In a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Mississippi, the judge disqualified both the plaintiff counsel and the defense counsel after both parties filed briefs with artificial intelligence-generated mistakes in a dispute over attorney fees.
The federal judge stated that both counsel engaged in similar sanctionable conduct. The judge ordered the removal of Louisiana attorney Kathleen M. Wilson, who was admitted pro hac vice to represent another Louisiana attorney, Tom Withers III, in his breach of contract claim against the city of Aberdeen, Mississippi, and the removal of Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway, a Mississippi attorney who appeared as local counsel for the plaintiff.
The federal judge also removed Texas-based defense counsel Kathryn Y. Williams, who was admitted pro hac vice to represent the municipality, and Mark McClinton, who appeared as its local counsel.
After reviewing briefs submitted by both parties, "the court was unable to locate certain legal authorities cited within them." "Specifically, the court determined that [several] filings contained hallucinatory citations."
Wilson and Williams admitted that the errors in their briefs were due to unverified AI use. Ridgeway and McClinton also admitted that they were unaware of their co-counsels' use of AI and failed to review the briefs before signing them.
The judge revoked Wilson's and Williams' pro hac vice statuses and barred them from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge also ordered all four attorneys to pay monetary sanctions, ranging from $1,000 each for the local counsel to $2,500 for Williams and $3,500 for Wilson.
Amanda Robert "Federal judge removes 4 plaintiff and defense attorneys over AI errors" www.abajournal.com (Jun. 10, 2026).
Commentary
AI misuse in briefs filed by attorneys is rampant; and, frankly will continue until judges refer attorneys for disbarment for committing this fraud on the court and for violation of Model Rules of Professional Conduct, in addition to imposing sanctions.
Rule 1.1: Competence
"A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation."
If a lawyer files a brief with the court with significant inaccuracies, no matter how drafted or by whom, that is a violation of Rule 1.1.
If a brief is drafted by AI, a law clerk, a paralegal, or a subordinate attorney, the attorney must review it manually for quality and accuracy.
Lawyers are hired and paid to think, analyze, strategize, and evaluate. To abdicate that professional process to an AI mechanism is malpractice.
Additional violations that flow from AI use include:
Rule 3.1: Meritorious Claims & Contentions:
"A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."
Rule 8.4: Misconduct:
"It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation . . .."
In https://www.vaquill.ai/blog/ai-hallucination-sanctions-tracker (Jun. 21, 2026), it is reported in 13 verified U.S. matters that lawyers have been disciplined for AI hallucinations. "That is a curated set, not a count of every incident. The Charlotin hallucination database listed more than 1,600 cases worldwide as of its mid-June 2026 count. The clear majority are in US courts. New rows are added almost daily, so any single number is a snapshot."
https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
