Skip to main content

Ethics CLE: AI Gone Wrong in the Midwest

This page provides an overview of the cases referenced in “AI Gone Wrong in the Midwest” an Ethics CLE discussing ABA Formal Opinion 512 using examples from real cases from around the Midwest from 2023-2025. This page does not include the full content of the CLE course, but is meant to provide a sense of what topics are covered and provide links to which cases are discussed.

  1. Ruggierlo [sic] et al. v. Lancaster (E.D. Mich. 2023)
  2. Kasten Berry Inc. v. Stewart (D. Kan. 2024)
  3. Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual (E.D. Mo. 2025)
  4. Whaley v. Experian Information (S.D. Ohio 2023)
  5. In re Turner (Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board 2025)
  6. Luke v. State (Iowa C.A. 2025)
  7. Turner v. Garrels (Iowa C.A. 2025)
  8. In the Interest of R.A., Minor Child (Iowa C.A. 2025)
  9. Nelson v. Navient (S.D. Iowa 2025)
  10. Pelishek v. City of Sheboygan (E.D. Wisc. 2025)
  11. Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn. 2025)
  12. In re Marla C. Martin (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2025)

1. Ruggierlo [sic] et al. v. Lancaster (E.D. Mich. 2023)​

Plaintiff Ruggirello filed a motion for sanctions against the Defendant, Lancaster. Case involved partly and fully hallucinated citations.

Per Footnote 1:

Although Lancaster misnamed plaintiff as “Ruggierlo” in his notice of removal, plaintiff's complaint provides its correct name: Ruggirello. See ECF No. 1, PagelD.1, 9.

  • Later references have cited this case as "Ruggierlo v. Lancaster" or simply "Ruggierlo." Rather than corrected spelling “Ruggirello.”

Mutant Citation or Synthetic Citation​

“Lancaster cites “Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 961 F.3d 734 (6th Cir. 2020),” which appears to be a mutant citation blending the case name of an existing Michigan state court case Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 919 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. 2018) with the reporter citation to an existing Fifth Circuit case Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Quanta Storage, Inc., 961 F.3d 731, 734 (5th Cir. 2020).”

2. Kasten Berry Inc. v. Stewart (D. Kan. 2024)​

  • Defense cited nonexistent forum-selection clause and fake 2020 case. Judge ordered in-person show cause hearing including for Texas-based pro hac vice attorney.
    • Defendant’s counsel filed a Motion to Transfer Venue or Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, citing a fake 2020 case that supposedly granted a transfer of venue from D. Kansas to S.D. Texas.
    • Attorneys OSC under FRCP 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.
    • Potential referral to state disciplinary boards (Kansas & Texas).

In-Person Hearing for Counsel Admitted Pro Hac Vice​

“Brian F. McCallister, local counsel for Defendant, and Trang Q. Tran, counsel for Defendant admitted pro hac vice, show cause at an in-person hearing [emphasis in original] why they should not be sanctioned under Fed R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for citing a nonexistent forum-selection clause and citing a nonexistent case.” “Mr. McCallister [local counsel in Kansas] shall also show cause at the in-person hearing why this conduct should not be referred to the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys and the Disciplinary Panel of this District.” “Mr. Tran [counsel from Texas admitted pro hac vice in Kansas] shall also show cause at the in-person hearing why this conduct should not be referred to the Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Panel of this District.”

3. Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual (E.D. Mo. 2025)​

  • Cited fake cases in a second filing after warning, including one of the same cases they were already warned about!
  • FRCP 11 (fake case citations)

Still Citing Fake Cases After First Warning​

“On the other hand, Liberty Mutual’s erroneous citations constitute a serious oversight warranting consideration of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. After Liberty Mutual cited two nonexistent cases in its initial motion for summary judgment, the Court urged “Liberty Mutual to verify its sources before submitting future filings with the Court” and indicated that this warning would be provided only once. [ECF No. 40 at 6 n.1]. Yet somehow, in its memorandum in support of its second motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 48], Liberty Mutual not only cited two non-existent cases again...but also misquoted or mischaracterized multiple cases…”

4. Whaley v. Experian Information (S.D. Ohio 2023)​

  • FRCP 8, pro se litigant filed an excessively long document (over 100 pages).
  • Judge’s standing order explicitly banned AI-generated filings.

5-9. Five Iowa Case​

  • In re Turner (Iowa 2025) — Disbarred attorney cited fake case.
  • Luke v. State (Iowa 2025) — Pro se misuse; multiple fake Iowa cases.
  • Turner v. Garrels (Iowa 2025) — Nonexistent citations; court reiterated duty to verify.
  • In the Interest of R.A., Minor Child (Iowa 2025) — Counsel blamed AI tool due to lost Westlaw access; court described this as a “side quest.”
  • Nelson v. Navient (S.D. Iowa 2025) — Multiple fake case citations; repeated warnings.

5. Iowa 1: Disbarred Attorney In re. Turner (Iowa 2025)​

In July 2025, the Board moved to strike multiple recent filings by Respondent, including Brief in Support of Application for Reinstatement, because they contained references to a non-existent Iowa case. The Board noted a hallucinated fake case cited as “In re Mears, 979 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 2022).”

Watch out for Doppelgänger hallucinations!​

Reviewing this case sparked the idea for my first Doppelgänger Hallucination test. I searched for the fake case title “In re Mears, 979 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 2022)” cited by Turner to see what Google results came up. Google AI Overview hallucinated that the AI-generated case title from Turner referred to a real case. Therefore, simply Googling a case title is not sufficient to cross-reference cases, because Google’s AI Overview can also hallucinate. It is important for law firms that claim not to use AI to understand that many common and specialist programs now include generative AI that can introduce hallucinations, such as Google, Microsoft Word, Westlaw, and Lexis.

6. Iowa 2: Pro se Luke v. State (Iowa 2025)​

Pro se litigant cited fake cases and length was also hinted at.

Luke’s brief is riddled with citations to nonexistent Iowa cases. We share the appellees’ concerns that Luke possibly misused an artificial intelligence tool when preparing his brief, resulting in pages of discussion based on fake cases. And we stress that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings.

7. Iowa 3: Second pro se Turner v. Garrels (Iowa 2025)​

Note: different Turner than In re Turner.

This case cited the previous Luke v. State:

Additionally, we note that Turner quoted at least one nonexistent case in his judicial-notice motion. It thus appears that Turner may have misused an artificial intelligence tool when preparing the motion. So we once again “stress that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings." Luke v. State, No. 24-1421, 2025 WL 2237311, at 1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025).

Although a pro se litigant is not subject to the same ethical duties as an attorney, we expect attorneys and pro se litigants to “all . . . act with equal competence.” See Kubik v. Burk, 540 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).

8. Iowa 4: Practicing attorney In the Interest of R.A., Minor Child (Iowa 2025)​

Particular to this case, our court discovered while preparing for oral argument that the mother’s reply brief appeared to include citations to cases and statutory text that do not exist and described other authorities so erroneously that no reasonable attorney could have made the error. After we diligently searched and could not find these authorities, and suspecting that the brief contained AI-generated content, we ordered the mother’s counsel to provide us with copies of the legal authorities she purported to rely on or file a written explanation of her conduct and personally appear at oral argument to address whether her conduct warranted a sanction.

At oral argument, counsel informed the court she believed a monetary sanction was warranted, and she apologized for the burden she had imposed on the court.

Access Trouble Similarities to Mata v. Avianca​

Due to login issues her with her Westlaw subscription, she ‘relied on her prior research notes along with secondary AI-driven research tools,’ and this AI program was the source of the fabricated or hallucinated citations and inaccurate quotations.

Compare to Partner of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman:

We regret what's occurred. We practice primarily in state court, and Fast Case has been enough. There was a billing error and we did not have Federal access. In Mata v. Avianca (S.D. New York 2023).

9. Iowa 5: Pro se (federal) Nelson v. Navient (S.D. Iowa 2025)​

Multiple chances:

The motion contains multiple citations to nonexistent cases. Examples of these fictitious authorities include Haglund v. Philip Morris Inc., 332 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 2003); In re Jackson, 593 B.R. 844 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2018); and Harris v. City of St. Paul, 2018 WL 4620747 (8th Cir. 2018). This is at least the third brief in which Plaintiff has submitted nonexistent case citations [emphasis added], suggesting continued improper use of generative artificial intelligence in legal briefing. Such conduct wastes judicial resources and misleads the Court.

10. Pelishek v. City of Sheboygan (E.D. Wisc. 2025)​

  • FRCP 11(c) sanctions against attorneys K— and D—.

Both attorneys had already been sanctioned for misusing AI in Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow (D. Colorado 2025).

Repeat Offenders, Supervision​

K— “knew not only that [D—] was inexperienced but that she had mishandled this litigation…That [K—] undertook what was in his words merely ‘a brief gloss’ to ‘ensure that the case citations existed’ was unreasonable under the circumstances.”

At a minimum, he should have reviewed every citation to ensure that each case reflected what DeMaster represented. If Kachouroff was unable to independently verify the accuracy of the citations in the amended brief, Rule 11(b)(2) requires that he not sign and file it. Taking DeMaster’s word for the accuracy of the citations was unreasonable under the circumstances. “The fact that [D—] employed Westlaw’s Quick Check would mitigate her conduct were it not for the fact that she failed to manually check every citation after she recognized that Quick Check allegedly did not identify her misrepresentations, misquotes, and even a citation to a non-existent case.”

11. Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn. 2025)​

“The irony. Professor [H—], an expert on AI misinformation, has fallen victim to AI misinformation.”

  • Plaintiffs exposed fake academic citations by expert Prof. H—.
  • H— used GPT-4o for copyediting. It generated citations, interpreting placeholder "[cite]" as instructions; in other words, this may have been accidental prompt injection.
  • Court struck expert testimony; warned attorneys to ask expert witnesses about AI use.

Cites Mata v. Avianca; Morgan v. Cmty. Against Violence

Detailed Plaintiff’s Memorandum​

  • Plaintiff’s Memorandum was thorough in calling into question the nonexistent citation and explained why AI misuse was more likely than possible alternative excuses for the incorrect citation.

Declaration of Prof. H— in Support of Motion for Leave to File and Amended Declaration​

…I inserted the bullet points pertaining to paragraphs 19 and 21 into GPT-4o I also included the word “[cite]” as a placeholder to remind to myself to go back [emphasis added] and add the academic citation…I did not mean for GPT-4o to insert a citation, but in the cut and paste from MS Word to GPT-4o, GPT-4o must have interpreted my note to myself as a command. [emphasis added] The response from GPT-4o, then, was to generate a citation, which is where I believe the hallucinated citations came from…

FRCP 11 and Expert Witnesses’ Use of AI​

But Attorney General Ellison’s attorneys are reminded that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 imposes a ‘personal, nondelegable responsibility’ to ‘validate the truth and legal reasonableness of the papers filed’ in an action. Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Ent. Grp., 493 U.S. 120, 126–27 (1989). The Court suggests that an ‘inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), may now require attorneys to ask their witnesses whether they have used AI in drafting their declarations [emphasis added] and what they have done to verify any AI-generated content.

12. In re Marla C. Martin (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2025)​

“What happened here does not appear to have been addressed in a published Bankruptcy Court opinion before, but there is a body of District Court cases where counsel submitted briefs containing fake cases or quotations “hallucinated” by AI, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is “essentially identical” to Bankruptcy Rule 9011.” Baermann v. Ryan (In re Ryan), 411 B.R.609, 613 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009) quoted in In re Marla C. Martin.

  • The judge cited sanctions in “recent similar cases”:
    • Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489 (D. Wyo. 2025)
    • Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 24-cv-00326, 2025 WL 574234 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2025)
    • Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)
    • Coomer v. Lindell, Case No. 22-cv-01129, 2025 WL 1865282 (D. Colo. July 7, 2025)
    • Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 24-CV-7399, 2025 WL 1195925 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2025)
    • Ramirez v. Humala, No. 24-CV-242, 2025 WL 1384161 (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2025)