Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
James v. Conley, No. 1:23-cv-24467 (S.D. Fla.)
·US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Magistrate Judge Elfenbein, report and recommendation)·US-FEDPending
In the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a magistrate judge found that plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint pleaded nonexistent police-training publications that counsel conceded were AI hallucinations. The report recommended denying the defendants' Rule 11 motion on safe-harbour grounds but referring the signing attorneys to the court's attorney-grievance committee; the district judge's ruling is pending.
- Court
- US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Magistrate Judge Elfenbein, report and recommendation)
- Date
- 2026-08-27
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- The Fifth Amended Complaint pleaded nonexistent International Association of Chiefs of Police 'Training Keys' that plaintiff's counsel conceded were AI hallucinations. The magistrate judge recommended denying the defendants' Rule 11 motion on safe-harbour grounds but recommended referring the signing attorneys to the court's Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review and Attorney Grievance.
- Outcome
- Pending
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- Training Keys No. 135, “Photographic Identifications” (1975) — counsel could not verify the description alleged in the Fifth Amended Complaint
- Training Keys No. 159, “Lineups and Photographic Identifications” (1978) — counsel could not verify the description alleged in the Fifth Amended Complaint
- Training Keys No. 202, “Eyewitness Identification” (1982) — counsel could not verify the description alleged in the Fifth Amended Complaint
- Training Keys No. 225, “Conducting Identification Procedures” (1985) — counsel could not verify the description alleged in the Fifth Amended Complaint
- Training Keys No. 302, “Photographic Identifications Revisited” (1989) — counsel could not verify the description alleged in the Fifth Amended Complaint
What the court said
“The existence of Key Nos. 135, 159, 202, 225, and 302 was disputed shortly after Plaintiff filed the Fifth Amended Complaint”
“As explained below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s use of and repeated reliance on unverified AI-generated research to be irresponsible and in dereliction of counsel’s responsibilities as officers of the Court.”
“The attorneys had an obligation under Rule 11 to verify the contents of their pleadings at the outset and also drop the position once it became untenable.”
“be REFERRED to the Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida”
Timeline
- State court vacated James’s conviction.
- Expert deposition addressed only Keys 67 and 414 as relevant.
- Fifth Amended Complaint pleaded five disputed IACP Training Keys.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss saying it could not validate the Keys.
- Plaintiff responded to discovery that he did not possess the disputed Keys.
- Magistrate judge recommended denying Rule 11 sanctions but referring counsel.
Why this case matters
James broadens the tracker beyond fake cases to AI-generated factual allegations in a pleading. Unlike Mata v Avianca, Parnell and Akerlund, the disputed material was not legal authority but police-training publications used to support a Monell theory. The report recommended denying the Rule 11 motion because the safe-harbor step failed, yet still recommended referral of every lawyer who signed the complaint. That split outcome is useful because it separates procedural defects in a sanctions motion from counsel's independent duty to verify facts.
Practice note
Before pleading a Monell training theory, obtain the training materials or written confirmation from the issuing body. Alleging documents on information and belief does not excuse an AI-generated description that cannot be verified. If later discovery shows the material is false, amend promptly and stop relying on 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
- Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 24-00221-MMB (Ct. Int'l Trade 2026)2026-09-22 · United States Court of International Trade · PendingIn the U.S. Court of International Trade, Judge M. Miller Baker ordered a Chinese exporter to substantiate brief statements that Commerce took part in a Canadian antidumping case. If it cannot, it must show cause why it…
- Falkenstein v. Niles, No. 2:26-cv-07078-SB-PD (C.D. Cal.)2026-09-03 · US District Court, Central District of California · PendingIn the US District Court for the Central District of California, defence counsel filed materials with false quotations, misplaced propositions and representations not found in the complaint. Judge Blumenfeld ordered cou…
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
- Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-12395-AK (D. Mass. 2026)2026-09-25 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · SanctionsIn Massachusetts federal court, Judge Angel Kelley sanctioned California-barred counsel under Rule 11 for fictitious and misattributed citations across three briefs. His firm must pay the Enterprise defendants' fees and…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “James v. Conley, No. 1:23-cv-24467 (S.D. Fla.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/james-v-conley (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.