Court Awards $28,000 in Sanctions for Fake Citations: A Cautionary Tale for Users of AI
February 25, 2026
By: Colin A. Walker
Colin Walker and Sylvia Osiecka of Fairfield and Woods, P.C., recently obtained sanctions against counsel for a plaintiff in an employment case for citing cases that do not exist and others that do not stand for the propositions for which they were cited.
Counsel for the plaintiff filed a complaint with the court that relied on certain regulations. Upon researching the regulations, Fairfield and Woods discovered that they had been amended such that they did not apply to the claims at issue. After Fairfield and Woods informed the plaintiff’s counsel about the amendments, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, without objection from Fairfield and Woods, which cited cases that plaintiff argued supported the claims. However, upon researching these cases, Fairfield and Woods discovered that four of the cases did not exist and two other cases existed but did not include the propositions for which plaintiff cited them.
Again, Fairfield and Woods wrote to plaintiff’s counsel, this time asking for accurate citations, copies of the cases, and an explanation. Plaintiff’s counsel replied and explained that the cases existed but should not have been included. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that plaintiff intended to amend the complaint again and asked if the defendant objected. However, Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide valid citations or copies of the cases. When Fairfield and Woods pointed this out and again asked for valid citations and copies of the cases, plaintiff’s reply was essentially the same as the previous email and asked again if defendant objected. Fairfield and Woods replied that plaintiff had not provided the information requested and, until they did, defendant would not agree to the amendment.
Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint anyway. Fairfield and Woods filed a response objecting to the amendment and discussing the fake cases and cases that did not stand for the propositions for which they were cited. Shortly after the response was filed, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. However, the judge sua sponte (acting on its own initiative), issued an order requiring the plaintiff and their counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned. After conducting a hearing, the court-imposed sanctions on plaintiff’s counsel of $3,000 and ordered plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $25,000. The court did not sanction the plaintiff personally because it found they had not been involved in the conduct which resulted in the inappropriate citations.
Although this case has all the hallmarks of the use of generative AI resulting in false information or “hallucinations,” plaintiff’s counsel never admitted to using generative AI. Instead, counsel steadfastly insisted that their citations to non-existent cases and cases that do not stand for the propositions for which they were cited was due to carelessness. Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Regardless of the reason, the plaintiff’s counsel committed serious breaches of the court’s rules by citing the fake cases and others that existed but did not stand for the propositions for which they were cited. Either way, this case highlights the importance of taking great care when using generative AI in legal proceedings, checking all information obtained from use of generative AI, and performing appropriate due diligence (including verification of cited authority) when evaluating arguments of opposing counsel.