Attorney AI use
Mattox v. Product Innovations Research, LLC
Fourteen nonexistent and 14 erroneous or misquoted authorities spread through 11 pleadings before the court imposed layered sanctions.
Eleven pleadings struck01
Case background
Material facts
AI-related research failures contaminated repeated filings rather than a single brief, with invented cases and incorrect descriptions of real ones.
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The court struck 11 pleadings, issued public reprimands, imposed individual fines of $3,000, $2,000, and $1,000, awarded $23,495.90 in opposing fees, and restricted future local sponsorship.
Why it matters
What the decision means
One fabricated authority should trigger an audit of every filing that relied on the same research. Reusing unverified research spreads the error across the docket.
Primary reading