Kansas federal judge penalizes 5 attorneys for AI-generated brief with made-up cases
Depositphotos.com image
Kansas federal judge penalizes 5 attorneys for AI-generated brief with made-up cases
By Tim Hrenchir, USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect//February 6, 2026//
Listen to this article
Summary:
Federal judge penalized five attorneys for submitting an AI-hallucinated court brief
False citations included nonexistent cases and fabricated judicial quotations
Fines ranged from $1,000 to $5,000, with additional disciplinary measures ordered
Judge emphasized attorneys’ duty to independently verify AI-generated legal research
A Kansas federal judge recently imposed penalties that included fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 upon attorneys responsible for mistakenly submitting a brief containing falsehoods created by artificial intelligence.
Senior U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson in a Feb. 2 ruling spelled out penalties assessed to Texas-based attorneys Sandeep Seth, Kenneth Kula, Christopher Joe and Michael Doell and Topeka-based attorney David Cooper.
The five, as attorneys of record for Lexos Media IP LLC, signed a defective brief submitted in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas, as part of a patent infringement case against Overstock.com Inc.
The brief contained numerous falsehoods blamed on AI, including citing a nonexistent lawsuit against Topeka’s city government, sharing made-up quotes attributed to judges’ decisions and sharing citations to cases that are real but held the opposite of what the brief claimed they did.
Here’s what penalties were assessed
Robinson assessed the following penalties:
A $5,000 fine upon Seth, of Houston-based SethLaw PLLC, who admitted he added the AI-generated citations to the brief and should have checked their accuracy. Robinson also revoked Seth’s admission as an attorney in the case, ordered him to self-report to legal disciplinary authorities in the state where he is licensed and ordered him to submit to the court clerk a certificate outlining internal procedures his firm is undertaking to ensure future court filings are accurate.
A $3,000 fine and public admonishment upon Kula, of Dallas-based Buether Joe & Counselors LLC., whom Robinson said violated his duty by signing documents he had failed to review and also failed to acknowledge his breach of legal rules.
A $3,000 fine and public admonishment upon Joe, the case’s lead attorney, whom Robinson said violated his duty by signing documents he’d failed to review and failed to acknowledge his breach of legal rules. Because Joe is the managing member of Buether Joe & Counselors LLC, Robinson also ordered him to implement procedures there to ensure future court filings are accurate; strongly consider verification and training requirements for all members; and file a certificate outlining those procedures by Feb. 28.
A $1,000 fine upon Cooper, the local counsel for the case, whom Robinson said signed documents for which he didn’t check citations. Robinson stressed that Cooper acknowledged he had a responsibility to fact-check those documents, expressed remorse for not doing so and shared detailed information about steps being taken to avoid future infractions of the same type by the Topeka firm for which he is employed, Fisher Patterson Sayler & Smith LLP.
Admonishment upon Doell, of Buether Joe & Counselors LLC, where he is the most junior attorney in the case. Doell wasn’t fined. Robinson said Doell was placed in a difficult position by his supervising attorneys, who neither expected nor instructed him to substantively check Seth’s work.
Here’s how the mistake was made
Seth said that after writing an initial draft brief in the case, he used ChatGPT as a shortcut to find 10th Circuit and Federal Circuit case law consistent with the facts of the case.
Seth said he incorporated some of the citations and quotes ChatGPT provided into his brief but didn’t check them.
“I should not have incorporated these without checking them first,” he said.
All five attorneys on Lexos Media’s legal team who signed the brief shared the blame for the AI-hallucinated material, Robinson said last month.
She ordered the five to show cause in writing as to why they shouldn’t be penalized. The attorneys responded by each filing declarations Jan. 5.
This website uses cookies, web beacons, pixels, tags, software development kits, and related tracking technologies, as described in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy, for purposes that may include website operation, analytics, analyzing site usage, enhancing site navigation optimizing a user's experience, and third-party advertising or marketing purposes. Through these technologies, we and certain third parties may automatically collect information about your interactions with our website, such as your browsing behavior and page views. We also may share this information about your activity on our website with our social media, advertising, analytics, and other business partners. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of these technologies and that we can share information about your activity on our website with third parties in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. If you do not agree with our use of non-essential tracking technologies, please click “Reject All.” You may opt out of certain non-essential technologies by clicking “Cookie Settings.”
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Advertisement
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.