Court of Appeals Sanctions Attorney for AI-Generated Fake Citations and Vexatious Appeal
Joyce Barber v Lawrence J. Morawa, MD
Opinion Published: June 17, 2026 (Borrello, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Ackerman)
Docket No. 374773
Oakland County Circuit Court
Holding: An attorney who submits filings containing fabricated or unsupported legal authority—including hallucinated citations generated by artificial intelligence—violates the duty of reasonable inquiry under MCR 1.109(E)(5), and such conduct on appeal supports sanctions under MCR 7.216(C)(1). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing, but remanded for the trial court to determine the actual damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, that defendant incurred because of the vexatious appeal, payable by plaintiff’s counsel personally. The matter was also referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Facts: Plaintiff sued defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, for medical malpractice and negligence arising from a hip replacement surgery performed in October 2020. After a five-day trial, the jury found that defendant was not negligent. On polling, five jurors confirmed the verdict and the foreperson did not; because five jurors agreed, the verdict was sufficient in this civil action. See MCL 600.1352; MCR 2.514(A). With the trial court’s permission, the court and counsel then held an off-the-record discussion with the jurors.
Plaintiff moved for a new trial or evidentiary hearing, alleging juror misconduct, improper extraneous influences, and irregularities in deliberations—including that one juror consulted his mother about x-rays, another conducted independent research on a screw size, the foreperson was prevented from reviewing exhibits, and alternate jurors remained during deliberations. Plaintiff relied primarily on criminal caselaw and constitutional principles, and attached unnotarized affidavits from her trial attorneys. Defendant disputed plaintiff’s account with notarized affidavits, noted that the motion relied on two nonexistent criminal cases, and requested sanctions. The trial court, crediting its own recollection of the post-verdict discussion, denied the motion.
On appeal, Plaintiff’s counsel’s use of AI to create briefs with unsubstantiated and non-existent case citations continued in his brief on appeal, reply brief and even in his “Notice of Correction” filed three weeks before oral argument, which purported to correct the deficiencies in the prior pleadings but then included additional fabrication. At argument, counsel admitted that he used various AI tools to create the briefs and the “Notice of Correction”.
Key Appellate Holding:
A motion for a new trial resting on facts outside the record must be supported by a valid (notarized) affidavit under MCR 2.611(D)(1), and the movant must show the alleged misconduct materially affected substantial rights.
Under MCR 2.611, a new trial may be granted for an irregularity or jury misconduct that materially affects a party’s substantial rights, reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 761; 685 NW2d 391 (2004). Where the asserted facts do not appear in the record, the motion must be supported by affidavit, MCR 2.611(D)(1), and an unnotarized affidavit is invalid and need not be considered. Sherry v East Suburban Football League, 292 Mich App 23, 31; 807 NW2d 859 (2011). The Uniform Unsworn Foreign Declarations Act did not save the unnotarized affidavits because it does not apply to declarations made within the United States. MCL 600.2183. Even setting aside the defect, plaintiff failed to show prejudice; her reliance on Remmer v United States and criminal constitutional protections was misplaced because those authorities apply to criminal proceedings, not a civil medical malpractice action. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion.
An attorney’s submission of fabricated or unsupported authority—including AI-generated citations—violates the duty of reasonable inquiry under MCR 1.109(E)(5) and supports sanctions under MCR 7.216(C)(1).
MCR 1.109(E)(5) certifies, on an objective standard, that a signed filing is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law; subjective good faith is irrelevant. Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576; 669 NW2d 296 (2003). Because MCR 1.109(E) derives from FR Civ P 11, the Court looked to federal authority holding that reliance on generative AI producing nonexistent citations violates Rule 11. Plaintiff’s counsel cited fabricated authority across three successive filings—a motion for a protective order, the motion for new trial, and the appellate brief—cited real cases for propositions they did not support, invoked inapplicable criminal doctrine, and filed a “Notice of Correction” that itself, prepared with AI, misattributed quotations and propositions to cases that did not contain them. Counsel’s explanation that he over-relied on AI did not excuse the violation; lawyers remain responsible for verifying that cited authorities exist and support the propositions asserted.
Sanctions are authorized under MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b) where an appellate brief grossly disregards the requirements of fair presentation, and are mandatory under MCR 1.109(E)(6) once a violation is found. Guerrero v Smith, 280 Mich App 647, 678; 761 NW2d 723 (2008). The Court affirmed the denial of a new trial but remanded for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the actual damages and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a direct result of the vexatious appeal, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel personally, and directed that the opinion be forwarded to the Attorney Grievance Commission for possible investigation.
