is, the court will impose monetary and other sanctions.”
“Thus the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that Colantonio knowingly submitted a pleading containing fabricated authority and citations on multiple occasions and even after being warned.”
“Further, the Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order and a transcript of the April 16, 2026 hearing (D.E. 18) to the North Carolina State Bar for whatever action it deems appropriate, including consideration of whether disciplinary or disability-related measures are warranted.”
Timeline
- Forney filed the first discrimination action against Cary.
- Court dismissed Forney I and warned counsel against non-existent cases.
- Forney filed the second action against Cary.
- Town moved to dismiss the second complaint.
- Response repeated In re S.L.L. and the truncated Armco discussion.
- Court held a show-cause hearing on counsel’s citations.
- Court recommended dismissal, ordered fee sanctions, and referred counsel.
Why this case matters
Forney is a repeat-warning record. The same lawyer had been told in Forney I that another non-existent citation would bring monetary and other sanctions, yet the second case reused the same In re S.L.L. citation and the same incomplete Armco passage. That makes it closer to Deutsche Bank v LeTennier than to first-notice cases such as In re Booker. The order is also useful because it treats failure to read the prior warning and failure to investigate the source of the first citation as aggravating facts.
Practice note
After a court flags a false citation, the next filing should begin with a documented recheck of the prior order and every authority reused from the earlier brief. Do not rely on a replacement case named from memory at a hearing. Bring the full decision, pinpoint the page, and confirm that the unquoted part of a paragraph does not defeat the proposition.
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
- Full Standard Properties v. SJ 6070, No. 5:25-cv-09451 (N.D. Cal.)2026-08-20 · US District Court for the Northern District of California · Costs orderIn the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Freeman discharged an order to show cause against plaintiff's counsel who had cited nonexistent cases, after counsel reimbursed USD 14,500 in fees…
- Barteca Holdings LLC v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00250 (D. Conn.)2026-08-04 · US District Court for the District of Connecticut · SanctionsIn 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 mi…
- In re Brian E. Mitchell, USPTO Proceeding No. D2026-162026-07-27 · US Patent and Trademark Office, Office of Enrollment and Discipline · OtherThe US Patent and Trademark Office's Office of Enrollment and Discipline publicly reprimanded California patent attorney Brian Mitchell, whose AI-drafted claim-construction chart in a federal patent case cited nonexiste…
- Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc. (Estate of Caviness v. Atlas Air), No. 24-11033 (11th Cir.)2026-07-10 · US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Regulatory referralIn a published opinion affirming dismissal of pilots' vaccine-mandate claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit condemned attorney Anthony Sabatini for briefs replete with fake and hallucinated citations,…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Forney v. Township of Cary, North Carolina, No. 5:25-CV-00738-M (E.D.N.C.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/forney-v-township-of-cary (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.