Mississippi judge sanctions four lawyers over AI briefs

A federal judge in the Northern District of Mississippi sanctioned four attorneys in a contract dispute after finding that briefs filed by both sides contained fabricated case citations generated by artificial intelligence. The judge reviewed the filings in November 2025 and concluded that several cited opinions and holdings could not be located.

Out-of-state lead counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant used generative AI to draft court filings and did not verify the accuracy of the citations the tools produced. Local co-counsel on each side electronically signed the documents without reviewing the cited authorities, the court said. The fabricated case law appeared across three separate briefs.

The court fined the defendant’s lead counsel $3,500 and barred that attorney from appearing in the district for two years. The plaintiff’s lead counsel was fined $2,500, received the same two-year district ban and was ordered to complete a continuing legal education course on AI ethics within 60 days. The court revoked both attorneys’ pro hac vice admissions. Local counsel on each side were fined $1,000 and disqualified from further participation in the case.

The order names Kathryn Young Williams and Kathleen M. Wilson as having their pro hac vice admissions revoked, and identifies Mark C. McClinton and Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway as disqualified from continuing in the litigation. The court referred all four attorneys to their respective state bar authorities for possible additional discipline.

In its written opinion, the court emphasized that a lawyer is responsible for the content of any document filed under their signature and noted the limits of generative tools. The opinion said, “Generative technology can produce words… [but] sincerity, truth, or responsibility… remains the sacred duty of the lawyer who signs the page.” The court also found that the two teams committed identical misconduct independently, without coordination, by relying on unverified AI output.

The order directed administrative steps to remove the sanctioned lawyers from participation in the case and instructed payment of the fines. The plaintiff lead counsel’s CLE requirement was limited to an AI ethics course to be completed within 60 days, as set out in the court’s order.