The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 127, 20 May 2026 · source · PDF · 14 pages
Docket text. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court REJECTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R, dkt. 71 , insofar as it concludes Mr. Sture violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, ADOPTS the R&R's Rule 11 analysis, but MODIFIES and redu ces its recommended monetary sanction. Mr. Sture is personally sanctioned $2,000.00 and shall pay that amount to the Clerk of Court within thirty (30) days of service of this Order. (See Order.) Signed by District Judge Justin R. Olson on 5/20/2026.(SPT)
71. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Undersigned personally sanction Plaintiff’s counsel, Tae Sture, for including two non-existent legal citations in a brief responding to a motion to compel. The legal citations were hallucinations generated by an artificial intelligence (“AI”) research tool.
BACKGROUND On July 31, 2025, Mr. Sture admittedly filed a brief in response to a motion to compel in this case that included two nonexistent legal citations. Dkt.
2005) (“Tax returns are not discoverable absent compelling need.”) 3 Id. at 1–2. This citation too is nonexistent. Id.
Id. The Magistrate Judge, upon discovering the fictitious citations, ordered Mr. Sture to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) (“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper . . . an attorney . . . . certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” that the “legal contentions are warranted by existing law . . . .”).
Id. at 13. While the Court finds mitigating circumstances—and recent Seventh 5 Circuit decisions—warrant lower monetary sanctions, the Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted to deter the use of hallucinated case citations generated by AI in legal briefing. A.
71 at 6. For Rule 11 purposes, it did not matter “[w]hether or not AI was the genesis of the non-existent citations.” Id. Mr.
The Problem of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Briefs Mr. Sture argues that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation did not sufficiently justify why $7,500.00 in monetary sanctions are necessary to deter him and similarly situated counsel from including hallucinated case citations in future filings before this Court. Dkt.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is only the latest entry in the judiciary’s ongoing struggle with the growing adoption of generative AI into the legal writing process. As the Seventh Circuit recently stated, submission of a brief with numerous fictitious citations and quotations is a serious dereliction of counsel’s duty to serve as an officer of the court. “Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court.
Docket entry 71, 2 September 2025 · source · PDF · 10 pages
Docket text. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - For the reasons set forth, the Undersigned, in his discretion, hereby RECOMMENDS that Mr. Sture be personally SANCTIONED in the amount of $7,500.00 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for filing a brief that contained citations to non-existent cases. In addition, the Undersigned REFERS the matter of Mr. Sture's misconduct in this case to the Chief Judge pursuant to Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a) for consideration of any further discipline that may be appropriate. Mr. Sture is ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to his client, Yvonne Davis, and to file a certification that he has done so within seven days of the date of this order. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation shall be filed with the Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and failure to timely file objections within fourteen days after service shall constitute a waiver of subsequent review absent a showing of good cause for such failure. SEE REPORT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/2/2025.(JRB) (Entered: 09/02/2025)
61.] In that brief, Mr. Sture included two citations that he concedes do not exist. First, the brief contains the following quotation and citation: "It is the burden of the party seeking discovery to show that the information sought is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case." Perry v.
[Dkt. 63 at 3-4.] The cited case does not exist. There is a case with the citation Berg v.
[Dkts. 64 & 66.] Even though the Court ruled in less time than Plaintiff's counsel was given to draft the brief, it was able to identify the non-existent citation in Plaintiff's brief during that time. 3 issues on July 23, 2025, and directed the parties to meet and confer regarding all discovery disputes by July 18, 2025.
Mr. Sture failed to take even that most basic of actions, and therefore did not catch the fact that the brief contained citations that did not exist. The most logical explanation for the citation to non-existent authority is, of course, the use of generative AI to conduct legal research and/or draft the brief.
The most logical explanation for the citation to non-existent authority is, of course, the use of generative AI to conduct legal research and/or draft the brief. The issue of "hallucinated case[s] created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT and Google Bard" has been "widely discussed by courts grappling with fictitious legal citations and reported by national news outlets." See, e.g., United States v. Hayes, 763 F.
Sture admits that he did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law before filing his brief. Whether or not AI was the genesis of the non-existent citations, Mr. Sture's failure to review them before submitting them to the court was a violation of Rule 11.
3d at 1066-67 ("The Court need not make any finding as to whether Mr. Francisco actually used generative AI to draft any portion of his motion and reply, including the fictitious case and quotation. . . . Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court.
Given the distressing number of cases calling out similar conduct since the opinions cited above were issued, 5 it is clear that the imposition of modest sanctions has failed to act as a deterrent. 4 The Undersigned recommended a $15,000.00 sanction in that case: $5,000 for each of three briefs that contained non-existent citations. The District Judge reduced the sanction to $6,000, taking into account "the steps [the sanctioned attorney] has taken 'to educate himself on the responsible use of AI in legal practice' and adhere to 'the highest standards of professional conduct moving forward.'" HoosierVac LLC, 2025 WL 1511211 at *1.