The Sixth Circuit Sanctions Two Lawyers Whose Briefs Cited Fake Cases, After They Did Not Answer Its Order Asking Who Wrote Them, Whether Generative AI Was Used and How They Were Cite-Checked

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit filed an opinion on March 13, 2026, recommended for publication, about the briefs that two lawyers filed in three consolidated appeals. The court affirmed the district court in the appeals themselves by a separate opinion. This one addresses the briefing, which, it says, "repeatedly misrepresented the record, cited non-existent cases, and cited cases for propositions of law that they did not even discuss, much less support." The court asked whether generative AI had been used, and was not told. Parts of the opinion follow, not the whole, and the article names neither the lawyers nor the parties.

The Fake Citations and the Court's Questions

After reviewing the briefs, the court found "over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of fact," which it lists in an appendix. A footnote calls that "a conservative estimate", counting only what was clearly a fake citation or a misrepresentation of fact and leaving out typos and sloppy citations.

It then ordered the two lawyers to show cause why they should not be sanctioned. The order told them to explain why they should not be sanctioned for citing fake cases; to provide a copy, from one of two named legal research services, of every case and authority cited in all the briefs across the three appeals; to highlight any material quoted from those cases; to say who wrote the briefs in each case; to say whether the briefs were ghostwritten in whole or in part; to say whether they used generative AI to write the briefs; and to "explain how they cite-checked the briefs."

The court says the two lawyers "did not respond to these directives." Instead, their responses said the order was "void on its face for failing to include a signature of an Article III judge" and "motivated by harassment".

The order reads like a list of what a reviewer would want to see behind any brief: the sources themselves, the quoted passages marked, the author named, the tools disclosed and the checking described. None of it was produced.

Privilege and the Clerk's Signature

The court construed the responses as making four objections. On privilege, it said the order did not seek a lawyer's notes, prior drafts or legal advice: "Whether and how the briefs were cite-checked does not implicate conversations regarding legal advice, nor do they ask for any work product of any kind." On the clerk's signature, it said its orders are not invalid because the clerk signed them, and that the judges had personally reviewed and drafted the order to show cause.

The Holding and the Sanctions

On the law, the court held the appeal frivolous as argued because fake cases were submitted, saying "inventing case law is a misrepresentation of law." That some of the cited cases existed did not change that. Quoting another court, it rejected any "notion that because some authority exists to support a legal proposition it should negate the harm caused by false and hallucinated cases."

The court sanctioned both lawyers under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and its inherent authority. They must jointly and severally reimburse the appellees in full for their reasonable attorneys' fees on appeal in all three appeals, and pay double costs. Each must also separately pay $15,000 to the registry of the court as punitive sanctions, and the clerk will forward a copy of the order to the chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings.

On the fines, the court said fake cases and factual misrepresentations "forced the court to individually verify every single citation to determine the appropriate sanction." It chose the amount because the misconduct was spread across three cases instead of one, and because smaller fines "have plainly been inadequate". It also named four aggravating factors, among them that the lawyers "defied this court's order to show cause and refused to provide the information we requested."

The panel retains jurisdiction to the extent required to enforce the terms of the opinion.