Sixth Circuit Sanctions Attorney For Unverified AI-Generated Briefs
No. 25-5623 (6th Cir. April 3, 2026)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington
Clay, Gibbons, and Hermandorfer, Circuit Judges (Per Curiam)
Note: Recent guidance from the courts makes clear that reliance on AI alone in appellate briefing carries real risks including inaccuracies, unsupported citations, and potential sanctions. Effective appellate advocacy demands more than text generation. It requires judgment, experience, and a deep understanding of the record and the law. If your case is on appeal, don’t leave it to chance. Contact Speaker Law Firm to ensure your arguments are crafted with the care and expertise they deserve.
Holding: An attorney who uses AI software to draft appellate briefs and files them without properly verifying the cited legal authorities violates ethical duties of competence and candor. The Sixth Circuit sanctioned attorney Steven N. Howe by denying CJA compensation, referring him for disciplinary proceedings, and removing him from further representation of his client—requiring appointment of new counsel and a reset of the briefing schedule.
Facts: Steven N. Howe was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act to represent defendant John C. Farris on appeal after Farris pled guilty and received a two-level sentencing enhancement for his leadership role in drug-trafficking activities. Howe filed a principal brief and a reply brief challenging the enhancement.
The Court's suspicions were first triggered by the file name of the principal brief: "CoCounsel Skill Results"—CoCounsel being Westlaw's AI platform. Upon substantive review, the Court identified three problematic citations in which the purported direct quotations did not appear in the cited sources. Further, the briefs misrepresented the holdings of two real cases: United States v. Washington (which actually upheld an enhancement, not reversed it) and United States v. Anthony (in which the defendant had conceded his role as director and supervisor).
After issuing a show-cause order, the Court received Howe's response admitting that a staff member uploaded district court documents into Westlaw's CoCounsel to generate a first draft of each brief, and that Howe worked in the same file for approximately six hours without adequately verifying the AI-generated content. Howe acknowledged the false quotations and misrepresented holdings, accepted full responsibility, and noted it was his first use of CoCounsel for an appellate brief—a program his office acquired in August 2025.
Key Appellate Holdings:
Attorneys must verify AI-generated content before filing.
An attorney's ethical obligations of competence and candor apply regardless of what tools are used to prepare work product. Relying on AI-generated drafts without personally verifying every citation and legal proposition submitted to a court falls short of those obligations. That a tool is offered by a trusted legal technology provider does not reduce the attorney's duty of scrutiny.
Delegating verification to non-attorney staff is insufficient.
When an attorney serves as counsel of record, the duty to supervise AI-generated work product rests with that attorney—not with support staff. Delegating the review function to unnamed "staff" rather than performing it personally or through another attorney violates professional responsibility rules governing the supervision of non-lawyers.
Citing real authorities with fabricated quotations is sanctionable misconduct.
The fact that a brief cites actual, existing cases—rather than wholly invented "hallucination" cases—does not excuse the submission of false quotations or misleading characterizations of those cases' holdings. Misrepresenting what real authorities actually say constitutes a violation of the duty of candor to the tribunal.
Consequences for AI-related misconduct can be significant.
The Court imposed four sanctions: (1) denial of CJA compensation for all time spent on the appeal; (2) referral to the Chief Judge for potential disciplinary proceedings; (3) service of the opinion on the district court and state bar disciplinary authorities; and (4) removal from the case, requiring appointment of replacement counsel and resetting the briefing schedule—further delaying resolution of the defendant's criminal appeal.
