Sixth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys for Fake Citations – What Does This Mean for Use of AI?
Summary
The Sixth Circuit recently sanctioned two Tennessee attorneys in *Whiting v. City of Athens*, 2026 WL 710568 (6th Cir. 2026), for extensive misconduct during merits briefing, including citing over 24 fake cases. The panel found counsel misrepresented a district court's order, provided citations lacking quoted language, and offered citations that did not support their propositions. Applying Rule 38, the Court ordered the attorneys to reimburse appellees' fees, pay double costs—"the stiffest penalty available"—and pay \$15,000 each in punitive sanctions. These penalties were justified by aggravating factors like further misconduct and defying a show cause order, which had inquired about generative AI use and cite-checking. The Court emphasized this conduct is unacceptable, but notably did not reject AI use itself, instead framing it within existing federal and local rules. It also clarified that court-ordered disclosures regarding AI use do not violate attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.
Key takeaway
For legal professionals using generative AI in research and brief writing, this ruling underscores your ultimate responsibility for accuracy. You must rigorously verify all citations, as courts view fake citations as serious misconduct, regardless of the tool used. Be prepared to disclose AI use if ordered, as such disclosures do not impinge on attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Failure to comply with court orders or ethical standards can result in severe financial and punitive sanctions.
Key insights
The Sixth Circuit sanctioned attorneys for fake citations, not AI use, but affirmed AI use falls under existing ethical rules and may require disclosure.
Principles
- Fake citations constitute "misconduct in arguing the appeal" under Rule 38.
- Court-ordered AI use disclosures do not violate privilege or work-product doctrine.
- AI use in legal research must adhere to existing ethical and procedural rules.
In practice
- Verify all citations rigorously, irrespective of research tools used.
- Prepare for court-ordered disclosure of generative AI use in legal briefs.
Topics
- Sixth Circuit
- Legal Ethics
- Generative AI
- Court Sanctions
- Attorney-Client Privilege
- Work Product Doctrine
Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Legal Professional
Related on AIssential
See Counsel's argued verdicts on the open AI decisions leaders are weighing →
Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Welcome to the Artificial Intelligence Incident Database.