Published opinion, 17 June 2026 · source · PDF · 9 pages
Plaintiff raises a straightforward challenge to the denial of her motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing. But in presenting that challenge, plaintiff’s counsel created a separate problem by repeatedly relying on fabricated and unsupported legal authority. The merits issue is easily resolved.
The briefing issue requires separate attention. In the trial court and again on appeal, plaintiff’s counsel relied on artificial intelligence without adequate verification, leading him to cite nonexistent cases and invoke real cases for propositions they do not support, even after defendant identified the defects. Counsel later acknowledged in a “Notice of Correction” that artificial intelligence had generated “plausible but fabricated case citations —a known limitation of such -2- tools.” Yet that notice, also prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence, attributed quotations and legal propositions to cases that did not contain them.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing. But because counsel’s repeated submission of fabricated and unsupported authority grossly disregarded the requirements of fair presentation and violated t he duty of reasonable inquiry, we remand for a determination of the actual damages and expenses that defendant incurred because of this appeal, which shall be payable by plaintiff’s counsel personally. I.
Finally, defendant asserted that the alternate jurors were dismissed after being selected as alternates and did not participate in deliberations. Defendant also observed that plaintiff’s motion relied on two nonexistent criminal cases and otherwise cited criminal authority and constitutional protections inapplicable to this civil action. Defendant requested sanctions.
Defendant requested sanctions. In reply, plaintiff acknowledged that “an innocent and inadvertent mistake was made” regarding the citations to nonexistent cases. Plaintiff nevertheless continued to rely primarily on criminal authority.
SANCTIONS A. COUNSEL’S CONDUCT We must also address significant concerns about plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated submission of fabricated and unsupported legal authority in the trial court and in this Court. Counsel first cited fabricated authority in plaintiff’s December 2024 motion for a protective order, relying on “People v.
O’Keefe, 2019 WL 6907273,” regarding the exclusion of cumulative expert testimony. Defendant identified the fabricated citation in response. Counsel then sought leave to file a reply brief, but the proposed reply did not acknowledge or correct the citation.
The problem recurred two months later. In plaintiff’s February 2025 motion seeking a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on juror misconduct, counsel cited two nonexistent criminal cases, “People v. Stubblefield , 197 Mich.