As Lawyers Mutual has discussed in past LMICK Minute Issues, generative artificial intelligence has quickly become a valuable tool for attorneys, assisting with legal research, drafting, and organization. Yet, as recent court decisions demonstrate, and as LMICK has cautioned its readers, AI is not a substitute for professional judgment. In June 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi issued a significant sanctions order in Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-CV-218-SA-RP (N.D. Miss., June 8, 2026) providing one of the clearest judicial warnings to date regarding lawyers who rely on AI-generated legal authorities without independent verification. The opinion serves as an important reminder that the ethical and procedural duties imposed on attorneys remain unchanged regardless of the technology used.
The underlying lawsuit involved a contractual dispute between attorney Tom Withers III and the City of Aberdeen concerning legal fees. The merits of that dispute, however, became secondary after the court discovered that briefs filed by both parties contained citations to cases that did not exist. Unable to locate several authorities cited in the parties' memoranda, the court issued an Order to Show Cause directing all four attorneys of record to explain why sanctions should not be imposed.
During the hearing, the attorneys acknowledged that the fictitious citations resulted from unverified use of artificial intelligence. Lead counsel for the plaintiff admitted using a generative AI drafting program and failing to verify the authorities included in the draft before filing. Lead counsel for the defendant admitted using an AI-based legal research platform and likewise failed to verify the authorities generated by the software. Local counsel for both parties did not personally use AI, but admitted that they signed or permitted filings bearing their signatures without reviewing the cited authorities.
The court emphasized that Rule 11 requires every attorney signing a filing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into both the facts and the law before presenting papers to the court. That obligation cannot be delegated to software, outsourced to co-counsel, or satisfied by assuming that AI-generated authorities are accurate. Even where the legal propositions happened to be correct, the submission of fabricated authorities violated Rule 11 because the attorneys had failed to perform the required independent verification.
The court also concluded that the attorneys who directly relied upon AI acted in bad faith by blindly trusting AI-generated output despite the well-publicized risk of hallucinated citations. The opinion observed that lawyers have been repeatedly warned about AI hallucinations and that ignorance of those risks is no longer a credible excuse. The court further noted aggravating circumstances, including repeated misuse across multiple filings, disregard of internal AI policies, and inadequate remediation efforts by certain counsel.
As a result, the court imposed substantial sanctions. The two out-of-state attorneys who drafted the filings had their pro hac vice admissions revoked, were barred from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years and were ordered to pay monetary sanctions. One attorney was also required to complete continuing legal education focused on artificial intelligence and legal ethics. The local attorneys were disqualified from further participation in the case and fined. All four attorneys were referred to their respective state disciplinary authorities.
Risk Management Takeaways for Attorneys
- Always independently verify every case citation, quotation, statute, and legal proposition generated by AI before filing any document.
- Treat AI as an assistant—not as a substitute for legal research, professional judgment, or ethical responsibility.
- Develop and enforce a written office AI-use policy addressing confidentiality, verification procedures, and supervisory responsibilities.
- Require attorneys and staff to document verification of AI-generated authorities before any filing leaves the office.
- Remember that every attorney whose signature appears on a filing has an independent Rule 11 obligation to ensure its accuracy.
- Provide and/or attend regular AI and legal ethics training as technology evolves.
- Review AI-generated drafts with the same level of scrutiny as work prepared by a junior attorney or law clerk.
- Maintain human oversight throughout drafting, editing, and filing.
Practical Rule 11 Compliance Recommendations
Law firms should incorporate AI verification into their existing quality-control procedures. Before filing any pleading or memorandum, counsel should confirm that every cited authority exists, accurately states the cited proposition, and remains good law. Citation validation should become a mandatory final review step regardless of whether AI was used during drafting or editing. Firms should also establish supervisory procedures requiring local counsel and all signing attorneys to personally review filings before submission. These practices reduce malpractice risk, protect client interests, preserve judicial resources, and reinforce attorneys' non-delegable professional responsibilities.
AI Risk Management Checklist: Before You File
- Verify every AI-generated case citation.
- Read every cited opinion yourself.
- Confirm quotations are verbatim.
- Shepardize/KeyCite every authority.
- Verify statutes and rules are current.
- Confirm AI did not fabricate facts or procedural history.
- Protect client confidentiality when using AI platforms.
- Review every AI-generated draft before signing.
- Maintain a written office AI policy.
- Remember that Rule 11 responsibility cannot be delegated to AI or co-counsel.
Conclusion
The Withers sanctions order does not prohibit attorneys from using artificial intelligence. Instead, it reinforces a fundamental principle of legal practice: technology may assist the lawyer, but it cannot replace the lawyer's professional judgment. Courts increasingly recognize the efficiency AI can provide, but they expect attorneys to exercise the same diligence, competence, and candor required before AI existed. For practitioners, the message is unmistakable—verify first, file second.
Questions? Contact